A chara, – James Nix (January 3rd) cites a recent report by the World Bank which vilifies the use of fossil fuels. Would this be the same World Bank which, by its own admission, has lent $5 billion for fossil fuel projects in the past three years?
What environmentalists need to understand is that, while governments and financial institutions are always ready to placate them with grim reports and gushing promises, the reality is that the people at the top are far from serious about drastically reducing carbon emissions. And why should they be? If the proposed roll-back of the industrial age were to be implemented, the consequences for the developing countries which Mr Nix champions would be disastrous. Many of these poor nations are entirely dependent on their coal reserves.
It should also be pointed out that there is a significant body of opinion within the scientific community which does not accept the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
– Is mise,
Madam, – James Nix of An Taisce (January 3rd) issues the third missive from your Letters pages to chastise Nick Crawford (“Global Warming?”, December 28th). Mr Nix should remember that the first IPCC report in 1990 predicted a rise in sea levels of 65cm by 2100. By 2007, the same IPCC had revised this prediction to state that sea level rises may be between 18cm and 28cm by 2100.
The climate has been changing for many thousands of years and continues to do so. It is healthy that a debate continues as to what degree of anthropogenic influence there may be on our climate. The only thing that is certain though is that climate experts can’t predict climate change with any certainty. However, this objective fact does not seem to have dimmed the hubris of your correspondents from this constituency.
– Yours, etc,
Madam, – My little letter (December 28th) questioning global warming has created quite a stir with your readers including those in Harvard and An Taisce. It is obviously a serious issue and a bit more than just a “storm in a tea cup”.
There is a simple and cost effective solution.
We just need to pass a law that makes mandatory carbon labelling (a traffic light colour coded system for simplicity) for every product, on every shelf, of every store allowing the consumer to choose to reduce the world’s carbon footprint overnight. We should buy wine from France as opposed to Australia, etc.
This proposal was brought by this letter writer two years ago to our current Government and despite the obvious environmental and much needed job creation benefits and kudos for an Irish solution to a worldwide problem, no decision was forthcoming.
My letter may have been mischievous – but my political experience did not match the perceived wisdom of the situation – similar to our recent cold snaps. Perhaps renewed interest from letter-writers might spur our leaders into action before they all jump on their bikes!
– Your, etc,