Madam, - In the run-up to Christmas you published a number of articles and letters commenting on national policy regarding energy, environment and economics - the topical trio which is rightly engaging the attention of those concerned about the future.
Donal Buckley of Ibec (Opinion and Analysis, December 14th) underlined the usefulness of various Kyoto Protocol mechanisms which allow countries exceeding their carbon emissions to seek redemption by funding emission reductions in other countries. However, it seems clear from Article 17 of the Protocol that such trading should be "supplemental" to domestic actions to meet emission reduction requirements.
This makes good sense and is one of the the points made by Eamon Ryan (December 22nd). He also points out that the €270 million so far put aside to pay for CO2 credits is likely to be only a fraction of the final sum required to buy compliance with our Kyoto obligations in the period 2008-2012. He adds that "the sooner we start to take real steps towards reducing our emissions the better it will be for our economy" .
This point is also stressed by Oisin Coghlan (Opinion and Analysis, December 22nd). He points to the recent Stern report and to the huge reductions in CO2 emissions that are needed if "runaway climate change is to be avoided".
Finally David Begg (Opinion and Analysis December 23rd) stresses the need to maintain economic growth without generating high population growth which would only lead once again to a deficit in infrastructure. He stresses the importance of a cheap and secure energy supply to support a healthy economy and how "energy policy cannot be divorced from environmental policy".
Yet none of these wise commentators suggested the obvious solution: nuclear power - the clean and safe source of energy that, in the long run, is cheaper than all its competitors and is virtually free of CO2 emissions. - Yours, etc,
FRANK TURVEY, Church Road, Greystones, Co Wicklow.