YOUR editorial ("Measures needed to stop the collapse of fish stocks", The Herald, November 2) rightly expresses concern about the threat to fish stocks of warming seas around Scotland’s coasts ("Warming seas mean cod and haddock will quit UK waters", The Herald, November 1), and calls for Edinburgh and London governments to take note of this. You also report on the study by the Oil and Gas Authority that the North Sea has 10-20 billion barrels of oil waiting to be exploited ("North Sea has 10bn barrels of oil and will last UK for 20 more years", The Herald, November 2). Then on the back page you report BP’s surge in profits as good news for the oil and gas sector ("Surge in profits at BP lifts oil and gas sector", Herald business, November 1).

There is a link between these stories. Continued exploitation of oil and other fossil fuels, in the North Sea and across the world, will drive further heating of the seas and lead to the total loss of Scottish haddock. It isn’t just our fish suppers that are endangered, however. Oxfam’s report Uprooted by Climate Change (published November 2) highlights what it calls “the terrible global reality” of climate change, which “hits the most vulnerable people in the world hardest”.

What can Scotland do in the face of global warming? We have already shown leadership in setting challenging climate targets, but we have to do more. A good next step would be to admit that we need to leave all of the unexploited oil below the North Sea, and start taking the measures necessary to doing so.

Ken Wardrop,

1 Abbey Drive, Glasgow.

THE recently published Cost of Energy Review found that the record of government intervention has been poor and consumers are losing out ("Energy prices ‘are too high’", The Herald, October 26). In Scotland, Holyrood intervention has resulted in 14,000 MW of installed generation to meet a maximum winter demand of 5,000 MW which reduces to 2,000 MW in summer.

To date, not a single MSP has given an explanation for the cost of 9,000 MW of surplus capacity on the budgets of the 40 per cent of Scots living in fuel poverty. At £5 million per MW installed the surplus generation amounts to a bill of £45 billion which sits idle in the Scottish hills yet still accrues a huge profit for the plant owners.

Note that the 40 per cent in fuel poverty received a pledge from Holyrood that their poverty would be eliminated by the end of 2016 yet still such poverty exists.

Ian Moir,

79 Queen Street, Castle Douglas.

CLEARLY the environment does not figure in the decision-making of the Royal Navy. We have always known that they possess enough nuclear material in their submarines to destroy much of the planet. Now we learn that they and the National Audit Office are actively encouraging the maintenance staff not to recycle parts from equipment which is now redundant (“Nuclear subs rely on cannibalised parts to keep sailing,” The Herald, November 1).

We live in a world of finite resources. We should therefore, as a matter of priority, be recycling, and should be reusing items whenever possible. The stated policy of the Royal Navy appears to be to have shiny new equipment. Where a craft is not being used in a life or death situation, as in the case of a nuclear submarine or an aircraft carrier, the policy should be to recycle. Indeed I do wonder if the cost of our nuclear deterrent is artificially inflated by the cost of not reusing equipment which is still adequate for the purpose of the simple task of taking the appropriate number of war heads to sea.

Sandy Gemmill,

40 Warriston Gardens, Edinburgh.