Bad science behind diesel?

Sir,– In his letter “The case for diesel cars,” (February 2) Gordon Fotheringham rightly questions both the basis for the significance of diesel pollution from cars relative to buses, lorries and also ships, and the case for electric cars as a replacement for those with internal combustion engines.

Limitations of electric cars are well pointed out – poor range, problems of battery charging practicality and safety, though pollution from their manufacture could be added.

Also, the medical evidence for risks to health from diesel pollution is flimsy indeed, based on public health theory and caculations, not on observed morbidity and mortality.

The manufacture and installation of wind turbines likewise uses huge resources, including diesel and rare earths.

That is not mentioned by their promoters and supporters!

Secondly, our huge expenditure on resources in trying to prevent adverse climate change effects, given the mere 1.3% of global total CO2 output from the UK and 0.3% from Scotland is as illogical as it’s financially imprudent.

Recent US governmental and political decisions have downgraded the claimed threats to the world from man-made climate change; the “big outputters” of CO2, China, the US and India, are not participating in efforts to curb CO2, and probably never will.

These costly policy decisions are thus scientifically and clinically wrong, but when will those in political charge tumble to that, let alone admit their errors? Charles Wardrop. 111 Viewlands Rd West, Perth.