Readers letters’: Oil-producing and carbon-dependent state autocracies are to blame for wildfires

Quick answer: largely oil-producing and carbon-dependent state autocracies! For example, the carbon footprint of the BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), dwarfs that of Europe: measured in mega tonnes of CO2, their carbon emissions are ten times greater, and that 10 to 1 ratio has remained more or less constant since 2000.

China, the largest emitter, is taking positive action. But it’s difficult to conclude other than it’s too little too late. And while the UK’s is on the right side of the argument, the steps taken here have little more than symbolic impact. Moreover, the pace and cost of the domestic transition to Net Zero, especially the decarbonisation of the grid, is making it a very uncomfortable roller-coaster ride for businesses, households, and the taxpayer.

While the VAT reduction on energy bills proposed by the Burnham government is welcome, its only tinkering, (as the new PM well knows). The challenge of achieving a fair, just and cost-effective transition demands so much more! Is he up to it? Time will tell. Arguably, its UK foreign policy - in partnership with Europe - that should be levered to exert maximum pressure on others elsewhere to toe the Net Zero line.

Meanwhile, expect the frequency of summer wildfires to increase, courtesy of the BRICS. Time to get ready and prepare our defences. Lives, homes and the environment will depend on it!

Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns

Church’s authority

The illicit consecration of a bishop by the Sons of the Most High Redeemer, a renegade sect of Golgotha Monastery on the remote Orkney island of Papa Stronsay is yet another nail in the coffin of Christianity in the UK.

The fading of moral leadership within modern Christianity is not a sudden accident. It is the result of deep, slow institutional decay.

First, schismatic defiance fractured the church. Constant splitting into bitter, competing factions destroyed any unified voice of truth or wisdom. Instead of standing together for good, groups fight each other over tiny points of power and pride.

Next, marginal extremism pushed the loud, hateful voices to the front. Extreme groups took over the public view. They replaced kindness and grace with anger and harsh judgement, turning away people who looked for peace.

Finally, public disrepute finished the fall. Scandals and a stubborn refusal to change with a better world broke the trust of the people.

Because of these deep cracks, the church can no longer claim moral authority. That old authority is gone.

Doug Clark, Edinburgh

Obvious cuts

Further to your article, “Healey tells Cabinet ministers to prepare to make cuts to fund Burnham’s pledges” (Saturday, August 1) - one big and obvious saving would be to dispense, completely, with the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland; and of the Secretary of State for Wales. Neither of those departments add any value to government.

The First Minister of Wales has said that he’d much rather work directly with department heads in Westminster than through a Welsh Secretary; our own First Minster has been very clear that the current Scottish Secretary has been more of a hindrance than a benefit.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does have one specific role that differs from the Scotland and Wales remit - the ability to action a referendum on reunification for Ireland. The Scottish Secretary is largely impotent on the constitutional front.

Listed responsibilities of the Sec of State for Scotland include defence, energy, and others that already have Cabinet Secretaries of their own, rendering this role largely redundant.

Go ahead, Mr Healey - make that cut.

Ian Waugh, Dumfries

Gender scrutiny

James Bundy is right that any Scottish conversion practices legislation must be subjected to careful scrutiny, and that Parliament must reconcile competing rights and avoid unintended consequences (The loudest voices don’t make good law, Aug 1).

One potential consequence deserves particular attention. A future Scottish Bill presented as protecting people from coercive attempts to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity, risks rendering the common understanding of homosexuality increasingly suspect.

Influential advocates of gender identity already reject the understanding of homosexuality as exclusive attraction to members of the same biological sex. Stonewall, for example, defines homosexuality as attraction to the same “sex or gender”, while LGBT Youth Scotland defines “gay” by reference to attraction to the same gender. Once that conceptual shift takes hold, a lesbian or gay man who describes exclusive same-sex attraction can be portrayed as transphobic, rather than as expressing an innate sexual orientation.

If exclusive homosexuality is increasingly characterised as discriminatory or harmful, the distinction between describing one’s orientation and engaging in prohibited conduct becomes blurred. Holyrood must ensure that legislation does not place lesbians and gay men under pressure to deny the sex-based nature of their sexual orientation. Of course, for some, compelling that denial may be considered a main purpose of such legislation.

Brian Forsyth, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We 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, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid ‘Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters’ or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.