I am concerned when so-called climate sceptics use their doubts to take risks on behalf of us all. A sceptic is defined by the Oxford dictionary as “A person seeking the truth; an enquirer who has not yet arrived at definite convictions”. I therefore don’t believe a person who claims to be a climate sceptic and then makes the statement, “It’s most certainly a case of the dog being wagged by the tail.” (see Letters 15 March 2017). By definition, that is not a sceptical statement. It’s a statement of conviction. That person is a climate denier. I’m concerned that his emotional, unscientific claims are stopping us from taking reasonable precautions. Like our “sceptic”, I object to inequitable funding: The funding of coal-industry-friendly projects like carbon capture and storage. By hugely favouring this project, the government admits that carbon emissions are a problem. However, instead of solving this problem with existing technology (renewable energy), they favour a barely-tried, risky, pie-in-the-sky option. Base load power from renewable energy is available with existing technology. It requires a re-design of our power distribution system, but it can be done. We are approaching the climate problems with the wrong question. Instead of asking, “How can we avoid having to change?” we should be asking, “What can we do to solve these problems?” If it weren’t for uninformed climate deniers that have obstructed progress for decades, we would have solved the problems by now. Let’s get on with it.
Joe Boin, Invermay