I applaud the Guardian for taking the lead in covering the UN's climate change conference in Lima, and for tackling some of its inherent contradictions. For example, your article Lima climate talks on track for record carbon footprint (theguardian.com, 10 December) highlights the conference of the parties' (Cop) surprisingly negative environmental impact this year.
Cop 20's carbon footprint is interesting as a symbol of its one step forward, two steps back modus operandi. Sadly, failure to meet any real consensus at even this superficial level means that Cop 20's carbon footprint may be its most significant contribution to the Earth's atmosphere.
There is a danger in following the Guardian's line of thinking, however, in that focusing too much on individual consumption mistakes means missing the rainforest for the trees. I spoke with a number of climate justice advocates at the people's summit on climate change in Lima, across town from its more governmental counterpart. When I asked what individual Americans could do to help out, they did not say things like ride a bicycle to work more, or buy solar panels. Their message was consistent: organise, organise, organise.
The environmental crisis is too deep for us to address with anything less than system change. Moreover, it is too easy for a wily market logic to misappropriate efforts to buy greener products. Capitalist consumerism was built on an ethos of dog-eat-dog competition, and the villainisation of collective action. To address climate change at its roots, we need to look past the kind of individualistic thinking that got us in trouble in the first place.
Shawn Van Valkenburgh
Long Beach, CA, USA
• However well-intentioned and based on real needs of our planet, Greenpeace's action very close to the hummingbird at the Nazca lines (Greenpeace apologises over Nazca stunt, December), an extremely fragile archaeological site, was not only absurd but also showed contempt for Peru and the way this country protects its legacy.
Roberto Ugas
Lima, Peru
• It is with real dismay that we received the news of proposed elimination of valuable legislation by the European commission to improve air quality and to boost recycling and wiser resource use in Europe and develop a circular economy (EU air quality and recycling goals face axe, 12 December). In their bid to play to the growing tide of Euro-scepticism across Europe, the EU's president, Jean-Claude Juncker, and, vice-president, Frans Timmermans, fundamentally misjudge the mood and appetite of many in industry and civil society.
There are persuasive arguments that legislation to improve air quality and boost reuse and recycling not only save lives but create jobs and protect increasingly fragile resource supply chains.
We understand that European institutions may be feeling fragile and that reform from within is necessary, but this response from the commission picks on the wrong legislation at the wrong time. It is a short-sighted and miserable decision that risks slowing green growth, ensuring many more premature deaths from respiratory illnesses, and increases resource supply risks for European manufacturers. Please think again.
Ray Georgeson
Chief executive, Resource Association
• As stated in last week's report by the environmental audit committee (8 December), air pollution has become a public health crisis. It is therefore vital that the UK calls for tough new limits on air pollution at EU level. Many of the pollutants that end up in the air we breathe originate from the continent. We need stricter, clearer national limits in order for all European governments to take coordinated action that will curb pollution and clean up Europe's air.
The UK must use its influence to strengthen EU air quality targets, not weaken them, so that we can tackle the sources of pollution both at home and abroad.
Catherine Bearder MEP (Liberal Democrat), Seb Dance MEP (Labour), Julie Girling MEP (Conservative)
• European commission plans to scrap programmes to clean up our air and tackle waste are deeply disturbing.
Protecting the health of its citizens and safeguarding our precious resources should be at the heart of EU policy-making. These are powerful economic moves, as well as environmental and social ones. Sacrificing these aims to benefit a few powerful, unenlightened business interests would be shameful.
Friends of the Earth has given strong support to the EU in the past because of the critical role European legislation has played in defending our planet and well-being. But that could change if the EU stops championing the environment and views its protection as a barrier to economic development.
Andy Atkins
Executive director, Friends of the Earth
