SIR – For once, I agree with Keith Thomson in his latest Envirowatch (T&A, June 30), though I am still not espoused as he is to the theory man is largely responsible for climate change.
You kindly published my letter (T&A, June 25) touching on the BP calamity, but in which you substituted Barak Obama’s and my original word with ‘backsides’.
I sent the clipping to the President with a letter expounding on the matter, reminding him that he believed man was the chief culprit of climate change, and that his country’s insatiable appetite for the world’s natural resources at the lowest possible prices – especially that of oil – were threatening life on the entire planet, not just in his own back yard.
I, personally, do not believe this, but surely he must. I do believe it is utterly and economically wrong to be profligate with natural resources.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article