The GREBAFACA - POLITOPOLISTS seem able to thjnk of everything , only in isolation, and traverse the world to talk about each one on its own.
In the case of climate change, you mention trees and water, both of which should be taken into account when looking for solutions to some of the other problems in the world. The world must come down to earth !

arthur marson, huddersfield, west yorks

In science, Frederick Davies, there is no such thing as a proven theory, only theories that look like they are probably a good approximation to reality and theories that don't.

Global warming has been judged by the scientists who know about climate to be a theory that is probably a good approximation to reality. Among its predictions is that life for the human race will get very uncomfortable indeed if we let the temperature rise by more than about 2 degrees. That may be wrong, but it looks like it has a very good chance of being right, so it seems prudent to work on the assumption that it is. And that means all working together without bothering too much about competitive advantage.

Let's not be frogs boiling to death because we can't be bothered to jump out of the warming water.

Bill Linton, London,

Dear Frederick Davies of Oxford, UK.

That is exactly what we think everytime some American or British tree hugger critisises us for the "destruction of the rainforest", or "destruction of the (fill as appropriate)'s habitat".

I guess its ok for us to sacrifice our development and progress so that you can watch a rare species of ant on a documentary narrated by Sir Attenborough, eh?

You had your turn at progress, now its ours.

A citizen, Of, The non-western World

It's interesting that although CO2 has been increasing this century global temperature has stopped rising. I wonder why?
If we do though want to dramatically reduce CO2 quickly, then we have to decarbonise global power supplies and we'll have to pay, both for ourselves and for China, India and the rest of the developing world. Quite a "tax increase" on electricity that will be.

Dr David Jenkins, Weybridge, UK

Excusing his misprint that should read 60 billion tons RM Barclay has a point if the figures are verifiable, or what all the experts are telling us in relation to human contributions is correct.

Any experts got an explanation?

JimD, Norwich, UK

One may suspect that a bottom-up approach from a groundswell of popular movements may be needed to kick start meaningful global government co-operative action.

Although there has been plenty of advance warning from the 1930s onward as to possible consequences of uncontrolled economic growth, (mainly on the resource depletion front), development now at different stages is the obvious problem, with latecomers as well as those who were first unwilling to take what might be an unfair share of the cost of solutions.

Even on the individual level, for many there’s possibly a St Augustine-like hope for material restraint – but not yet, which could stymy a perception of need for urgency.

dr venables preller, Warminster, UK

You state that the national academy saya that since 2000 the rise in co2 has been 3% per annum.
The arithmetic would appear to be as follows. The atmosphere weighs 5000 trillion tons(wikipedia), co2 is .04%, i.e.2 trillions. Therefore co2 weighs 2000billions tons. If it is rising at 3% that means that 60 tons is being added to the atmosphere each year, since humans contribute about 15 billion tons something else is contributing 45 billion tons whether the IPCC likes it or not.
The reason for Global warming is that the sun varies its output. It did it 1000 years ago and 1000 years before that.

R.M.Barclay, Glasgow,

I sometimes wonder how stupid people can get: give your main competitors and future enemies a free ride to ruin your economy and have spare cash to modernize their military. And all for an unproven theory that is becoming more and more like a religion. Future historians are going to have a hard time explaining all this idiocy.

Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK

China's ability to dictate to its people is undiminshed by economic wealth. The stance taken by the United States is allowable, America first; that country did not rise to preeminence in the world by being touchy-feely. They are aware of the effort that is needed to maintain economic well-being and have learned that the pursuit of happiness is very closely related to pursuit of hard cash. The circumstances of choice between America and Britain say, are vastly different. Affordability is the American keyword while in Britain, that tired old birthplace of industry, there are two emotions in play. People have had enough of being subordinate to industry, the aparent wealth, despite the demise of industry, enboldens people to campaign against filth and pollution. But Britain is also rationing its people's resources. What better way of eeking out diminshing resources than inventing a decoy position about the environment. Too many people, too few resources, that is Britain's real problem.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

All this week the BBC's Working Lunch has been profiling US alternative-energy companies that are listed on London's AIM market.

What is striking is the extent to which the Pentagon is pouring money into these companies. It has recognised that if it can replace bulky batteries and generators with solar panels and fuel cells, then its troops will be more mobile and able to carry more useful equipment. They seem to be one of the largest spurs to R&D spending in these areas.

The good news, of course, is that in the land of the $400 screwdriver, Pentagon budgets are one bill that few Americans flinch at footing.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

and,

the Chinese are much less likely to go galavanting around the world, invading other countries on in the name of American-style "democracy", while claiming a falsified and deluded moral superiority over other countries.

Pete, Cov,

While carbon emissions certainly merit attention, they are but symptoms of the cancer that afflicts our planet: mankind.

Our numbers increased threefold in the last half-century. If the trend continues there will be twenty billion humans around 2060. Politicians point to hopeful factors but neglect the adverse that overwhelm these. We have to arrest and indeed reverse the explosion in our population, and its aspirations, that is the cause of the increase in greenhouse gases.

Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France