Dear Sir,
It was good to see a response to the Cardinal O’Brien’s view on global warming that did not simply accept that there is only one way forward. I am a long time supporter of CAFOD and other organizations, which seek to help the poorest in the developing world. I am also satisfied that the science on climate change shows likely consequences from the growth in CO2 emissions, but I do not believe that the present ‘catastrophe based’ approach is neither useful or will even help as much as alternatives.

In order to act rationally, we need research on climate, including non-CO2 factors (e.g. clouds), but above all into alternative sources of energy. Spending a modest percentage of every nation’s GDP - well below 1% - would be a fair and realistic way forward.

Most nations cannot presently do without fossil fuels, unless they give up much needed things like pumping clean water and providing sanitation. To continue to do this, they need to expand their economies. There is no way for them to cut carbon, and continue to provide for their citizens, as we do not have an alternative energy source at present. Expecting China and India to cut back on coal fired power is ridiculous at the moment, as it is making them richer and healthier today, when their people are having to otherwise face difficult lives. Would the West have done 50 years ago, what we ask of them now?

The UK emits, as Mr McKay says, so little that it would merely postpone warming by months, even if we stopped altogether! So, what of the disaster, which we hear is ‘just around the corner’? We could spend billions to cut warming but is it simply the reduction of CO2 that we want, or is it lives saved? A warmer world will save five times as many lives as will be caused by heat deaths (By reducing deaths from the cold!). Rich countries do it now by various means (heating / air con etc.). Making ourselves poorer will mean we actually save fewer lives. Human adaptation to various climates is often forgotten or ignored, yet rich countries like Finland (mean annual temp. 15C), and Singapore (mean 28C), both manage to live comfortably. We can even deal with rising sea levels, even beyond the IPCC predictions. The Dutch did it in the fens with picks and shovels in times past. With today’s technology this will be easy.

I do hope readers will not say we should do both (cut CO2 and save lives now), to ‘save the grandkids!’ We surely wish to first save lives now, since cutting CO2 is not predicted by anyone to help for decades to come. Our children, and even our great grand children, are all predicted to be much richer. So, as we did when we grew richer, they will find new solutions for themselves. One striking example is malaria. If we spend now on malaria, and stop wringing our hands about the growth in malarial infections that a warmer world would bring, we can help the millions who are affected already. This would both benefit them, and allow more GDP growth. It can be done by simply using the already well-proven treatments we have today - as was done in Britain after the 1940s and across Europe generally.

Stubbornly considering CO2 alone, might be compared to life saving by reducing speed limits to 5kph. This is something that is totally unrealistic, and completely misses other policies. For example; better designed roads, cars, airbags and seatbelts. For any problem, there is more than one solution, and at present we are overwhelmed by the opinions that support just one idea (CO2).