Andrew Bowie does not seem to understand the difference between evidence and opinion (Tory energy spokesman claims UN climate experts are ‘biased’, 14 May). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “bias” is in favour of rigorously tested and reviewed scientific evidence built up over decades. That evidence shows that we must reach net zero by 2050 to keep warming to less than 2C, a target accepted as necessary to avoid dangerous impacts of warming.
Nearly 80% of the public are concerned about climate change in the UK and more that six in 10 support the government’s commitment to net zero by 2050. The UK’s commitment to net zero offers huge opportunities for growth and will increase national security and resilience. Science has much to offer in support of achieving net zero, and the UK must find fair ways to deliver that change. Giving up is not an option.
Sheila Rowan
Vice-president, Royal Society
• Following Tony Blair, Andrew Bowie is the latest politician to complain about the cost of reaching net zero, claiming that it is “not conducive to the overall economic wellbeing of this country”. This fails to recognise that a green transition will create jobs and lead to growth.
However, estimating the cost of reaching net zero is looking at the issue the wrong way. The important question is: what is the cost of not reaching net zero by 2050? There is an increasing amount of data on climate-change events already taking place, and even moderate extrapolations are alarming. To take but one example, has Bowie factored in the likely costs from the flooding of low-lying areas of London?
Dr Kerry Lawson
Crowmarsh Gifford, Oxfordshire
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
