I HAVE read a number of letters in the Review lately condemning proposals for a new nuclear power station at Oldbury and also the erection of wind turbines in the local area.. Last year also there were letters opposing the proposed Severn barrage on environmental grounds. Many of these letters have been very eloquent about the risks and dangers in these proposals but not one of them has been prepared to say what alternative sources of energy they would propose to tackle the overriding problem of climate change.

It is indeed true that there are serious risks and considerable expense involved in new nuclear power. There are disadvantages in onshore wind power, and any tidal barrage on the Severn would have severe implications for the coastal areas and wildlife along its banks.

But set against these risks and drawbacks is the massive, disastrous alternative prospect of doing nothing to replace carbon-emitting sources of energy with sources that do not emit carbon. We have already seen in recent years the devastating impact of more extreme climatic conditions all over the world including the flooding in our own area. These trends have already been associated with global warming. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is taking place and that human activity in terms of carbon and other damaging emissions is strongly influencing it.

So the question I would like to pose to those who oppose schemes which seek to provide energy in non-carbon emitting ways is this: what alternative proposal do you have which does not perpetuate our reliance on fossil fuels and the damaging emissions they produce? If you cannot provide convincing alternative suggestions then I believe yours is opposition without responsibility, that you are denying the serious danger that the world faces from man-made climate change.

– D Watkins (address supplied).