Trump’s toga | Reform UK donations | Ben Delo | Word watch | Andy Burnham | The name game

Octavian (later Emperor Augustus), following his victorious battles of Illyricum and Actium, announced he would give 400 sesterces to adult male citizens. Will we see the US president wearing an emperor’s purple and gold toga soon (Trump promise of $5,000 for US citizens after midterms decried as ‘bribery’, 10 September)?
David Shannon
Ashton under Hill, Worcestershire

• Can we assume that the donations to Reform UK from the billionaires Christopher Harborne and Ben Delo (Report, 12 September) will be followed by some sort of cash offer for every adult in the UK should Mr Farage win the next election?
Phil Thomas
Frodsham, Cheshire

The offshore windfarm at Berwick Bank is predicted to kill more than 4,000 birds in its first year alone – among them gannets, puffins and kittiwakes, writes Ashley Davies

Lev Parikian paints a vivid picture of the gannets of the Bass Rock and the impact that avian flu has had on their numbers (Country diary, 31 August). There’s another threat, though, and it’s one that puts some supporters of renewable energy like me in a novel situation: protesting against the construction of a windfarm.

Berwick Bank will be one of the biggest offshore windfarms in the world – a few kilometres from the Bass. This is perilously close, and the RSPB has calculated that it will kill more than 4,000 seabirds in its first year alone, among them gannets, puffins and endangered kittiwakes.

Chief of nuclear watchdog says secret Assad-era facility would have been able to produce fissile material

A nearly complete nuclear reactor built secretly during the rule of the toppled Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad would have been able to produce fissile material for possible use in nuclear weapons, the chief of the UN nuclear watchdog has revealed.

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last month visited two sites, one in Deir ez-Zor and a second in an undisclosed location identified to them by Syrian authorities.

Datacentres should generate their own power and control their emissions, writes Richard Lamming, while Michael McClelland says we should reduce our digital communication. Plus a letter from Malcolm Fraser

The case of future datacentres demanding more electricity than the entire United Kingdom (Two planned datacentres will have higher UK carbon emissions than ExxonMobil, analysis finds, 25 August) is an example of corporates transferring their problems to society and the electorate. This must not be allowed to happen.

One solution would be to make each datacentre responsible for generating all its own electricity and for reducing its CO₂ emissions to zero. These installations will have vast areas of roofing and car parks that could be covered in solar panels, space for wind generation and battery storage, and for emissions scrubbers.

A financial model that could cut the cost of installing solar panels for many homeowners is welcomed by Alexis Abramson

The UK proposal to use “solar bonds” to make rooftop solar more affordable is a smart solution to a fundamental problem: the rising cost of capital (Cut cost of loans for solar panels on UK homes, ministers urged, 21 August).

A household that can pay for solar upfront saves money from day one. For everyone else, high-interest financing can consume much of those savings and ultimately deter people from installing the technology. A solar bond structure changes that equation: investors receive a modest, guaranteed return, and homeowners get access to cheaper capital. Because the loan is attached to the property rather than the individual, there’s no issue if the person moves.

Colin Hines says Andy Burnham’s focus should be on drastically cutting fossil fuel use in a way that reduces bills and generates secure jobs

It is hardly surprising that many who were optimistic and supportive of Andy Burnham becoming prime minister, but who also prioritised tackling climate chaos, are becoming increasingly unsure about him, given his tardiness in emphasising this threat as an overriding policy objective (Labour ‘could lose up to 50 seats’ to Greens if new drilling in North Sea approved, 19 August).

One of the problems he faces is that the political debate around energy is obsessed with relatively short-term fossil fuel supplies. Instead, the focus should be on drastically and rapidly cutting fossil fuel use in a way that reduces bills and generates secure jobs through a devolved energy programme for every postcode.

John Barstow says oil expansion is a necessity, while David Parker wonders if the prime minister will protect the planet or the fossil fuel industry

North Sea oil expansion is a necessity (Burnham risks first revolt as PM over apparent support for North Sea drilling, 31 July). I state this as an environmentalist – not despite. Oil is a feedstock, not mere fuel. Oil is necessary for the day-to-day maintenance of wind turbines, nuclear plants and rail. Hence oil is part and parcel of supply chains for green tech. A domestic oil base brings such supply chains closer. This also underscores the case for approval of coking coal extraction in Cumbria. Green tech needs high-grade steel and high-grade steel needs coking coal.

