Future generations need us to go green

I AM intrigued by views expressed on the letters pages which seem to be critical of any moves towards net-zero carbon emissions in the UK.

One of the arguments seems to be that it is pointless for us to change our ways when other countries are expanding their use of fossil fuels.

This ignores the fact we, like several other western countries, are largely responsible for the rise in global carbon emissions over the last 200 years.

The UK built up wealth by colonising and plundering other nations and through the industrial revolution, which was fuelled by burning coal.

Surely we therefore have a responsibility to take the initiative and show a genuine and effective commitment to achieving net-zero? And what would we have to lose anyway?

Quite apart from the reduced pollution, renewable sources such as wind power, though not perfect, are generally quicker to get up and running than any new fossil fuel source.

More wind and solargenerated electricity and research into other renewable sources would lead to more national fuel self-sufficiency.

We need a truly co-ordinated approach which includes changing our infrastructures and systems in ways which enable people to use less fuel.

It should be fit for purpose and include cheap public transport systems, properly insulated homes and legislation that requires all new building to be to Passivhaus standard.

The obvious benefits would include less air pollution, better health, lower fuel bills. It’s a challenge, and requires true political will, not just the lip service and piecemeal changes we have seen up until now.

The comments made by proponents of opening up new coal mines or developing fracking sites often seem to imply that trying to achieve a net-zero goal is some sort of middle-class hobby or cult.

Sometimes a critic will point out ethical and environmental issues around renewable technology, and use this as argument to stay with and develop fossil fuels instead.

How is this logical? Isn’t this a bit of a double standard when the production and use of fossil fuels have very a chequered history of their own such as pollution on massive scales, human rights abuses and industrial accidents?

The alternative to trying to do what we can to stop irreversible global warming is to stay with and expand fossil fuel use. If we do that, then we either hope for a miracle or accept that the future for our grandchildren and their children is bleak. Is this really what we want?

PENNY KING