Madam, - Martyn Turner's cartoon in your edition of December 15th was the most effective rebuttal to Donal Buckley's article "Buying carbon credits cost-effective and necessary" (Opinion, December 14th).
It showed Environment Minister Dick Roche sweeping a pile of polluted matter under a carpet labelled "Carbon credits". The caption commented: "Carbon credits - it's like getting rid of illegal dumps in Wicklow by moving them to Kildare."
The most destructive aspect of the carbon trading ruse is that it allows people in rich countries to think that we can carry on polluting as long as we pay poor people to clean up our mess.
The moral dimension of this issue is largely ignored. The Catholic bishops were alarmed recently at the suggestion that the legal age of consent for sex be reduced to 16. They felt young people needed to be protected from the prevalent trivialisation of sexuality.
Contrast this with the announcement during the Budget debate that Brian Cowen had set aside €270 million to buy carbon credits. At Kyoto in 1997, Ireland was allowed to increase its carbon emission by 13 per cent. Transport and building policies pursued by the Government since then have resulted in a 23 per cent increase in our greenhouse gas emissions. Brian Cowen's action means that, rather than reducing our carbon footprint, we plan to buy our way out of our obligations.
In contrast to the discussion on sexual morality, I have not heard a single religious leader question the morality of the Minister's decision even though scientists tell us that climate change could have horrendous consequences for the lives of tens of millions of people, especially the poor and future generations.
Climate change is the most serious moral issue facing humankind in the 21st century. For the past 20 years scientists involved with the International Panel on Climate Change have been warning us that the increase in greenhouse gas levels is changing the global climate significantly. The review by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist to the World Bank, stated that if we take serious action now it would cost only about 1 per cent of global GDP. If we wait 10 or 15 years it could cost between 5 per cent and 20 per cent.
If I persisted in pouring a substance into another person's house which made it impossible for them to live there I am sure that reasonable people would come to three conclusions very quickly. First, that what I was doing was morally wrong. (My excuse that it was necessary for my economic growth would be brushed aside.) Second, that I should stop immediately. And, third, that I should pay compensation for the wrong I had done.
The current threat from climate change is so serious that every politician seeking a vote in the forthcoming general election should be asked to spell out the policies of her or his party on this issue.
On moral grounds, people should vote for the individuals and parties with the most effective policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. - Yours, etc,
Fr SEÁN McDONAGH, St Columban's, Dalgan Park, Navan, Co Meath.