The coalition of rightwing politicians backing Brexit consists of climate change deniers, environmentalist cynics and no-holds-barred free-marketeers. For George Eustice to claim the UK’s environment will be top of a list of priorities if Britain decides to leave the European Union is, frankly, ridiculous (Minister attacks ‘spirit-crushing’ green directives, 31 May).

The big environmental challenges the UK faces – air pollution, catastrophic climate change, fish stocks, the hunting of migratory birds – do not respect national borders and can only be tackled collectively.

Our membership of the EU stops European countries engaging in a race to the bottom on environmental standards and gives us influence over our neighbours. One third of the dirty air affecting Londoners is blown in from farms across the Channel. If we left the EU, what legal redress would we be left with to stop them from doing this?

Britain was once labelled the “dirty man of Europe”. We spewed out the highest levels of acid-rain-causing sulphur dioxide across the EU, our beaches and rivers were awash with sewage, and the water we drank could often contain an alarming cocktail of harmful chemicals.

European action has improved 9,000 miles of river, and the waters of 95% of British beaches are now safe enough to wade into. It has stopped the degradation of European forests by acid rain, and it is now moving to tackle the air pollution crisis. Our membership of the EU has driven up environmental standards and given our country a vastly cleaner bill of health.

Seb Dance MEP

Labour, London; member of the European parliament environment committee

• George’s Eustice’s description of the EU’s environmental policies as “spirit-crushing” is in itself spirit-crushing. Having lived for many years in Cornwall and witnessed the benefit of EU membership, I find it hard to accept his cavalier attitude and to trust that the environment would be safe in hands such as his.

The EU has given Cornwall the opportunity to develop in all areas. It is one of the poorest areas in the UK and has benefited greatly from the EU social fund; Objective One funding contributed £350m from 2000 to 2006. This included the University of Cornwall (Tremough site).

Thanks to the EU, Cornish beaches were cleaned up too. Maybe our busy farmer’s son never had the pleasure of building sandcastles, hence his destructive, shortsighted comments.

Veronica Edwards

Malvern, Worcestershire

• I had to smile when I received a Friends of the Earth email asking me to vote remain because of the benefits of EU controls on air quality and 80,000 deaths a year because of low air quality. Fair point. Except that the EU is responsible for the plague of air pollution caused by the catastrophic switch to diesel in pursuit of lower CO 2 emissions.

I agree that we should remain in the EU, but feel that remainers should argue for better democratic scrutiny of EU laws as part of a remain deal. I conclude (since the dangers of diesel have been known for decades) that EU legislative processes could do well to emulate the UK’s, for example, in their beneficially tortuous exposure to scrutiny as they pass into law.

The EU’s control of wattage on vacuum cleaners is another case in point. Progressive reduction in power consumption will create the need to use vacuum cleaners for longer to remove a similar amount of dirt.

A more vigorous legislative process could never have acceded to a pro-diesel transport policy. Anyone who has visited one of America’s large cities, little afflicted by diesel, will know how dramatically better their air is than in any of Europe’s capitals.

Nigel Pollitt

London

• To obtain the option of reducing VAT on heating oil is an absurd argument for leaving the EU (Would leaving EU save British households £1.7bn a year on energy bills?, theguardian.com, 31 May), because it would be reckless and damaging to use that option. Any reduction in tax on fossil fuel would encourage more consumption of fossil fuel, just when the world needs to decrease it.

If the British government wanted to help poor people cope with heating costs (which of course it doesn’t), it could do that equally well by increasing welfare benefits for the poor – enough to cover what they typically pay in VAT on heating oil. (Or even more; their lives are hard, after all.) For the poor, this would be equivalent to eliminating the VAT on oil, while everyone else would still pay the tax. All, rich and poor alike, would still feel this small extra incentive to use less fuel. This option, permitted by EU rules as far as I know, would be better in every way.

Dr Richard Stallman

Cambridge, Massachusetts

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