Madam, - Dr Norman Stewart (December 30th) presents a weak argument about climate change and Kyoto and attempts to buttress it by placing himself on the side of scientific independence. For good measure he also sets himself in opposition to "political correctness".
But where are his arguments? The assertions are there, certainly. In regard to climate change, "there is no need to invoke human factors". Instead, we hear about atmospheric instability and the inherently chaotic sun-atmosphere system, and as I look at clouds blowing across the sky outside I must agree that the atmosphere is unstable. What relevance this has to long-term climate forecasting I don't know and Dr Stewart does not explain.
Here is what we know, given our imperfect ability to gather the relevant data. Global temperature has risen in the past 50 years at a rate greater than expected. Projections of this trend suggest a further rise in temperature with difficult consequences for humanity. There is evidence to suggest a link between human activity and this rise in temperature, the best known being the link between human activity and a rise in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide which is hypothesised to lead to higher temperatures.
Now, Dr Stewart is right when he says that no-one knows for sure if the above is true, just as I do not know for sure, when an oncoming motorist crosses the centre line towards me, whether he will continue on that path. But I consider it prudent to take evasive action.
Dr Stewart seems worried about the action we might take on climate change, and strays into economics when he suggests that our response to global warming will require the dismantling of elements of the global economy, thereby artificially generating unemployment. Does he not realise that we have been dismantling, and recreating, the global economy since the industrial revolution? I suggest that this fuel-importing economy would benefit from the dismantling of dependence on fossil fuels and the development of new technologies. We should seize the opportunity! - Yours, etc.,
DENIS HEALY, Devon Park, Salthill, Galway.
Madam, - The Kyoto agreement is coming into force in February. The fact that the Russian government has now it means the accord will now have a legal standing. And not before time.
The European Union is committed under the terms of the Kyoto accord to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8 per cent compared with 1990 levels by the year 2012. The EU must practise what it preaches. If the Union wants the Kyoto agreement to be the internationally recognised accord to combat climate change, then the governments of Europe must rigorously comply with their own legal obligations under Kyoto.
We know that President Bush is opposed to the agreement. But that does not mean that there is a complete tale of doom and gloom coming from America on this issue. Already in California, legislation has been enacted to introduce the Palvey Tax, which is designed to reduce the use of greenhouse gases by 22 per cent by the year 2012. There are currently 19 different American states pursuing initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It is clear that more and more American businesses and citizens are prepared to tackle climate change. The challenge for the European Union is to keep the issue on the political agenda of members of the US Congress.
The British Government, a keen supporter of the Kyoto agreement, assumes the presidency of the European Union later this year. This may open up a diplomatic avenue to coax the American government to address the issue in a more constructive manner. - Yours, etc.,
LIAM AYLWARD, MEP, Hugginstown, Co Kilkenny.