Sir

John Maddox urged caution in approaching the Kyoto conference on climate change for three reasons (Nature 390, 111; 1997). In each of these reasons he is seriously mistaken.

(1) He suggests that the predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may exaggerate the rate of change by a factor of two. The fact is that they may underestimate the rate of change by a factor of two. The potential for an underestimation seems especially great because of the uncertainties of biotic responses, especially the possibility of releasing large quantities of additional carbon as carbon dioxide and methane from high-latitude forests and tundra.

(2) He suggests that the IPCC has not provided a study of the effects on the global economy of restricting the use of fossil fuels. He is correct, but there are ample studies to show that the transition can be made with great advantage. I suggest he consults a recent study by the World Resources Institute led by Dr Robert Repetto.

(3) He suggests that the problem of inequity between rich and poor countries has not been resolved. The issue will never be resolved to the satisfaction of all, but there is good basis for believing that the less-developed world can leap over the fossil-fuel age into an era of far more efficient use of energy with reliance on enduring sources. The developed world can and should aid this transition.The gains will be mutual. Again, there will always be an argument on the basis of equity, but we have never previously allowed such arguments to prevent major transitions in human affairs.

The Kyoto meeting has been dealing with with the most important social and political issue of our time. It is essential that systematic and rapid progress be made towards stabilizing, not the emissions, but the atmospheric burden of heat-trapping gases. The cost of failure is progressive environmental impoverishment and political chaos.