Roy Turnbull (Letters, 8 April) is certainly not alone in believing that removing a known contributory factor to climate change can only be a positive move. I fully endorse his views.
Dr McCormick (Letters, 9 April) appears to have confused two issues: removing a contributory factor, and, conversely, adding a contributory factor, with potential unforeseen consequences.
Taking a proven adverse factor, namely fossil fuels, out of the equation cannot have a negative effect on the climate, either in the short term or in the future.
The removal of smog, cited by Dr McCormick in his original letter (5 April), would be wholly positive. Since the soot particles in smog are now recognised as being a major contributor to global warming, its elimination would re-establish an equilibrium which humans have disturbed.
Adding a contributory factor, on the other hand, could indeed lead to future adverse climate changes, but we no longer have any excuse for creating “unforeseen occurrences”.
We know what we’re doing to the environment. We know how to mitigate our impact. What we lack is the will to do so.
Any future industrial and technological advances must be scrutinised carefully to eliminate, as far as possible, any unintended human contribution to climate change.