Question 1. Which of the following is currently the biggest obstacle to the survival of humanity?

Still not sure? Here's a clue:

“George Bush was castigated by European diplomats and found himself isolated yesterday after a special conference on climate change ended without any progress. ...

“Britain and almost all other European countries, including Germany and France, want mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse emissions. Mr Bush, while talking yesterday about a "new approach" and "a historic undertaking", remains totally opposed. ...

“One of those present said even China and India, two of the biggest polluters, accepted that the voluntary approach proposed by the US was untenable and favoured binding measures ...”

(from the Guardian)

a) Excluding aviation emissions from the Climate Bill, and continuing to expand Britain's airports;

b) Making sure the target for our emission reductions is sufficiently low as to keep the Confederation of British Industry happy (and appointing the organisation's former boss, himself a former pro-aviation lobbyist, to the Cabinet, just to make sure);

c) Attempting to re-interpret the EU renewables target rather than meeting it;

d) Investing in alternative fuels which will lead to a net increase in carbon emissions, but which sound a bit more green.

Question 3. According to a recent report by nine high-profile environmental groups, the Liberal Democrats have shown the greatest commitment to dealing with climate change of Britain's three mainstream parties. Particular praise was given to the Lib Dems' Zero Carbon Britain proposal - calling for a reduction of Britain's carbon emissions to zero by 2050 - which was based on a report of the same name by the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT). Said the Lib Dems' Lembit Opik, “These proposals were largely inspired by the Welsh based Centre for Alternative Technology and I would like to thank them for the ground-breaking work.”

While praising the party for this “huge, bold step”, what else have CAT said about the Lib Dems' proposals?

a) “their timeframe will not avoid dangerous climate change”;

b) “it does not move fast enough”;

c) “we believe 2050 is too late ... based on reading the latest climate science”;

d) “the tax-based policy proposed by the Lib Dems will not deliver the cuts we need”;

e) “unfortunately, we do not have until 2050 to make these cuts”.

Question 4. If the solutions proposed by even the best (and smallest) of our three main political parties are currently insufficient to deal with  Britain's contribution to climate change, are we:

a) fucked;

b) buggered;

c) screwed; or

d) none of the above?

Send your answers to: wherever seems appropriate. Best of luck, folks.