The future of Lord’s
Sir: Roger Alton (Sport, 2 September) has hit the spot and no doubt touched a nerve or two at the MCC. The club thinks it has been fair to all members in giving them a say in the future development of Lord’s, but it has sent out in an email to members a video which presents only the case for the committee’s preferred masterplan. Every respected speaker on that video, including my former captains Mike Brearley and Mike Gatting, are ‘pro’ the masterplan. Although some objections to it are raised, not one speaker is featured to endorse the aesthetic and financial benefits of the alternative Rifkind-Morley plan — which would have a completely different effect on the Nursery End of the ground.
The MCC urges its members to vote as a matter of supreme importance, but they have shown those members a very one-sided view. I for one will not be voting in favour of their masterplan, but I suspect it will make little difference, since the membership normally prefers to follow the committee’s chosen path. David Gower Romsey, Hampshire
Sea walls won’t save us
Sir: Fraser Nelson and Rupert Darwall are right to argue that the tragic fallout from Hurricane Harvey highlights the importance of resilience (‘Lessons from Houston’, 2 September). But to suggest that we can always adapt to climate change and should prioritise resilience over emission reductions is a leap that could spell disaster.
The ‘let’s just adapt to climate change’ hypothesis is based on an outdated understanding of clean technologies and climate policies. To suggest adaptation is cheaper than mitigation ignores the fact that clean energy is already the most cost-effective energy source in many countries. No country is being ‘forced… to adopt expensive energy policies’. They are embracing decarbonisation because it offers the most attractive development path.