The readers' editor on... the true cost of flying and climate change

Climate change seems set to eclipse animal rights as the issue that will spark the most virulent correspondence with this paper. What can only be described as hate mail has arrived here since our travel section highlighted 10 of Earth's most precious natural treasures threatened by global warming. From polar bears in the Arctic and mountain gorillas in Africa, each entry in the list included details on how to see them; nine out of the 10 involving flying. Leaving aside the simply abusive responses, many readers had some very pertinent points to make. 'Is it not at best ironic that flying is helping to destroy just what we're being encouraged to fly to see?' asked one. Another wrote: 'The single biggest contribution we can make to reduce the impact of climate change is to cut back on how often we fly. Your paper's plethora of adverts encouraging readers to take to the air is a reminder of just how far we are from recognising we are both the cause and the cure for climate change.'

Our travel editor had acknowledged this from the start and wrote an accompanying article justifying why she had chosen to run the feature.

We recognise the paradox,' she wrote, 'but while those of us fortunate enough to be able to afford the luxury of foreign travel agonise over our carbon footprints, the livelihoods of people in developing countries where tourism is often the backbone of the economy are also hanging in the balance...tourism has proved itself to be a powerful tool for encouraging local populations to protect their natural resources.' That argument didn't wash with some angry readers. 'The hoteliers', guides' and trackers' income will vanish as soon as these "wonders" become extinct,' wrote one. 'What on earth is the point of encouraging someone whose land is going to be inundated by the sea to think of themselves as its ecological guardian?'

Other readers thought we were encouraging a ghoulish fascination in doomed nature. 'You make the lazy comment that it raises the issue. That's not good enough. Unless we start to make changes to the way we live, the planet is in unimaginable trouble. You have enormous power to influence your readership for the good. Please start to use that power.'

· Last year, prompted by concern over 'copycat' suicides, a long-overdue clause was added to the Editors' Code, the guidelines journalists follow in their work. It says: 'When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used.'

Last week, our magazine ran the moving story of a brilliant Liverpool lawyer who ended his life by throwing himself from the top of the city's Anglican cathedral. Some readers were distressed - rightly, in my view - at the level of detail we gave and at the use of a series of photographs showing where he jumped. The piece also failed to add contact details for agencies such as the Samaritans which help people affected by the issues raised in such coverage, something the Magazine now acknowledges it should have done.

· Samaritans 08457 909090www.mediawise.org.uk/suicide

[email protected]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2010482,00.html