Letters: Pope's words

The Pope's words reveal virus of bigotry and prejudice

Sir: "Show me just what Muhammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." This quote from an obscure Byzantine Emperor, used by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI in a major lecture at the University of Regensburg, highlights the widening gulf of incomprehension between Islamic tenets and the European version of Christianity.

Fourteen centuries of this "evil and inhuman" doctrine, however, allowed the Christians in pre-invasion Iraq and the pre-occupation Holy Land - not to mention the Copts of Egypt and Maronites of Lebanon - to live prosperous and fruitful lives.

All the while, the Pope's forebears were putting to the sword the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Beirut (1099), organising inquisitions the length and breadth of Europe against other Abrahamic faiths and his "secular" counterparts were enriching the languages of all world's tribes with words like "pogrom" and "Holocaust".

What was His Holiness's motive in pouring oil on this smouldering Islamophobia with which the Bush-Blair war on terror has infected our politics, I ask myself - and find no answer. Except that the virus of bigotry and prejudice makes no distinction between an Abu Hamza and a Cardinal Ratzinger in Pope's robes. May Allah saves us all from such blind faith.

M A QAVI

LONDON SE3

How we can fight climate change

Sir: In response to the comprehensive coverage of climate change developments (15 September) it should now be evident to politicians that actions far more radical than suggested in the July energy review will be necessary if the UK is to play its part in avoiding crossing the climate tipping point of a 2 degrees C rise. Here are some suggestions.

Substantial and quick savings in CO2 emissions can be made in the built environment, especially housing. A twin programme of upgrading appropriate homes and replacing the remainder could make substantial inroads into the 27 per cent of UK emissions attributable to houses. The subsidy necessary to achieve this should at least equal the German investment of £1billion per year to bring all pre-1978 homes up to current standards.

The only long-term way to control emissions from buildings and vehicles is a regime of carbon budgets. Exceeding the budget would involve buying carbon credits set at a punitive rate. This could replace Part L of the Building Regulations, the advantage being that it would embrace all buildings.

Regarding energy production, renewables at the domestic scale such as photovoltaics, solar thermal, micro-wind, heat pumps and micro-fuel cells could, according to the Energy Saving Trust, meet up to 40 per cent of UK electricity needs. Other countries recognise the importance of this sector by offering subsidies which make it cost-effective against fossil-based power. In the UK development of this sector is undermined by the government fixation on market-only delivery.

Finally, there are the multi-megawatt renewables embracing tidal streams, tidal rise and fall, waves, offshore wind with high energy machines like the Aerogenerator and biomass especially to replace coal in thermal power plants. It is ironic that Drax is not renewing its contract for supplementary biomass. Sequestration of CO2 while coal lasts should also be on the cards, remembering that it has an emissions component.

For these technologies to be in place in time to offset the need for nuclear, there will have to be substantial direct government investment in the big capital intensive but long-life renewable systems even if it means higher taxes. But then there will have to be direct investment in nuclear if it is ever to happen.

PROFESSOR PETER F SMITH

SCHOOL OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

Sir: In a report warning that there is a critical period of four years in which to get control of global warming, it was acknowledged that little can be done to curb the excessive emissions of motor cars, simply because that is a vote loser for any party that tries to take the matter in hand.

Therefore, let us see, in the next few weeks, the present government propose to the Conservative and Liberal parties that a policy of joint action will be agreed and carried through during the coming years no matter which party is in government. This is the only way that a rebellion of motorists can be avoided, because they would then see that rejecting the government of the day would achieve nothing.

In time most motorists would come to feel that they had indeed made their contribution to the most vital cause in the history of the planet.

There is no time to rely upon science and inventiveness finding solutions to this dilemma. Nor is there time to wait while industry seriously takes up the challenge. The first steps must be those which can be taken pretty well immediately, to indicate that we fully appreciate the deadly legacy we will otherwise leave our children and grandchildren.

PETER WINNALL

SHEFFIELD

Sir: Achieving a 70 per cent reduction in carbon emissions sounds like a daunting task, but some of the biggest wins in carbon reduction are both feasible and cost-effective.

Research for the Greater London Authority shows that London could cut its emissions by a third by 2025 by implementing a "decentralised energy" system, with electricity produced locally through combined heating and power plants. At a cost of £300-440m per year, this wouldn't come cheap - but it's still far cheaper and better value than a new generation of nuclear power stations.

The answers to combating climate change are largely already well-known. What's missing is large-scale funding for practical solutions.

CLLR JENNY JONES

GREEN PARTY GROUP, LONDON ASSEMBLY, CITY HALL, LONDON SE1

Scientists love the unknown

Sir: Richard Ingrams' piece on the British Association for the Advancement of Science's seminar (9 September) seems to show little understanding of how scientific principles are applied, which may explain why he feels there is a gulf between scientists and "the rest of us".

Rupert Sheldrake's paper does not show that some people know who is about to telephone them, but merely provides evidence in favour of such a viewpoint. If evidence in favour of such ideas were conclusive then they would be widely accepted in the scientific community. Relying on anecdotal evidence on any matter, as Mr Ingrams does when talking of this and other "phenomena", is irrational and cannot be expected to weigh heavily in a scientific debate.

His final conclusion, that scientists don't want to accept such ideas because they would then have to admit that there are things that science can't explain, is absurd. Scientists are constantly striving to explain the unexplained, and revel in the fact that there are phenomena occurring that are beyond our current understanding. If there weren't, the scientists would have very little to do.

