We need long term thinking on climate

Sir, – Neil Bryce jumps to false conclusions in his case to ignore the visible and inevitable consequences of climate change. I am not an alarmist, far from it.

I have merely observed that there is a visible change in our climate and weather patterns.

I have observed that there is a change in the composition of the atmosphere which has proven greenhouse harm potential.

I have observed that the similar composition aeons ago did not involve human activity.

I have observed that the greater majority of informed thinkers agree that there is a problem.

I have also stated the obvious – that accessible and usable fossil fuel minerals (oil is a mineral) will at some point in the future be exhausted.

Economic statistics also parallel atmospheric changes and fossil fuel consumption.

We can acceptably predict the consequences of changes to our blanket greenhouse gases.

What is obvious is that doing nothing now will not help us and the environment in the future – after we have gone. What I am suggesting is that the sooner we reduce our fossil dependency the better for everyone and yes, it does require global action but that has to start somewhere.

As with most economic systems the early adopters gain the most long-term benefits – as proven time and time again, it is more expensive to do something at the last minute than it is by starting early.

It would be helpful for the change deniers to actually study statistics and learn not to draw false conclusions or, more importantly, exclude viable possibilities from correlated data.

Climate deniers should ask themselves what is the worst case? If they are right then we have merely replaced one form of polluting energy for one that is much less so. If they are wrong, the consequences of runaway heating are irreversible.

It is a simple long-term costbenefit exercise, though we do know that the typical British attitude is always to focus on the short term and hope it all works out in the end.

Nick Cole. Balmacron Farmhouse, Meigle.