YOUR coverage of climate change risks in York (October 3) is a timely and welcome addition to the public debate on what the Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, has said is a bigger threat to the planet than international terrorism.

There are, however, some serious mistakes in the piece and I hope you will allow me to correct them.

The article refers to "a hard hitting report". There is no report. The starting point for this discussion was a conference speech I made in September.

I did not say we need to plan for the abandonment of York. I referred to another conference held in York where the chairman said this and I reported his remarks as an indication of the seriousness of the situation and of the need to take measures to prevent such disasters happening.

I don't think there will be "New Orleans-style loss of life" but I do think it is prudent to contemplate the possibility of very serious flooding and take appropriate action. This is the so-called "precautionary principle".

I agree with the European Environment Agency, which has warned of increased flood hazards in Europe and a rising number of casualties.

As far as I know, there is not a specific scientific study warning of severe flash floods in York. The main point of my contribution was to emphasise the policy dimension of what we actually do about the local impacts of climate change.

It would be very prudent to reduce greenhouse gases in whatever ways we can, avoid new developments on the flood plain and deploy whatever science we can to intercept rapid run-off during periods of heavy rain (tree planting, protect peat bogs, reduce to an absolute minimum the amount of concrete and Tarmac in our cities).

Professor John Whitelegg,

Stockholm Environment Institute,

University of York,

Heslington,

York.

Updated: 10:35 Monday, October 10, 2005