The “final tick box” to limit global warming is not just political (Global warming must not exceed 1.5C, landmark UN report warns, 8 October), it is also economic. Capitalism, the cause of global warming, cannot be its remedy. Industrial production came about when commodity production became dominant – an economic system in which commodities are produced for the sole purpose of being sold, upon which they return more money to the investors than their original outlay.

The profit is then used to produce more commodities; a continually expanding process with expanding energy needs. New technology and sustainable sources of energy will help to contain global warming, but only if the rate of removing pollutants exceeds the rate of increase in energy needs. Evidence so far points to the contrary.

Sustainable sources of energy such as solar and wind power are not a panacea; they are not environmentally neutral. Wind turbines generate power by absorbing energy from the wind, energy that would otherwise be transferred to the human and animal habitats down the line. With relatively few turbines, the loss of wind energy is insignificant. However, imagine a wall of turbines across the Atlantic and the effect on the habitats in Europe and beyond would be considerable.

The same applies to solar panels that divert the sun’s energy destined for the ground and transform it into electricity. Blocking sun rays from reaching the Earth has consequences.

We need to move away from production for sale to production for use.

Fawzi Ibrahim

Author, Capitalism versus Planet Earth: An Irreconcilable Conflict

• The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report reminds me of a speech to the Royal Society in September 1988 by Margaret Thatcher when she said: “For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world’s systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes … we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.” As John Vidal later wrote, “she will be remembered for her short-lived ‘green period’ in the late 1980s when she helped put climate change … acid rain and pollution on to the mainstream political map.”

Where are the world leaders of today who will put the long-term challenges of environmental change up front and keep them there?

Leslie Jones

Cirencester, Gloucestershire

• The message of the IPCC report is not a moral one but an existential one, because the continuation of human civilisation is put at risk by reckless growth. Important though it is, technology alone will not see us through, we also need to push back the force behind this growth – neoliberal capitalism. The UK, Australia and the US seem indifferent to the danger. The surest way to make a positive British response is to ensure a Labour government. Labour’s economic plans make it clear the party will “go after capitalism itself”, with a range of cooperative, mutual and nationalised structures to replace it.

RL Symonds

Broadstairs Labour party, Kent

• Unlike most other national newspapers, the Guardian put the UN’s latest climate report on the front page. However, it failed to give the Green party autumn conference more than a few column inches last Friday.

Mark Haworth-Booth

Swimbridge, North Devon

• It was good to see the energy minister, Claire Perry, acknowledge that “there is now no excuse, and action is needed” (Lawmakers urged to act over climate change ‘cliff-edge’, 8 October). But she spoke as if she has no influence over what the UK does to tackle climate change, and failed to recognise that her own government is taking us in the wrong direction.

Ministers are pursuing carbon-intensive and ecologically destructive projects such as airport expansion, fracking and HS2 – while slashing support for renewables.

In his budget this month, the chancellor is expected to spend £800m on freezing fuel duty for the ninth consecutive year – while cutting support for electric vehicles. Meanwhile, those who fight to protect communities from climate breakdown – like the three anti-fracking protesters who were sent to prison last month – are criminalised.

If ministers are serious about taking the action, they must embrace the opportunities to create a fairer, healthier, safer society that come with the economic overhaul we need. It means saving money by scrapping projects such as airport expansion and spending it on creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in renewable energy; stopping subsidies for fossil fuels and investing instead in home insulation to cut bills; creating a healthier society through investment in walking, cycling and public transport, and providing incentives for people to eat less meat and dairy.

With this government, we’re going to need a mass movement to force those in power into action.

Caroline Lucas MP

Green, Brighton Pavilion

• The problems caused by the 1929 crash were, in a way, resolved by the outbreak of the second world war. After the 2008 crash we could be in a similar state. However, the overriding problem facing us all today is not war, but climate change. Could the long effort required to ameliorate the effects of climate change give fresh purpose to a flagging economic system, as the war did before?

A Ian Hale

Barbon, Cumbria

• Read more environment letters at gu.com/letters

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

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition