The real enemies in the fight against climate change

Following your article last week ("Heroes or hypocrites? Inside the minds of Extinction Rebellion", April 21) and speaking as someone whose bank balance is more likely to be in the hundreds than the thousands, I am dismayed by the way Extinction Rebellion protesters have been characterised as a bunch of poshos.

Climate change is a class issue, but the real division is not between privately educated activists and "ordinary working people". The real class enemies of "ordinary working people" are the billionaires who have played an active role in opposing climate change legislation and have funded organisations that have been active in questioning global warming.

If you want to see class warfare, just take a look at the billionaire-owned media. The Wall Street Journal is a good place to start. Publications such as the Wall Street Journal have been downplaying, denying or been "sceptical' of climate chaos for decades.

Instead of mischaracterising Extinction Rebellion as a middle-class cult, why not address how meaningful action on climate change has not happened because it would hurt the profits of corporations and fossil fuel companies? How about addressing how climate change is impacting some of the poorest people in the world living in the global south?

As for the argument that Extinction Rebellion protesters should focus their attention on China, they already do. This, though, is an argument made in bad faith. Climate change is a problem on a global scale.

If we are to address it adequately, we cannot keep making the excuse that other countries don't bother, so why should we. It is also no excuse not to put pressure on our own government to do more about climate change.

Stephen Eve

Glasgow

Environmental organisations are demanding that the Scottish Government introduces a comprehensive deposit return scheme (DRS) with no exclusions.

Do they not understand that the majority of people do recycle and it is the transgressors that need to be caught?

The idiots who throw away their bottles, cans and fast food containers will continue to do so since a 10p levy is insignificant. If they cannot put their waste in a bin 10 yards away they will not put their bottles and cans in a DRS machine.

The solution is fear, fear that they will be caught and a £500 fine levied. So what are the Scottish government waiting for?

Clark Cross

Linlithgow

By next week I expect that climate change activists in Scotland will be disappointed that the SNP conference has not announced plans to oppose all exploration and production in Scotland’s North Sea.

Together with the Greens, the SNP constantly criticise the UK Government on environmental and climate change issues such as fracking while boasting of Scotland’s efforts on renewables. Ian Blackford states that “The UK Government must start taking this issue seriously and it must start now”. Meanwhile, we continue to produce hydrocarbons and import fracked gas for us or others to burn. This approach is like that of Norway, making a big gesture out of their Sovereign wealth fund not investing in hydrocarbons while continuing to issue exploration licences in the Arctic.

The effect of removing Scotland’s internal carbon emissions from the global total is negligible. An immediate ban on North Sea Oil won’t happen because even the SNP realise the electorate know that such measures would severely affect living standards and aspirations. They are willing to risk harming the economy for their separatist obsession - but not to save the planet.

Their approach on global warming is to pretend to be doing something so that they can say 'It wisnae, me it was the bad boys that did it'. The flatlands around the moral high ground are littered with the bones of fallen hypocrites.

Whether we’re in or out of the EU, Europe will do their own thing on emissions but the most effective use of our votes as individuals is to use them within the UK to influence the reduction of the UK’s overall larger effect on global warming. Any Strategy must consider the disruptive effects on our society and mitigate against them.

Mark Openshaw

Aberdeen

It would be impossible not to have been impressed by Greta Thunberg’s powerful and clearly heart felt words in London on climate change. However, it would have been had a thousand times more relevant if delivered on the streets of Beijing, New Delhi or Washington DC.

The UK’s contribution to the climate problem is a relatively infinitesimal 1%. Scotland’s is less than 0.1%.

It would have been more impressive also if she had spoken of the silent elephant in the eco-warriors’ room – the unchecked and ever-burgeoning world population, which it seems is uncool and rarely if ever mentioned and, in truth, is potentially more damaging to humankind than any climate change.

Alexander McKay

Edinburgh

Airport on Skye? Really?

Is this really the time to open a new airport on Skye?

Just five miles from a train station, and two minutes' walk from Citylink buses .

Have the group behind this proposal heard of climate change? If so, do they care?

Skye has done fine without an air service for over 30 years. Why spend £5 million on an airport, and £1m a year, every year, subsidising a service that will be an expensive luxury, not a necessity ?

At the moment some frail, elderly people are sent to Ullapool, Dornoch or Gairloch when they can no longer cope at home. They will spend their final months or years far away from family, friends, and all that is familiar to them.

If the decision is made to go ahead with this vanity project, rather than provide a few extra beds for frail and ill people who may well have spent their whole lives here, then it will be a symbol of selfishness and shame, and will not sit easily in a Highland community.

Tom Stephens

Ashaig Campsite

Isle of Skye

Culling? There must be another way

I am in complete agreement with your correspondent John F Robins on the subjects of SNH's culling policies (Letters, April 21).

I have written to RSPB on the subject of Psittacula krameri (the ring-necked parakeet) in Victoria Park, Glasgow, as this organisation has a good reputation for at least attempting to intervene in some of SNH's more ridiculous, cull-happy sprees – for example, on ravens.

This parakeet has been recorded as a breeder in Britain since 1969. My bird handbook is out of date, but in 2002 its population in southern England was approximately 6,000 and growing. It's quite a widespread bird in Europe as far north as Belgium and, as to it spreading disease, I'm sure a great deal is already known about this – it is considered a nuisance by fruit growers – which could encourage research.

Some introduced species are indeed a nuisance – consider the muntjac deer – but SNH should try a bit more science before it decides to wipe out this lovely bird.

Alison McAdam

Dundee

Beware the third way

Any opposition politician who takes at face value Nicola Sturgeon’s offer to discuss a sort of constitutional third way, is naive in the extreme.

First, she has reiterated her number one priority is independence – and via another independence referendum before 2021 (though few consider that timetable achievable). The Citizens' Assembly will inevitably become a campaigning forum. A new SNP independence fund-raising video has now been released. Hardly gestures of compromise.

And let's not forget that after a significant increase in devolved powers post the 2014 referendum, one of Ms Sturgeon's frequent refrains continued to be that she's doing her best "with the limited powers we have". And doubtless this tune won't change after a further massive increase in Holyrood's authority as a tranche of powers are transferred from Brussels, as a consequence of Brexit.

However much more power is devolved, the SNP will never stop viewing devolution as a staging post en route to independence.

Ms Sturgeon hopes for win-win from her cross-party talks proposal. Any newly devolved powers which might emerge will inevitably result in SNP legislative tinkering, often arguably pointless, merely for the sake of making Scotland different from the rest of the UK. Then in her indyref2 campaigning, she might even suggest 'we're already nearly independent in so many ways; we just need this rubber-stamped via a formal vote'. But if opposition parties don't buy into her compromise posturing, she'll then maintain she "tried her best so indyref2 is the only option remaining".

The reality is that separating Scotland from the rest of the UK is the SNP's only constitutional objective. Ms Sturgeon won't be deterred by a cosy constitutional chat over a cappuccino with Ruth Davidson.

Martin Redfern

Edinburgh