Madam, - As Mr O'Leary points out (Letters, July 24th) climate change has occurred in the past and will continue to occur in the future. The debate as to what contribution human generated carbon emissions makes to climate change is still very much alive.
People talk of climate change and carbon emissions as if a direct link between the two has been established in the same way as a link between lung disease and cigarette smoking has. However, no such association has been established.
The association is proposed, not proven. Perhaps the vanity of the modern human condition causes us to ascribe our actions to changes that have occurred naturally over millennia.
While there are valid arguments in favour of this association, there are also valid arguments against. We should listen to both, while also reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, improving fuel efficiencies and exploring alternative sources of energy.
This is what Mr O'Leary proposes. And we should not dismiss his views simply due to the characteristic enthusiasm with which he expresses them. The drive to reduce fossil fuel use should be undertaken but should be based on the fact that such fuel is a limited resource rather than on its association with climate change. This distinction will be crucial to future energy and transport policy development. - Yours, etc,
DAMIEN BENNETT,
Deramore Gardens,
Belfast.
****
Madam, - I would like to commend Michael O'Leary (Letters, July 24th) for consolidating the argument for radical measures to combat "climate change".
Mr O'Leary's concentration on such incredibly finicky points as the difference between "global warming" and "climate change" (two terms which are interchangeable, the latter encompassing the former); and his hypothetical satirical anecdotes of "slow travel" detract enormously from the credibility of his Ron Paul-esque argument, and expose his viewpoint as narrow, selfish, and unsupported by any substantial evidence.
He argues against granting the Government extra revenue through further taxation on private transport, indeed going so far as to say that "increasing taxation is utterly ineffective at altering consumer behaviour".
Perhaps the Government would be better served to pump this extra revenue into the education system, which is clearly falling dramatically short if Mr O'Leary (who studied Economics) believes this to be true. Mr O'Leary's argument that air travel accounts for less harmful emissions than does the power generating industry or the motor industry is again a weak one; the rationale for taxing air travel is sound, as it may constitute a smaller percentage of emissions, but 2 per cent of EU CO2 emissions is still very substantial.
Mr O'Leary's unsubstantiated claims should act as no more than another nail to drive home the importance of the global warming issue, and certainly not as discouragement for combative action.
Now there's a thought for the Ryanair chief to ponder during his next stuffy flight to an airport in the middle of nowhere. - Yours, etc,
TOM KELLY,
Terenure,
Dublin 6w