Population growth set to have big impact on pollution

However, I would like to make a number of comments.

I sail with the chief hydrographer, who covers two of the largest estuaries in the UK. He has records going back over 400 years and they cannot find any measurable evidence of an increase in water level, none whatsoever.

All statements of increase in sea level I believe have been based on computer predictions based on warming and ice melt but they somehow don't work as far as he is concerned.

The biggest concern regarding increases in pollution going forward is very rarely talked about but is obviously population growth. The present level of growth I am sure your readers are aware of is equivalent to the population of the city of Birmingham every day – yes, I repeat, every day.

That is truly frightening and heading for eight billion world population in the very near future. It took tens of thousands of years to reach one billion and 150 years to grow by a further six billion. More feet equals more carbon footprints.

To reverse this will require governments to stop subsidising people having children above a certain level. Are the people in Guernsey going to accept that?

No free schools, medical aid etc, want kids? – pay for them, that will slow population growth, but subsidising people having children is illogical.

China restricts birth rates and was greatly criticised but it reduced what would have been their current population by 400 million, equivalent to the population of Europe. Now China has big pollution problems but they would have been substantially worse had they not taken action to control their population.

Looking further at reducing the use of fossil fuels, which must anyway be a sensible thing to do even if you are sceptical about climate change, then you have to look further than throwing mud at a few oversize vehicles operating in the island, which incidentally includes old diesel buses being run with very few passengers, and it is where nobody wants to accept the consequences but the two main ones are external transport links and electricity generation.

Do you realise how much jet fuel is used by aircraft coming to and from the island? The Aurigny Embraer itself uses about three tonnes per round trip and four times a day, and there are approximately another 14 round trips on the ATR and other aircraft to the UK, at least 1,400kg without inter-island trips so burning in total over 30 tonnes a day, yet people want to expand this.

On top of this are the ferries. I have no idea how much the Clipper burns as the information is given in gallons per KW hour but the engines on the Liberation burn 2,000 litres per engine per hour at full speed so 36,000 litres, say 30 tonnes per round trip.

The answer to changing this is to operate two medium-speed ferries and use the most efficient aircraft on all the other runs.

The Embraer is a nice aircraft and best in its class for fuel efficiency but nowhere near the efficiency of an ATR when it is operated at low level. Pure jets need to be up near 40,000ft to maximise fuel economy and this is just not possible on the Gatwick run.

Electricity generation in Guernsey still has a large element of diesel power and yet another diesel set is being purchased, but there is no attempt to grow renewable supplies.

It was suggested that the island should look to run all electric cars but if the electricity is made by diesel generators, then this is a waste of time as it would be over 30% less efficient than using the fuel to run diesel cars and would actually increase emissions.

I am sure electric buses will eventually be produced but at present the only ones that work as in London, which are incredibly expensive, are combined diesel electric hybrids working in the same way as the Toyota Prius, but the present buses on Guernsey are very inefficient especially as the utilisation is very low, probably less than 20% on a passenger seat mile basis.

Surely though with the tides we have and the sun and wind Guernsey Electricity should be doing something about renewables, even using the old greenhouse areas for solar power would be a start, but of course they are run by the States, so...

With all this, why would we be giving the Environment Department a further £80,000? As far as I am concerned they have as yet contributed nothing to help the environment in Guernsey and they have refused to do anything about renewing the sea wall close to the bottom of my garden in Fermain because of lack of money and the cliff is collapsing, so I have no sympathy with their cause.

Sadly the best thing we could all do to help the planet and for all of us to reduce the use of fossil fuels, unless we are prepared to stop travelling, would be to abandon Guernsey and live on the mainland, and I don't think that is about to happen, but the answer to global warming is not in taking a few 4x4s off the road in Guernsey.

G. M. OLDROYD,

St Martin's.