Enough of the virtue-signalling speeches at Cop26 – lock world leaders in a room until they reach an agreement

Is that it? World leaders attend the first two days of Cop26 and go home? Banal discussion on details for another eight days, ending with “closure of negotiations”? Who thought up the agenda?

Ambassadors could have delivered these virtue-signalling speeches. The leaders are needed on the final days and should be locked in a room until they agree something. The time should be spent on agreeing substantive measures to reduce the use of carbon fuels. Not promises – “We will achieve net zero by X”, or “We will fund X for the cost of the required changes” – but a measure that will definitely price out the use of fossil fuels and fund the cost of change. We need a carbon tax, with the clear threat that it will be introduced in any event unilaterally.

Jon Hawksley

London

Boris Johnson’s schoolboy jokes and metaphors are inappropriate to this solemn occasion and an embarrassment to Britain. He needs to lead by example and announce important British climate crisis initiatives. He should also spend more time in Glasgow quietly winning hearts and minds away from the limelight and grandstanding. No British affairs of state are more important just now than success at Cop26.

For a start, the prime minister could cancel the Budget announcement to reduce the cost of internal UK flights and admit that it was a mistake. He should also declare that his government will immediately bypass the usual long-winded planning processes and proclaim right now the abandonment of the new Cumbrian coal mine project. These may be details in the overall trajectory of global warming, but accepting that they were policy errors would show courage and leadership and send the right signals to the wider world.

Gavin Turner

Norfolk

I’m delighted to see that world leaders have finally agreed a deal to halt global deforestation by 2030 at Cop26. The importance of this cannot be overstated. We know forests are essential to tackling CO2 emissions, but it was encouraging to see an acknowledgement in the announcement of this deal of the critical role they also play in promoting and conserving biodiversity and improving social equality and wellbeing.

While the UK government focuses on creating historic international deals to protect some of the planet’s largest forests, they must not forget the importance of investing in forests at home too. Britain has one of the lowest percentages of tree cover in Europe at just 13 per cent. Our own native species are being threatened by rising extreme weather events, habitat loss and pollution, and we need to think beyond simply planting more trees if we are to reverse the damage that has already been done to our natural landscapes.

We need to create a variety of habitats to enable native species to survive. At the Heart of England Forest we work to create a mosaic of habitats within the forest that foster and protect rare species such as the purple emperor butterfly, as well as boosting diversity in plants, animals and birds through a combination of new tree planting, mature and ancient woodland, grassland, heathland, farmland and wetland.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices newsletter by clicking here

The commitment is a fantastic step forward towards tackling CO2 emissions and protecting biodiversity, but if the UK is to truly be a leader, we must ensure we first look to our own backyard by prioritising, protecting and restoring this country’s magnificent native forests.

Beth Brook

CEO Heart of England Forest

Boris Johnson says the science is changing. With his head stuck in Ancient Greek literature, he is unable to cope with thoughts about the future and has no idea about the nature of science. Science evolves; that is its fundamental nature. Newton said he had achieved so much because he had stood on the shoulders of giants.

In 1962 I had completed my PhD in chemistry and was part of the original brain drain by heading for postdoc work at a university in the US. I was embarrassed because the chemistry department was talking about Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and I had not heard of it. This book dealt with the indiscriminate use of chemicals for agriculture. It focussed attention on the environment for the first time and soon after its publication, the Environmental Protection Agency was formed in America.

I returned to the UK and the next step for me was reading Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. It was 1973 and I started to incorporate ideas from the book into my lectures to degree students. The projections in the book were crude compared to what can be done today but the underlying message is coming true today. I was lecturing about global warming (the greenhouse effect) and destruction of the ozone layer about 40 years ago. The writing was on the wall then.

So the seeds of environmental concern were sown in 1962 and have continued to develop, hindered by crazy climate deniers, like Trump, Bolsonaro and Johnson. Of course Johnson has realised that he is spitting into the wind by maintaining that attitude and relies on blaming science for changing his stance. He is incapable of taking a lead at Cop26, so we wait (but not holding our breath) for specific outcomes for our grandchildren’s future.

Robert Murray

Nottingham

When the Australian oncologist Dr Cameron McLaren cannot cure he has a solution: lethal drugs. (“‘I am not a killer’: Doctor who helped 43 patients die reveals why he does it”, 31 October). It’s legal, but there are unanswered questions.

He is not a palliative care physician. Were his patients seen by one? Over half of Australia’s dying hospital patients do not. How did he assess them? Would you consult a skin specialist with your serious heart problem and accept their opinion that nothing more can be done? Choice is only real when the options are real. What do Dr McLaren’s advanced cancer patients feel about his approach to care? Ironically, he admits that for his patients, fear of death is what drives the wish to die, not physical suffering. He is not a psychiatrist either.

What drugs did Dr McLaren use? Were there adverse effects and how long did people take to die? Death as a lone endpoint is unacceptable: what happened, what was good and what bad? Would you find an anti-itch drug successful if it stopped you scratching but you had distressing vomiting and seizures in the process?

Finally, why are only 183 among 31,974 registered doctors in Victoria prescribing lethal drugs? Presumably patients have to “doctor-shop”.

If Dr McLaren wants to describe his treatment of patients, let him do so in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature first.

Rob George, professor of Palliative Care, King’s College, London

Claud Regnard, honorary consultant in Palliative Medicine, St Oswald’s Hospice, Newcastle upon Tyne

Amy Proffitt, president of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland

Dr M Davis (‘Palliative care, not premature death’, Letters, Tuesday) and his patients are perfectly entitled to have palliative care rather than assisted dying, if that is their choice. I can’t imagine that anyone wants to force the alternative upon them.

As Dr Davis says, no one would choose to be terminally ill. But for those who find themselves in that unfortunate situation, there are decisions to be made. And depriving some people of their choice is exactly what Dr Davis seems to be trying to do. If you’re going to insist on the right to your own choice, do you not also have to allow the right of choice to others?

Susan Alexander

South Gloucestershire