The row over free school meals is a loud and distinct testimony: those in power do not represent the people

Those Tory MPs who declare that funding schoolchildren’s meals during the holidays will only encourage a dependency culture have exposed their lack of understanding of, and empathy for, those in need. They are obviously out of touch, both with the times and with those they purport to represent.

Again, as so often spouted, we hear that this is “an unprecedented and strange time”. Do the needy children not, then, deserve extra help?

Bravo to all those people of different political hues and various backgrounds who have taken up the challenge to help provide for children in the face of the government’s shameful refusal. A loud and distinct testimony that those in power do not represent the people.

Rosa Wei-Ling Chang

Sheffield

I notice that the government in Wales has banned shops in the principality from selling all but essential goods. I wonder what the Welsh is for “Buy shares in Amazon”?

Leo Thomas

Manchester

Rotherham council is consulting on turning libraries over to volunteers, following the example of neighbouring Sheffield and Doncaster councils, which did the same with their libraries years ago. 

Calling libraries “community libraries” and running them with volunteers was, and is, a deliberate ploy to mask cuts and hide the fragmentation and destruction of a crucial statutory service. It is disingenuous to say the least, and an insult to library workers and library users.

Libraries have always been community hubs. You don’t save libraries by handing them to volunteers. How would people feel about their hospitals being run by volunteers? So why would they want their information services run by volunteers?

One hopes that Rotherham Council will come to its senses and stop the proposed transfer.

NJP Artridge

Sheffield

In July, Greta Thunberg said that two years have been wasted since her first climate strike. Harry Cockburn reported on a conversation (21 October) with David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg at the Wildscreen Film Festival, in which Sir David stated: “We have to understand that if we are going to do something, it is going to cost taxes and we are going to have to give up as well as take.”

The unpopularity of raising the price of fossil fuels by taxation is a big factor in the failure of politicians to act during the last two years. They have feared short term pain, unpopularity and further penalising those who can least afford price rises.  

Politicians needn’t worry, though. There is a policy, which would reduce carbon emissions without losing votes or hurting the less well-off. Climate income (aka carbon fee and dividend, CFD) is a policy championed internationally by various Citizens’ Climate Lobbies, with growing support among scientists, economists and think tanks. It has already been adopted in Canada and Switzerland and is well regarded by both parties in the US.  

An escalating fee is placed on all import or extraction of fossil fuels, thus incentivising greener technologies without the need for punitive tariffs. The proceeds are shared equally between all citizens as a quarterly dividend, helping to offset the interim rising cost of fossil fuels. Wealthier consumers are encouraged to green their choices, and investors are given a clear message about the direction of travel. Decarbonisation made painless!

Catherine Dawson, Citizens Climate Lobby UK

David Attenborough is wrong to state that the pandemic poses a menace to climate change action, since it distracts public attention from the gravity of environmental dangers (21 October).

He seems oblivious to the salient fact that global challenges are intertwined and that we live in an interconnected, interrelated and interdependent world that is fraught with violence, intimidation, harassment, rape, misogyny, antisemitism, Islamophobia, hatred, loss of biodiversity, discrimination, climate change and pandemics. To succeed, the international community should espouse a joined-up approach for the sake of humanity.

Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob

London NW2

We are a few weeks away from 2021, and we are told that Covid-related restrictions could last for another six months. Dealing with the fallout from all of this will last for years. What, then, is the priority of the (minority) governing party in Scotland? Mike Russell, a minister in that government, tells us that there could be a separation referendum in 2021. The SNP’s manifesto for the May election will include a programme for holding a referendum, since only they are allowed to choose the conditions for it, apparently.

At the same time, Nicola Sturgeon demands more money from the Treasury to support Scottish businesses hurt by the Covid crisis. Ms Sturgeon acknowledges, then, that Scotland depends on the UK in hard times but her constitutional affairs spokesman wants to break with the UK as early as next year. Does no one in the SNP see the contradiction in this?

Jill Stephenson

Edinburgh