Sir – If your correspondents are relying on Lord Stern for their views on global warming, no wonder they think it is worthwhile to go ahead with schemes like the proposed solar park at Besselsleigh, which would take 69 football pitches worth of treasured open landscape out of useful crop production, to produce just 0.3 per cent of Oxfordshire’s electricity at three times the cost of reliable energy.

However, since Lord Stern is not a climatologist but an economist, a profession renowned for the unreliability of its forecasts, some scepticism about imminent catastrophic global warming is in order.

What’s more, even Lord Stern and the IPCC do not believe fossil fuels more than partly responsible for it, or that even abandoning them altogether worldwide would do more than slow it. Luckily perhaps, as other countries are busy building more cheap efficient power stations than we have altogether, every year.

The UK accounts for only 1.5 per cent of world emissions — a share that is falling not because of our savings, but because others are growing — so even our heroically abandoning fossil fuels altogether would make only a trivial impact. In practice, the grid would collapse with more than 15 per cent erratic renewables, so the most we could possibly do with renewables is reduce world emissions by a derisory 0.2 per cent.

Inexcusably pressured by David Cameron, the then Labour Government passed the 2008 Climate Change Act which forces draconian renewables targets, with no notion of how to achieve them, or the environmental and financial consequences of trying to do so. Now these are obvious, they should have the courage to repeal it.

Michael Tyce, Waterstock