Transition from fossil fuels to renewables by 2050 is not insurmountable

Sir, – Monday’s Courier letters (May 29) from Messrs Lawrie, Lang and Loneskie, show how much misinformation is being read, absorbed and reproduced to attack the actions and proponents of the necessary climate change transition activity.

Mr Lawrie seeks to minimise the current situation in CO2 levels by implying there is dubiety about the exponential rise in CO2 levels by stating, “CO2 levels probably fluctuated since the early days”.

No dubiety. CO2 levels are rocketing, beyond any previous level for 800,000 years. It surpassed the previous maximum of around 300 parts per million (ppm) in the 1950s, today it’s 421ppm, from Nasa and other respected climatologists’ peerreviewed published work.

Tidal requires gravity, but has he considered the impact on inshore fisher folk? I doubt it.

He doesn’t seem to understand the gravity of our situation.

Mr Lang comments the “unscientific nonsense is causing global warming”, regarding CO2. It is with regret he derides the work of several thousand environment and climate scientists whose work has been peer-reviewed over several decades by this illinformed and unsubstantiated comment.

It would have carried more weight had it been referenced from validated work of other climate professionals. As it is, it can be discarded without risk. Mr Loneskie rightly reports the problem that exists and we all face with transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, a massive shortfall in current capacity of the exiting supply grid, yet he infers that we will not be able to meet the 2050 goal.

I see the problem is large, but not insurmountable, it requires focus, resource and application.

Just this morning a radio report advised that the US and EU are investing around 400 billion in renewables, and the commentator also indicated that the UK seemed to be getting left behind.

None of the writers commented on the benefit reducing energy consumption would provide to our environment, reducing fossil fuel consumption and CO2 generation. This is unsurprising as doing anything proposed is bad, in their opinion.