Robin McKie’s piece correctly identifies Extinction Rebellion’s demand for a zero-carbon UK by 2025 as being hugely costly and politically difficult (“Slow burn? The long road to a zero-emissions Britain”, Special Report). He provides a detailed examination of what some experts prefer as a more realistic target of 2050, though even this is difficult. The IPCC’s most recent warnings about the dangers of a temperature rise exceeding 1.5C above pre-industrial levels surely mean that avoiding this must be the key global policy objective.
The article’s last two paragraphs show that at current carbon dioxide emission rates (42bn tonnes per annum) the world will exceed the limit (420bn tonnes) at which there is a “two in three chance of keeping global warming down to around 1.5C” in just 10 years’ time. If the aim is to meet this target, 2050 doesn’t seem in any way “more realistic” as a target for a zero-carbon Britain. It does seem “more realistic” if the aim is to avoid costly and politically difficult decisions by kicking the can further down the road. Which is how we got where we are.
No wonder people are rebellious. It looks like a bit more rebellion is still required.
Dave Lewis
Churchtown, Illogan, Redruth, Cornwall
The spreading interest of US firms in developing space travel suggested that this may become a trillion-dollar business within the next two decades (“The private frontier: corporate space explorers stand by for a $1tn liftoff”, Business). It would encompass space tourism for the mega-rich. But what about the environmental cost? The Falcon Heavy rocket, for example is powered by 27 engines.
In the same issue, there is a report of the Extinction Rebellion protests, an analysis of the difficulties in achieving the targets for reduction in CO2 emissions and an editorial supportive of this cause. Shouldn’t the argument include an assessment of the potential future contribution of space rockets to CO2 output?
David Watkin
Leicester
Too old to be anti-Farage?
As someone “eligible to vote in the referendum on Europe – the first one, that is”, I take issue with Andrew Anthony’s dismissive and patronising attitude towards older voters (“Selfies, sweat and blazers as Nigel and Annunziata bask in rally’s approval”, News). I detest Nigel Farage and his views but describing his supporters in ageist terms (“a kind of near-extinction rebellion”) is insulting to those of us who may be of a similar age but are of a very different viewpoint. Are my leftwing credentials of less value because I may no longer have the mobility to “storm the podium”?
Denise White
Sale, Cheshire
Free speech, even for Trump
Your leader on the Mueller report and the prospect of Donald Trump making a state visit to Britain struck a jarring note (“Trump is a disgrace to his office. He is not welcome here”). Surely this is an example of “no-platforming”, something the Observer has condemned in the past. If there’s one admirable thing that Britain and its parliament stand for, it’s a willingness to allow free speech. In addition, we should go on respecting the office of president of the United States, whatever we think of the incumbent.
John Tavner
Dedham, Essex
Democracy under attack
You report that, while 80% of Labour party members and many MPs want Brexit to be put back to the people, other Labour MPs say another public vote would damage faith in democracy (“Labour’s fudge on Brexit a gift to Farage, says Corbyn deputy”, News). It was extraordinary to read this argument when, in the same issue, Carole Cadwalladr wrote about giving her stirring TED lecture in Vancouver concerning “the massive electoral fraud” that took place in the vote in 2016 (“I took on the tech giants in their lair”, Focus). As she pointed out, this attack on democracy has, disgracefully, been almost totally ignored by the mainstream media and the main political parties.
If it had been properly covered and acknowledged, public faith in that flawed process would have been undermined. The argument that another vote would be anti-democratic is baseless but unless it is vigorously challenged it will come to dominate the forthcoming debates.
Dr Ron Glatter
Boxmoor, Hemel Hempstead
Herts
Tom Watson sits on the fence himself with regard to the questions on the ballot paper for “a new public vote on Brexit” (“Labour can’t defeat Farage by sitting on the fence”, Comment). Labour needs to say clearly that the ballot paper will carry three questions: the deal, if there is one; Remain or Leave; an alternative vote system.
Chris Birch
London SW6
Is breastfeeding always best?
Sources quoted in the story about Seána Talbot’s resignation from the NCT give a distorted picture of infant feeding in the UK (“Childbirth charity president quits in breastfeeding row”, News). An NCT practitioner concerned about the NCT shift from promoting only breastfeeding says: “The odds are stacked against breastfeeding. The formula industry spends millions on promotion. There’s nothing comparable to support or promote breastfeeding.”
This is highly misleading as it is government policy to promote breastfeeding. All pregnant women are exposed to breastfeeding promotion, delivered to them by health authorities and trusted professionals. Most maternity services have adopted the Unicef Baby-Friendly Initiative, “a global effort to implement practices that protect, promote and support breastfeeding”.
In fact, its promotion by the NHS and NCT was so powerful for me that after a long birth, extremely sleep deprived, I lost perspective and put exclusive breastfeeding above all else. Unfortunately, the hospital did the same. Our baby didn’t feed well and was readmitted 24 hours after discharge dehydrated and jaundiced. I’ve since discovered that rates of readmissions like ours more than doubled between 2006 and 2016. Though formula was the best option for our family, at the time I felt I had failed the first test of motherhood by not breastfeeding. Postnatal depression ensued. Talking about my experience, I have heard similar stories from hundreds of other women.
It is obvious that Talbot isn’t listening to what many women are saying about breastfeeding promotion. We are not “annoyed”. We are angry about policies and practices that caused actual harm to us, our babies and our families.
Sue Haddon
Guildford, Surrey
Drugs tear families apart
Your powerful article on the story of Joe and county lines gangs brought tears to my eyes (“How a drug gang devastated our helpless family”, Focus). I live in a resort that has been affected by the infamous county lines and earlier this month nine people were jailed for flooding the town with drugs. The holds these drug masters have over young, vulnerable people is heartbreaking. This crisis needs to be addressed urgently before more young people such as Joe are sucked in and made to feel that their real family is surplus to requirements and before the bogus family takes them over entirely.
Judith Daniels
Cobholm, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk
Making sense of the Bible
John Barton provides a brilliant summary of the New Testament in the penultimate paragraph of his article (“Why are the ancient stories and relics of the Bible still so poignant today?”, Comment). However, it is trying to make sense of having to live through this vale of tears in order to achieve the new life beyond death that inhibits belief in a god.
David Buckingham
Leamington Spa, Warwickshire
Who are you calling Teddy?
Is it just me or does anyone else find it intensely irritating when St Edmund Hall, Oxford, is referred to as “Teddy Hall” (University Challenge, television highlights, New Review). Jeremy Paxman does it and now you’re doing it. It’s as if we are all supposed to have gone to Oxbridge and are “in the know”. Well, we didn’t and so we’re not.
Anne Williams
Deganwy, Conwy, Wales
