Readers' Letters: Sale of indulgences is alive and well among COP29's climage change pilgrims


Call it the cynic in me, but I am unconvinced about the real purpose of the COP summits. Believers in climate change like Ed Milliband have gone as an act of pilgrimage, rather like medieval penitents to Canterbury. Confession and contrition for past sins is expressed, much as pilgrims would crawl, or walk barefoot in penance for their sins. Yet these 21st century pilgrims fly in big intercontinental airliners, doubtless being served G&Ts.
Of course, the COP29 host went somewhat off-message and announced that “fossil fuels are a gift from God”. Scourge that man! Many an oil deal was concluded in Azerbaijan.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe real purpose of the get-together came out later: indulgences. In the Middle Ages, one could buy an indulgence to avoid going to Hell; and who wouldn’t want that? Now, in the COP29 world of climate change, a nation can buy its indulgences from the many smaller nations who claim that the major countries which emit CO2 owe it to them.
As usual, this entails the poorest in rich nations sending money to the richest in poor nations. You can bet your bottom dollar, though, that somehow or other, it will never reach those who are most in need
Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh
Wrong priorities
Christian Aid has described the money promised to combat climate change by the recent COP29, as “a plank to cling on to in the ocean”. In a summit reputed to have been hijacked by the rich nations, what sounds like a considerable amount, turns out to be loose change, when compared to what is required to confront climate change, namely $1.3 trillion.
That $1.3tn threatens to be, itself, chicken feed in comparison with the cost of the long-range ballistic missiles currently being detonated in Russia and Ukraine, not to mention Gaza and Lebanon, with the threat of more to come. Mankind, it seems, is finding ever new, and increasingly devastating, ways to destroy our planet.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe destructive power of nature itself has been unleashed in the recent, severe floods, though climate change is a worldwide catastrophe, hitting hardest those whose carbon footprint is lightest. The twin financial cost of combating climate disaster and the all-too-likely prospect of world war must urgently be channelled to our decidedly creative talents as human beings before it’s too late.
Ian Petrie, Edinburgh
COP out
Developing nations are demanding $1.3 trillion every year to help adapt to droughts, floods, rising sea levels and extreme heat, pay for losses and damage caused by extreme weather, and transition their energy systems towards clean energy. Their words, not mine.
Britain and other countries have already given them trillions in foreign aid but these same countries are still burning fossil fuels and have net zero intention of reducing them. Since the United Nations does not define China as a “developed” country it will not be bound by mandates to cut emissions or give money to poorer countries. Not widely reported was that the Taliban, a brutally repressive theocracy, turned up pleading for money.
There have now been 29 years of COPs with one million attendees and tens of thousands of jet air miles creating additional greenhouse gases yet the only unanimous decision at COP29 was that all 65,000 attendees will meet again at COP30 in Belém do Pará, Brazil.
Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian
Ploughing ahead
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdPredictably after one day’s snowfall there is a letter (24 November) complaining that Edinburgh doesn’t deal with it as efficiently as other countries, in this case Finland.
I don’t recall any significant snowfall in Edinburgh last year and so far this year we have had one day and it was gone by the next morning. Finland, on the other hand, has weeks, if not months, of snow.
We can hardly expect the financially hard-pressed council to have dozens of snow ploughs and drivers on standby throughout the winter for such relatively rare events.
Michael Grey, Edinburgh
Decline and fall
Given that we often hear from nationalists that our Scottish NHS is the best performing in the UK, should we really be grateful not to reside elsewhere on these isles?
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHaving been on and off waiting lists for orthopaedics in North Lanarkshire over the past three years (previously waiting approximately 38 weeks in 2023) I contacted the NHS Hospital Referral Helpline last week to see where I was in the queue. The person that answered the phone was very pleasant, informing me I had been on the list for 18 weeks and waiting times in my area are currently about 75 weeks.
Quite a decline in a year, which doubtless nationalists will simply blame on Westminster. However, given the quality and focus of our three most recent Cabinet Secretaries for Health and Social Care, can the blame really lie elsewhere?
Ian Mills, Cumbernauld, North Lanarkshire
Badger menace
I read with interest the comments of John Elliot regarding the strange omission of any mention of badgers in the decline of ground nesting birds (Letters, 23 November).
We have had the good fortune to live near a pond which was at one time a nesting area and home to a wonderful range of water birds – all ground nesting. Foxes were of course then and now in the mix. However, it is quite clear to us that the total protection given to badgers is the one change which has led to the destruction of the bird population on the pond.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdBadgers are visible in numbers in and out of buildings, on the attack against hens kept in coops which have to be built like mini fortresses. The protection of badgers was a political move by ill-informed people who understand little of the natural balance in the countryside. Everyone was for the eradication of badger baiting, which was probably the trigger for the legislation.
However a revisit of the badger legislation is long overdue. In the country we see what badgers do – we don’t just gaze at the nature programmes which only give us a bland view of a bonnie badger close up!
Alison Fullarton, Eyemouth, Scottish Borders
Inheritance tax trap
It is not just farmers who are hit by a new lower threshold for inheritance tax.
According to Savills estate agent there are 670,100 domestic properties in the UK worth more than £1 million. Of these, around 500,000 are worth between £1m and £2m and around 100,000 are worth more than £2m, which is perhaps the level the government should be considering for inheritance tax if it is genuinly looking at the richer section of society.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe dramatic increase in domestic property prices over recent years has drawn many average families into a situation whereby even if the parents leave their house to their children when they die, the current maximum £1m allowance means that their children cannot inherit the domestic home without having to sell it to pay inheritance tax. Many children will not have readily available resources to pay the tax so will be forced to sell and leave the family home which they may still be living in because they cannot afford to buy their own properties.
Over the past ten years the average house price has risen by some 50 per cent, bringing a vast number of families into the laibility to pay inheritance tax so the greed of the government is pushing many children out of their own homes when their parents die. This can not be acceptable in a civilised and caring society. Domestic inheritance tax allowances need to be reviewed if the government has any degree of compassion.
Jonathan Longstaff, Buxted, East Sussex
Heap of manure
Politicians really do talk rubbish at times. Listening to Steven Reed, the Environment Secretary, explain the decision to slap inheritance tax on farmers he claimed that it was for their own good.
Now, whatever you may think about the change, it is hard to see how it is going to benefit them. If, as he also claimed, that it is to stop the rich and the Jeremy Clarksons of this world buying up farms to escape inheritance tax, then why not exclude farms that are in the hands of second generation, or older, families? A similar logic could apply to “rich” pensioners. These people will be paying tax at the higher rate, so why not just exclude them?
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThese Labour policies were unexpected and have an air of cruelty and vindictiveness. Labour claim that relatively low numbers will be affected so why introduce such policies that will probably lead to great hardship but little saving?
Ken Currie, Edinburgh
Titanic mistake
Sir Keir Starmer is missing the point of the two million and counting signatures on the online petition calling for a new general election.
He surmises it is those who did not vote Labour on July 4 asking for a re-run but the entire population has witnessed a chaotic five months of non-governance from a party that appears totally blinded by the headlights of its success on that day.
It has angered huge swathes of the country and there is little evidence any policies are working but distinct signs that they are not. Mr Starmer ought to be wary of this huge dip in Labour’s fortunes but he is acting like the captain on the Titanic. Powering ahead does not always bring success.
Gerald Edwards, Glasgow
Write to The Scotsman
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdWe welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.