Letters: climate protestors would do better to boycott China

Heat

Sir: May I place some of Nigel Lawson’s comments in a sensible historical context (‘Stupid fuels’, 6 November)?

First, he notes that the difference between the average annual temperature in Finland and in Singapore is at present 22°C. However, he is wrong to suggest that we should therefore not be concerned about a predicted rise in the average global temperature of a few degrees. The average global temperature during ice ages was only about 6°C colder than today, but that difference was enough to make the planet unrecognisable: much of the northern hemisphere’s land was covered in glaciers several thousand feet thick, and the sea level was 100 metres lower.

Second, it is misleading to describe the rate of recent warming as ‘barely perceptible’. The warming over the past century has been around 16 times faster than the warming which took place when the Earth was emerging from the last ice age. The rate of warming is so important, because it affects the ability of humankind and ecosystems to adapt.

Dr Michael Pounds

Coventry

The big issue

Sir: While I am in agreement with Nigel Lawson, I still wish that the climate protestors would do something useful. In order to advance their cause it is surely sensible to boycott goods from countries such as China, which refuse to take action on their CO2 and methane. I feel sure that the population at large would participate, since it would return jobs to our shores, where we could manufacture responsibly and also send a message that we do not tolerate genocide.

J.C. McNeil

Private eye

Sir: Dot Wordsworth is of course right about the pronunciation of scallop, and about their 200 dear little forget-me-not blue eyes (Mind your language, 6 November). She might have added that those eyes (I think uniquely) use mirrors instead of lenses.