From Peter Jones
Don Patterson argues that the carbon cost of nuclear energy – or any new technology – prevents it from being as compelling a solution to the energy crisis as its proponents claim (21 August, p 26). If the green movement had been around in about 1700, they would probably have argued that the sacrifice of trees for charcoal burning was a disgrace, and that the nation would be treeless within a lifetime. And although this newfangled coal mining might alleviate the trees’ plight, those people would probably have argued that the demands placed by coal mining on charcoal – to forge the necessary iron and steel – would be so great as to mean the end of English forests.
I leave it to your readers to follow this argument to its conclusion.
Dolgellau, Gwynedd, UK
