Don't encourage ecological fanatics
HAS New Labour's Ed Miliband taken leave of his senses, or did he not actually incite public street protest in support of his newly acquired role of Climate Change Crusader? I think the "clarion call to arms" is more often utilised by Middle Eastern "democracies" where mobilising the people is concerned.
All I can say to that is "be careful what you wish for". There are more than enough green-tinged lunatic fringe groups who have been whipped into a frenzy enough to carry out acts of terrorism in support of their beliefs, accurate or otherwise.
The last thing we need is our elected Government cosying up to those whose actions would be more indiscriminately anarchic or violent than a spot of tree sitting from Swampy and Co.
Mr Miliband is playing the long game, with the intention of seizing the high ground of "caring for the environment" in a last desperate throw of the dice before Labour is booted out.
We had the Church throwing its hat into the ring recently, with the usual dire warnings of the end of the world. It obviously can't get help elsewhere, so it's all aboard with English Heritage, the RSPB, and now the Labour Party desperately trying to get the Women's Institute in on the scam, with the middle class votes that go with it.
And what would be the result of voting for all this endless sacrifice? Tighten your belt, that's what. Less of everything you enjoy, while the conspicuous consumption train rattles on unhindered in Parliamentary circles.
We are also supposed to put up with, eschewing incredulity: Pontificating celebrities; wind farms; rubbishy electric cars parked up all over the place with flat batteries; leaflets from the council; even more of those blasted energy company adverts on the telly – all soporific, pointless propaganda.
The only thing we lack is the warden doing his rounds and yelling: "Turn that tap off, switch off that telly, shut that engine down, put that light out!"
And then (sigh) out of the mist comes a hero. Can Miliband save the world? What do you think? Underpants over his trousers or over his head?
Alan Jeffery
Littlehempston
Anti-snare action
SNARE Aware Week began on Monday and runs until next Monday, July 6. Snares are an indiscriminate and cruel wire noose set largely by gamekeepers on shooting estates and grouse moors to trap foxes. However, badgers, deer, cats, dogs, rabbits and otters all get snared and can suffer appalling injuries.
The UK is one of only five European Union members that still allow animal snares to be used. Ireland, France, Spain and Belgium have far stricter snare rules compared to the UK.
You can make a difference by contacting your MP and asking him or her to sign Early Day Motion 1473 calling for a ban on snares.
With a growing momentum of cross-party support for a ban on snares, the EDM has so far received 127 signatures.
With your support we can reach our target of 200 signatures. This would make it one of the top EDMs of the year and really increase the chances of getting snaring debated in Parliament.
For further information contact the League Against Cruel Sports on 01483 524 250 or visit www.league.org.uk.
Chris Deacon
Plymouth
Collapsing fisheries
HAVING read the news article "Fishing lobby attacks unfair and incorrect documentary" (WMN, June 15), I can understand the reluctance of the fishing industry to accept environmental realities that will affect the livelihood of many people – but unfortunately the scientific assessment of the situation is correct.
In 1980 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature published the result of a very thorough scientific survey that showed then that 12 of the world's major fisheries had already collapsed and that many more were poised to go the same way; because no-one took any notice, 30 years on the situation is far worse.
A spokesman for the United Nations recently announced that 70 per cent of the world's fisheries are now fully or over-exploited, and if present trends continue all the world's fisheries are expected to collapse by 2048. Even sharks are being killed at the rate of 100 million a year, and it is quite obvious that this devastation cannot be allowed to continue.
John White
Troon, Camborne
No bonus for us
WILL MPs and the media stop telling the rest of us that politicians are repaying over-claimed expenses back to the taxpayer?
When and how does this happen? As a Christmas bonus, perhaps? I don't think so, do you?
On June 19 the Western Morning News reported that Westcountry MPs had returned more than £21,000 "to the taxpayer". Just think what other regions' MPs will have repaid.
Rather than these funds disappearing into the Treasury and going towards, for example, the 2012 Olympics, I suggest that regional accounts are set up to support local community and voluntary groups.
This way, at least, some taxpayers and constituents most in need will actually feel a benefit, and this – MPs please note – is what you signed up to do; serve your community and constituents.
Mrs Pat Cook
Wadebridge
Long-awaited inquiry
AFTER much waiting for many, the Iraq War will be the subject of an inquiry.
The public, politicians, families of servicemen and the Iraqi people should get answers to whether it was or was not a just conflict.
How much is held or not held in public will be the common denominator of its credibility in the eyes of many.
Paul Raybould
Torbay








4 Comments
by Charles Henry 1945-(diuturnity), Somersetshire
Friday, July 03 2009, 9:04AM
“:| Thankyou Will. . Then we really agree I think. . But it always annoys me when people keep flying around the world and then tell me I shouldn't have a 4x4. . If it had been down to me, I'd have given everyone with an electric vehicle FREE parking 30 years ago. . We could have developed low-voltage energy at home for personal transport years ago. . Forget the BIKE, get a TWIKE. . Google it, it's great.”
by Will, Mid Devon
Friday, July 03 2009, 8:19AM
“Charles - think about it, in terms of CO2 output it doesn't much matter whether the CO2 is produced from house coal, burning oil or from coal-fired power stations or any other method that burns a non-renewable carbon source, except that modern methods of heating houses are probably (?) more efficient per house than heating each by coal fires. Except that of course we weren't so poncy in requiring all our houses, shops and offices to be as warm as saunas in those days. And of course there are vastly more houses, shops and offices now than 50 years ago.
No, I am not an expert, which is why I defer to the opinions of those who are, and when there is disagreement I try to make judgements based upon the balance of evidence. What else can anyone do, unless you are content just to listen to those whose opinions are most comforting from your own point of view?”
by Charles Henry 1945-(diuturnity), Somersetshire
Thursday, July 02 2009, 8:56PM
“:| Tell me Will. . Do you believe Coal Fired Power Stations would produce more CO2 than when every household in the land had coal fires to keep warm and winter smog was the national evil; and of course the river Thames often froze. . You are clearly an expert and I'd be interested to know.”
by Will, Mid Devon
Thursday, July 02 2009, 12:07PM
“Nice letter, Alan Jeffrey, but mostly rubbish. Your whole message presupposes that the concept of anthropogenic climate change is a scam, and without this supposition your whole thesis falls apart. Since the balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that the concept is not a scam, you are on thin ice. Still, you will no doubt receive support from the other regular 'sceptics' on the WMN website, so I don't suppose you'll worry - carry on consuming and two fingers to it all!”