EDWARD HAYNES

KENILWORTH, WARWICKSHIRE

Turn the Lords into a house of experts

Sir: It would be fine to have more historians, philosophers and especially mediators in Parliament, as Lois Burke suggests (Letters, 13 September). But unfortunately the qualities needed on the hustings to get elected are very different from those needed to run the country wisely. There is not much we can do about the House of Commons, although proportional representation would be an improvement. When we reform the Upper House, however, we have a great opportunity.

We could get away from geographical constituencies in favour of constituencies of interest. Members would not represent these but contribute the expertise of, for example, academia, education, medicine, commerce, the voluntary sector, sport, the arts and so on. Their debates would not be slanging matches but conducted on a problem-solving basis when revising the legislation of the lower house and introducing legislation of their own.

The Wakeham Commission on reform of the House of Lords dismissed this idea in 2000 as too difficult; but it should not be beyond the ability of a new kind of Boundary Commission to draw the boundaries of, say, 300 such groupings so that everyone could vote in the constituency of their choice, with residual geographic constituencies for those who were not, or chose not to be, members of any group.

MARTIN WRIGHT

LONDON SW2

Cooper Brown unmasked

Sir; The readership has finally twigged. It has been obvious for some time that Cooper Brown is a figment of an editorial brainstorming, blue-sky staff meeting.

Has anybody, apart from the mystical Lord whateverhisname and of course, his daughter the lovely Victoria ever seen CB in the flesh? From the outset we have been regaled with stories of hobnobbing with the beautiful people, mixing it with the royals. But the most amusing has been the letters page filled with "Disgusted of Chipping Norton" types who fell for the spoof.

The proof is quite simple, no one has ever seen CB and Robert Fisk in the same room, they are quite obviously the same person.

But the irrefutable proof has to be the sense of irony and sarcastic double entendre scattered throughout CB's column. Irony and US humour never converge.

DAVE PATCHETT

BIRKENHEAD, WIRRAL

Short's call for a hung parliament

Sir: Clare Short and I over the years have contributed a regular subscription to the Labour Party. We have also in various ways helped influence and effect social change and promote social justice through our support for a Labour government.

I have been impressed, if at times a little envious, by the achievements of Clare Short, who has through skill, good judgement and luck been able to play a huge part in that project. She has made a fine career for herself through her involvement in the Labour Party and our party has in turn rewarded her well.

She now appears (Opinion, 14 September) to be making the absurd suggestion to me and other foot soldiers in the Labour Party that we should continue to pay our subscriptions, but support other parties and candidates. Equally absurd is your rather patronising editorial (15 September) that proposes the Parliamentary Labour Party chief whip should simply ignore Clare's call to our members to abandon our party.

JEREMY KILLINGRAY

LONDON N1

US ignorant of Gaza's suffering

Sir: From the US, your coverage of the ongoing siege and assaults on Gaza seems strange. News of civilian deaths and creeping starvation in Gaza has not made our newspapers.

We read about the war on Lebanon, and are finally uncomfortable with Israel's justifications for flattening neighbouring societies. But we're still so deeply engaged in the idea that Israel is insecure and that Arabs are bent on terrorism that we have not collectively looked any further. Gaza's destruction, unreported, is unnoticed.

Now we're watching Benyamin Netanyahu's tour to promote an attack on Iran, impeccably timed to meet US efforts to recast the Mideast war as an "anti-fascist" project and the commemoration of 9/11. Many Americans (including many Jews like myself), in desperation, turn to news reports from other countries. We are grateful for your insistence on covering real events and not dancing our lunatic dance with Israel.

EMMAIA GELMAN

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, USA

Sir: I find your letters page increasingly disturbing. It seems you have no problem with publishing letters accusing Israel of being a genocidal Nazi state provided you balance them with a roughly equal number of letters pointing out that this is nonsense.

Thus does a notion that belongs on the lunatic fringe creep stealthily into the mainstream. The "Nazi" tag appears to require no justification beyond evidence that injustice has been done and the writer's feelings of indignation.

ALAN NORMAN

BERLIN

Rights of the unborn

Sir: One wonders if the babies that will not be born because of the lack of sperm donors think that the right to know who their fathers would have been is sufficiently important to justify them not existing.

JEREMY SARGENT

WALSALL, WEST MIDLANDS

Basking dons

Sir: Of course some of Johann Hari's (September 14) Cambridge tutors were lousy: it is much to their credit that there were any good ones at all. As long as their employer can bask in the description of a "top" university they have no incentive to learn how to teach properly, and correspondingly few of their students will be particularly concerned.

CHRIS BARTON

STOKE-ON-TRENT STAFFORDSHIRE

Thyroid ordeal

Sir: Having read the article on hypothyroidism (5 September) I can sympathise. I had thyroid problems for eight years before any doctor would take me seriously. Even now I have to suffer major symptoms as the doctors just won't believe there is a problem unless the blood tests say so. It is about time that the suffering of thyroid patients was recognised and that we were treated with a more holistic view rather than the short-sighted blood tests only.

GLYNIS JONES

BIRMINGHAM

No new law needed

Sir: Since the earliest days of cycling, it has been obligatory for cyclists to carry a bell and use it when appropriate, also to give hand signals when turning, and of course to observe traffic lights and pedestrian crossings. These laws fell into desuetude some time in the 1970s and 1980s. As with most "minor" crime, the need is not for new legislation but for enforcement of existing laws, together with an investigation as to when and why they ceased to be enforced.

FRANCIS KNOX

LONDON SW4

Marmite defied

Sir: I have followed the Great Marmite Debate with interest and say "Well done" to the boarding-school girls of summer 1959 (letter, 13 September). In my cafe I have long felt that Marmite is not everyone's cup of tea. I offer my customers "Marmite sandwiches - without the Marmite", specially for people who do not like Marmite. These are very popular.

TERRY REEVE

REDCAR, CLEVELAND