George Monbiot’s article (The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us, 3 August) reinforced something I’ve been aware of since the Paris climate talks – a dearth of information and emphasis in the media regarding action worldwide aiming to ensure that the world’s average temperature doesn’t rise by more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial level.

Why am I hearing about small community efforts to install solar panels in emails from organisations like Friends of the Earth and 10:10 and not on TV or in the papers? Why is it that the decision of the Saudi government to move to renewables was not trumpeted by the media, but had to be searched out online? Why is it that the efforts of organisations like Ethex are not being publicised and praised, giving more people the knowledge they need in order to invest in community renewable energy projects? Above all, why is it that the appalling and shameful lack of action of the Conservative government on reaching the Paris goals is not being more frequently and urgently challenged in the media?

There is far more that can be done by individuals, but people are not reminded of the urgency of their responsibilities, perhaps because the media feel that their audience will become saturated and resistant if too much emphasis is placed on these issues. Meanwhile, the world seems to be en route to a terrifying climatic future, and our grandchildren will surely be justified in saying: “Why didn’t you do something before it was too late?”

Penny Kent

Stroud, Gloucestershire

• George Monbiot laments the failure of the press to keep alive awareness that global warming is already upon us. But he ignores the failures of another institution: the university. A proper basic task of academic inquiry is to help promote human welfare by intellectual and educational means. In a democracy, human welfare requires the electorate to have a good understanding of what our problems are and what we need to do about them – above all our urgent global problems such as climate change. Hence, universities, in seeking to promote human welfare, need to take up, as a basic task, intelligent public education about our problems and what to do about them. Promoting public awareness of the vital need to do much more to halt climate change, by means of discussion and debate, ought to be a basic activity of universities. At present it is not.

Nicholas Maxwell

Emeritus reader, science and technology studies, University College London

• While George Monbiot is right to berate the media industry for granting the transport, farming, gas, oil and coal industries “a social licence to operate”, thus failing to “prevent climate breakdown”, despair is a poor motivator. So it’s good to know that, in 2015, 147 gigawatts of renewable electricity – the largest ever annual increase – came online and more than twice the amount was spent on renewables compared with coal- and gas-fired generation. About $6.22tn is being invested in the green economy, from central banks, development banks, business, city governments and capital markets. In addition Sweden, Costa Rica and Germany have committed to go carbon neutral; India has promised to make all cars electric; Norway has vowed to be the first country to be “deforestation free” and go carbon neutral by 2030 and China’s installed renewable energy capacity is bigger than all other countries around the world combined. But George is right that the climate crisis is already here. So, spurred on by him and because the lies are still landing thick and fast, we must all act individually and together by pressuring governments and businesses to accelerate de-carbonisation.

David Murray

Wallington, Surrey

• George Monbiot is spot on. I awoke during the early morning a week ago and turned on the World Service broadcast on BBC Radio 4. There was a news item quoting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report on the latest (June 2016) monthly land and oceanic temperatures. The report said that the recent trend of rising temperatures was continuing and the latest figures showed that the Paris target was close to being breached. I was interested to see how this story would develop over the next few hours and days, particularly on the national news.

The result was more or less complete silence. It took a couple of days before the BBC News website Science and Environment page (you have to scroll down to the bottom of the opening page to find it) had a brief reference to the issue. Why should this be so? As a topic of international importance for the future of the planet it surely warrants much greater exposure.

Alan Williams

Pontypool, Gwent

• George Monbiot paints a depressing picture on climate change but he may have understated some concerns. Even if emissions from human activities are cut, those from melting ice sheets will increase while the darker surfaces exposed will absorb more heat. It is the total levels of all greenhouse gasses that are relevant, and I suspect there is a lag between rising levels and associated temperature rises, so temperature rises now reflect rising levels some years back. The situation may be worse than he suggests.

Still, there are various ways of cutting human emissions and, as an obvious retort to sceptics, most would still be sensible if climate change were purely natural or somehow a damp squib. Less waste, fewer futile activities, restoring fish stocks, reducing livestock’s impact, improving food security, alternatives to fossil fuels and combining conservation with careful use spring to mind, although bioengineering may still be necessary, despite its potential risks.

I accept that nobody really wants the job or bill or to have their lifestyle affected but the potential financial harm alone from climate change is massive, so an insurance policy is worthwhile. The world may be run by bean-counters but surely some of them are numerate.

Iain Climie

Whitchurch, Hampshire

• If climate change is as important as George Monbiot asserts (and in the long term nothing else matters much if we get it wrong), should we not be considering it in our “Brexit strategy”? Thus far all we have heard is that trade is good for competition and should be maximised. Without a carbon tax – or rationing – this will also maximise carbon emissions and we are toast.

James Page

Richmond upon Thames, Surrey

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com