Re. Climate ChangeIn Letters to the editor, News · 11 Jun 2021, 01:00 · 0 Comments
Editor, The opinions of Mr Douglas Hughes to which you accord two pages in your editions of 01 and 15 May are recitative, in somewhat flippant journalese, of what has already been said so often in the global media. They do little either to address fundamentals or to suggest realistic solutions to our current, egregious problems.
In his two-part “op-ed”, Dr. John Clare ably presents a summary of the counter evidence which has been assembled by the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry. Much of this is undeniable in content but is also bereft of good purpose.
We all accept that climate change is an inexorable process of many million years which have seen the passing of our planet through vastly different stages of environmental change - nearly all of which have been inhospitable to advanced animal species and their sustainable food resources. But the time-scale of such alterations has been slow and immeasurable in terms of temperature and pollution. The years since the Industrial Revolution, which are but a wink in the eye of time, have been studied in scientific, empirical terms which have enabled the irrefutable assessment of the degree to which human activity has adversely affected global wellbeing. But such changes to our environment have not been uniform with much variation by location and have been difficult to interpret by diverse inhabitants of the Siberian Tundra, the Gobi desert, the Amazon rain Forest or Buckingham Palace.
What is of great importance is the staggering loss of biodiversity which has been recorded in the last twenty years with an extinction rate increasing exponentially and destined to mark the doom of life within a century.
The Covid-19 epidemic has shown how deliberately ineffective can be the actions of major powers to discipline their citizens and to prepare for worse diseases already appearing on the medical horizon. It has also demonstrated how humankind in general is only concerned with the immediate preservation of a wanton, hedonistic identity even if this is to the detriment of the “have nots” of society.
There is only one solution which may be of immediate effect – systematic de-population. But there we reach again that awful decision of just who is going to lighten the load of a sinking boat.
Roberto Knight Cavaleiro, Tomar