Instead of whinging over the price of fuel and condemning the amount of tax on it, we would do better to remind ourselves that petroleum is a non-renewable resource that, because of our criminally extravagant use of it, will not only run out before today's children reach retirement, but is also changing the composition of the atmosphere and threatening the stability of our planet's life-supporting ecosystems ("Tax is the real scandal", Comment and Opinion, 10 September 2000).

Although very few people are able or prepared to face up to it, our whole civilisation is built on sand - i.e. on the oil that is contained in it.

But unless we do face up to this extremely important fact very soon, and set about replacing the unsound foundations on which our current non-sustainable economy is based with ones that are sound and sustainable, our own children or grandchildren are going to curse us for our selfishness and stupidity in causing the biggest calamity in human history.

Our free-market economy has served us well, but will only continue to do so if it is adapted and constrained to operate well within the limits of sustainability on our large but finite planet with its 6 billion human inhabitants and their insatiable desires for ever increasing material opportunities and wealth. 

 Left to itself, the free-market economy will continue to consume all available natural resources until they are depleted, seriously damaging our planet's life-supporting ecosystems in the process. The consequences do not bear thinking about, which is perhaps why many people chose not to do so. But if we are to avoid catastrophe, we must. We must think about it intensely and find ways of constraining and directing our economy and life styles towards achieving sustainability in the shortest possible time.

The best way for government to do this in a free-market economy is through so-called "ecotaxes" on non-sustainable economic activity, such as the current extravagant consumption of oil and other non-renewable recourses.

"Tax" is an unfortunate word with almost wholly negative associations, because it also means "to burden". In contrast, the German word for "tax" is "Steuer", which as a verb means "to steer". This is exactly how "ecotaxation" needs to be seen: not as a burden, to be avoided if possible, but as a vitally necessary means of steering our economy and life styles towards sustainability.

The trouble is, much of what we in the West have got used to during the past 50 years, and now consider essential to our way of life, is inherently non-sustainable. Or does anyone seriously believe that all 6 (soon 8 - 10) billion of us can each have their own motorcar or fly off around the world whenever they wish? Or that some how we can persuade the Chinese and the billions of others in the developing world to stop following our, the West's, non-sustainable example?

I ask myself what you at the Telegraph, Britain's largest serious "(C)conservative" newspaper, consider more worthy of conservation: the status quo of non-sustainable economics and  life styles, or the life-supporting ecosystems of our planet, on which we and coming generations depend for survival?

Judging by the "Comment and Opinion" expressed in last Sunday's Telegraph, I can only assume that it is the former.