WHAT a spectacular brave new world is in store for the UK in 2035 with the abolition of all fossil fuel-driven cars ("PM: Ban sale of petrol and diesel cars five years early", The Herald, February 4). The electric car will rule the roost.

Phasing out the use of fossil fuels in all aspects of our life and replacing them with renewable energy through wave and wind power as well as whatever new sources the boffins can come up with to keep us carbon neutral is to be the way forward to saving the planet.

What you have to ask is whether the Government might be forced down the nuclear power station road with all the inherent risks in such a strategy?

Without a reliable and stable energy power source, great pressure will be put upon the National Grid to meet the demands that will be made upon it. Could there be rationing and the likelihood of more frequent power blackouts, making life difficult in so many areas and even more so in winter when demand for electricity is always higher than at any other time of the year?

What a powerful headline-capturing announcement this shift in policy has made but there are already signs from those who have dug deeply into what such a strategy will entail that it may just be a headline which lacks substance, and anyway those who claim to be promoting it may not be around to see it come to fruition in 15 years' time.

Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.

ANDREW McKie’s article (“We can’t reach our destination with today’s green cars”, The Herald, February 5) shows he has no personal experience of electric cars. Having owned a Renault Zoe for three years I feel the need to correct some of his comments.

Our car takes a full charge in around five hours and for long journeys rapid chargers are available which can give an 80 per cent charge in around 30 minutes while you have a coffee break. His assertion about the carbon cost of charging is also wrong as there are now no coal-fired power stations operating in Scotland with increasing levels of electricity provided from renewables. In terms of particulates the only such emission from electric cars is from the tyres and brakes, which is the same for all vehicles.

Another benefit of owning an electric vehicle is the saving on fuel costs. We have saved around £1,000 per year on our previous diesel cost and this is with mostly using our own charge point. so paying for electricity.

Lindsay Jones, Barrhead.

YET again Dr John Cameron uses your Letters Pages to express his anthropogenic climate change denialism by attacking what he calls “the Thunberg-Attenborough-Sturgeon troupe” (The Herald, February 4). As far as I am aware neither he nor his fellow deniers have yet supplied us with any mainstream sources for their eccentric views on climate change.

I am persuaded that the climate crisis is caused by human activity by the opinions of the 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists and the public statements of nearly 200 leading worldwide scientific organisations, the list being too large to expect you to print in its entirety.

However I submit by way of example the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the French Académie des Sciences, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences and the Australian Academy of Science.

Even Boris Johnson is sufficiently concerned to bring forward the phasing out of diesel and petrol vehicles by 2035 “PM: ban sale of petrol and diesel cars five years early” (The Herald, February 4). I rest my case, meantime.

John Milne, Uddingston.

AS a questioner rather than "denier" about man's role in causing the Earth's climate changes, I believe these points need answers:

1, Since the big emitters of greenhouse gases and CO2, China, the United States, India and many others do not and will not curb their CO2 output, why should we do so in the the UK, including Scotland? Our national CO2 emissions are negligible, at less than one per cent of global.

New coal mines are opening in China and Japan to provide vital energy for home and industry.

The huge costs of decarbonisation could ruin us, without any benefit to our nation's or the planet's climate. These costs are estimated in trillions. There is no proof at all of any efficacy in decarbonising.

2, Basically, how can we be sure that natural climate cycles are not more important than any greenhouse gas enhancement of these climate changes?

3, Why should vital expenditures, on our health and welfare, education, infrastructure and defence not be given higher priority than "green tokenism"?

4, The "axing" of Claire Perry O'Neill as president of the COP26 meetings ("Glasgow climate summit president is axed", The Herald, February 1, and Letters, February 4) led to her questioning the PM's commitment to combating climate change.

If so, does the sceptical Boris Johnson have a point?

(Dr) Charles Wardrop, Perth.