THERE are two people I’d really like to vote for on May 7, but unfortunately neither of them is a candidate. One is Graham Carter, for his manifesto printed on April 20, which caused great hilarity and delight amongst my dinner guests the other night. Keep us smiling, Graham!

The other is Jane Milner-Barry, whose letter in the same edition went — wham! — straight to the point. It is not only President Obama who has said that climate change is the greatest threat facing mankind. This is the scientific consensus. I am not hearing this loudly and clearly from any of the parliamentary candidates. And I have heard nothing (I hope it’s being said out of my hearing) about the number of “climate changers” in this overcrowded world of ours.

Look up the work of the charity Population Matters and consider the IPAT equation: (Environmental) Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology. Not “plus”, but “times”. Yet population is so often seen as the “invariable variable” in this equation.

To deal with climate change (it might be too late to stop it), we need to stop using damaging technology but use all the “appropriate” technology we can get (renewables, etc). Some humans need to reduce their affluence, whereas some need to increase it, or have any at all. But all such efforts will be overwhelmed if world/regional/national populations are not reduced — non-coercively, of course.

SUE BIRLEY Wanborough Swindon