Editor,

I was pleased to see that, whether by coincidence or not, my correspondence (Letters, Cambrian News, 10 August) complaining about the lack of informed debate in this column on the steps required in the face of the climate crisis, was followed by one from Jeremy Moores (Letters, Cambrian News, 17 August). His letter makes many excellent points, and I agree entirely when he says “the lifestyles of most of us in the ‘developed’ world are completely unsustainable”.

We must also, as he suggests, quickly cut our emissions. The questions I would pose are:n How are the public, and the nations — and particularly the ultra-rich, who cause most of the emissions – to be convinced that their lifestyles must change?

Assuming that the answer to this question cannot be found immediately, what can we who are willing to commit to action, do to get maximum benefit with minimum effect to our lives?

Who, and how, can best pass on the information to others, and persuade them to join the struggle? - and it will be a struggle!n How can the ultra-rich be persuaded (or, preferably, forced) to reduce their emissions to acceptable levels?n

Many methods are already proven to increase the amount of carbon dioxide stored in the natural environment. Examples are low-meat diets, more forestry, regenerative farming, re-creating wetlands and heathland.

What pressures can be brought on to the political sceptics to ensure that they provide the legal basis and the funding to ensure that these methods become more widespread?I would suggest that the wide usage of social messaging — provided that it is ‘policed’ — and that local discussion groups could serve a useful purpose.

Another practical method, already gathering pace, is the withdrawal of investments in the firms that produce fossil fuels.

John Davis

Llanfarian