AS a scientist I felt strongly enough to write in to your letters page regarding the letter from J Brittain (letters 22/3/07).

Even though I agree that taxation is not the best way to control CO, I do think that the evidence for global warming is mounting. From a scientific point of view it is not a matter of belief in global warming, scientists look at evidence and come up with theories.

The writer points out that we breathe out carbon dioxide, this is part of the natural process called the carbon cycle where plants such as trees and more importantly marine algae temporary trap carbon and bind it with hydrogen to form sugars which are then used to make structures including wood and for energy storage. When the plants are eaten or rot the energy is released as is the carbon as CO.

Millions of years ago a lot of animal and plant material became fossilised, trapping the carbon in to what became oil, gas and coal. As we burn these fossil fuels CO levels in the air are rising.

Historically speaking we know that increased carbon dioxide levels affect global temperatures. It was hotter when there was more CO in the atmosphere.

CO levels are increasing and the Artic Sea ice is melting more each year, the Sahara desert is expanding.

Polar bears are threatened with extinction. People are starving in Africa because of the longest droughts on record. But poor old J Brittain has got to buy £280 worth of light bulbs, considering they only cost a couple of quid each he/she must be living either in a very large house or just have a lot of lights in it.

On a another matter cutting down a few trees up Kinver will only temporarily release a very small amount of carbon back into the atmosphere, if the wood is used for something it will be out of the cycle for longer.

Adders and lizards need heathland along with the grasses and insects that produce a rich biodiversity.

I hope this clears things up.

Peter Horton BSc Stourbridge