There are much better ways of helping the environment, such as more tree planting and stopping plastic waste being dumped into our seas. The carbon sink factor would be helped. A major expansion of the UK’s North Sea oil sector will make a more cohesive UK, complete with more jobs in Scotland and the north of England, including in supply manufacturing chains.

British cheesemakers have struggled to find a use for the 95,000 tonnes of salty whey they produce every year. But researchers may have come up with a solution

Name: Whey.

Age: As old as milk.

The predicted £264bn cost by 2050 could be even higher, plus renewables avoid a far higher total of emissions than can be captured, writes Andrew Boswell, while Simon Oldridge calls out vested interests

Prof Myles Allen and colleagues, in their letter (12 July) on carbon capture and storage (CCS), propose licensing gasfields on condition that producers store an increasing proportion of “the carbon dioxide their products generate”. Their proposal only considers CO₂. Methane is excluded by choice although it leaks throughout global fossil-fuel supply chains, including during extraction, processing, liquefaction and shipping.

A growing academic literature, supported by satellite observations of major methane plumes, shows that these emissions can be very substantial, and are the dominant near-term climate impact for gas supplied as liquefied natural gas.

Prof Myles Allen, Stephanie Loo and Toby Lockwood, and Olivia Powis, respond to an article by George Monbiot about ‘the great carbon capture con’

George Monbiot suggests that we can solve climate change without carbon capture and storage (The great carbon capture con: behold the wasted billions Burnham could claw back, 8 July). Physics says otherwise. The world is going to generate more carbon dioxide than we can safely dump into the atmosphere, and we can’t rely on our stressed biosphere and oceans to mop up the excess. Stopping global warming will therefore require capturing and durably disposing of carbon dioxide on a huge scale, which right now means injecting it back underground.

Where George does make a good point is in questioning whether carbon dioxide disposal should for ever be paid for using public money. Why should private companies be allowed to make large profits taking carbon out of the ground while the taxpayer foots the bill to put it back? The obvious solution: require those who extract fossil fuels to pay for the disposal of the carbon dioxide their products generate. If the fraction they store rises to 100% by mid-century, fossil fuel use would cause no further warming thereafter.

Neil Mackenzie on the environmental impact of the Loch Kemp project

Your article (First major hydropower projects in Great Britain in 40 years given go-ahead, 26 June) describes the proposal to build three pumped storage schemes in the Scottish Highlands. But it does not mention the huge environmental cost.

One scheme, the Loch Kemp project, will draw water from Loch Ness and pump it into the upper reservoir created by enlarging Loch Kemp. A giant power station is to be built in protected ancient woodland on the shores of Loch Ness. This woodland is a special area of conservation, an internationally recognised site, and will be partly destroyed by the power station and access road.

Readers respond to an article about Erin Brockovich’s battle against datacentres and voice their fears for the environment

What are the benefits obtained from AI’s massive use of electricity and water (‘We’re up against forces that have all the money in the world’: Erin Brockovich on her battle against AI datacentres, 29 June)? Analysis shows that the top four uses of AI are “therapy/companionship”, “technical assistance and troubleshooting”, “fun and nonsense”, and “fan fiction and storytelling”.

AI use for therapy, and due to loneliness, appears not to reduce loneliness. AI provides affirmation, but at the expense of reducing the social skills needed to interact in the real world. Teachers report that students’ use of AI reduces their capacity for critical thinking.

Cllr Lucy Shaw says councils could take up many policies to help, including more support for rooftop solar installations

Your editorial is right that the government could be doing more to help with the cost of living (The Guardian view on Britain’s coming energy shock: mini-measures won’t suffice, 22 May). That extends to local government, too. Renewable energy projects, from the industrial scale right down to rooftops, can be scuppered locally even if there is national support. The wealthiest borough in the entire country, Kensington and Chelsea, has the nation’s lowest rooftop solar installation rate, at just 0.6% of households according to the MCS installer database. This is despite touting groundbreaking policies to make it easier to build solar in conservation areas.

There are so many local policies that would help. Coordinating solar installations by street could lead to material cost savings, as would simpler permitting rules, and installations on council-owned rooftops. When 80% of cars in the borough are parked on the street, cost-effective public charging is essential to ensure that drivers can make the switch, like offering discounted charging when grid power is cheapest. Partnering with housing associations, charities, and energy suppliers to help people access energy efficiency services and government capital grants, or negotiate payment plans for their bills could go a long way to making people feel more secure.