Letters  RSS feed | About

Something to say? Why not e mail us at editor@andoveradvertiser.co.uk

TO be fair to R J Kidd (9 May), natural events can disrupt weather e.g. the global cooling following the Tambora eruption in 1815.

Yet there are several reasons why human activities should not be discounted, while action might be necessary even if climate change were totally natural.

No one disputes the overall greenhouse effect, where certain gasses in the atmosphere trap reflected solar energy, thus making Earth habitably warm.

Human activities may seem minor but it is the total effect of all relevant gasses in the atmosphere that matters, and this is changing.

Burning fossil fuels for some centures has transformed previously trapped sinks of coal, oil and gas into carbon dioxide and water vapour, while many industrial processes, including chemical fertiliser production, produce nitrous oxide.

Manure application can have similar effects and ruminant livestock emit methane, although recent research in Scotland and Japan shows livestock emissions can be drastically cut.

High-level emissions from aircraft can have disproportionate effects due to their limited removal mechanisms. Yet an additional problem may swamp all these.

Vast amounts of greenhouse gasses are trapped in permafrost and undersea deposits, and the former is now melting in some places.

The potential release could have severe effects even if climate change proved to be totally natural, but fortunately there is a sensible way forward.

Alternatives to fossil fuels, reduced waste, restoring fish stocks, tree planting schemes, improved energy efficiency and habitat conservation are worthwhile even if climate change proves to be a damp squib or takes a turn for the unespected.

If mainstream views are correct, however, they could be literally vital. Isn't this a win-win scenario?

Iain Climie, Charlcot, Whitchurch.

Print   Email this