I HAVE no doubt Andy D'Agorne is sincere when he says we must end "our dependence on oil" but I wonder if he is falling into the usual trap of classing oil as virtually a luxury item used solely for the manufacture of petrol to power cars?

Crude oil has so many products "locked away" inside it that modern society would find life extremely difficult without it.

So, I'm afraid our dependence on oil is here for the foreseeable future.

Obviously from Coun D'Agorne's letter he is anti-nuclear power. He uses the vague threat of terrorism, as well as problems decommissioning nuclear plants and storing the waste, as reasons for not going down this route to lessen our "dependence on oil".

He should visit Sellafield to see how nuclear waste is handled and stored. Provided he went with an open mind I believe he would be genuinely surprised to find out exactly how little nuclear waste has been accumulated during the 50 years nuclear power has been generated in this country.

I don't think his solar or "micro-renewable plants" (whatever they may be), providing power for all the homes in the American south, would have supplied the huge power requirements needed to keep the pumps and air-conditioning systems running, thereby lessening the plight of the people of New Orleans, during hurricane Katrina's rampage.

If the governments of the world genuinely thought that cutting "greenhouse gas" (i.e. carbon dioxide from internal combustion engines) emissions had anything to do with climate change then they would severely curtail the use of motor-vehicles by either cutting back on the huge numbers being produced or introducing some form of fuel-rationing.

Climate change is happening but it's a natural, cyclic occurrence and has nothing to do with man's puny efforts.

Philip Roe,

Roman Avenue South,

Stamford Bridge.

Updated: 09:42 Thursday, September 08, 2005