Share this Story: Your letters for Oct. 10
Your letters for Oct. 10
Lake Hazen on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut is viewed from the Ruggles River outflow in this May 2015 handout photo. New research that examines the effect of climate change on a remote Arctic lake concludes those ecosytems are changing more quickly and profoundly than previously thought. Canadian researchers recently published research on Lake Hazen on Ellesmere Island, one of the first studies to look at the impacts of warming on an entire Arctic ecosystem. Photo by Igor Lehnherr /THE CANADIAN PRESS
Politicians keep refuting the work of science
Re: Ottawa unmoved by two premiers' stand on carbon; Emissions pricing to be implemented despite challenges from Moe, Ford: Grits, Oct. 5
Your letters for Oct. 10 Back to video
It is extremely sad and discouraging to see leaders of conservative parties and governments across Canada reverse the small first steps we are taking to address climate change. A carbon levy is a proven tool to address greenhouse gas emissions.
In their "policy by slogan" rhetoric, they offer nothing to replace some form of carbon levy. They offer no leadership in addressing the most important reality of our time. In their sloganeering, they undo the hard work of thousands of scientists, bureaucrats, and governments who were (some still are) making progress. What will they tell next generations?
Discouraged but still with hope.
Bill Phipps, Calgary
Time now to invest in climate research
Re: Is it getting too hot to farm? UN asks, Oct. 9
Recently the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared that managing climate change could be a matter of life or death. On Sunday, the Nobel Prize for Economics was awarded to William Nordhaus for research into the economics of a warming planet and carbon pricing. He endorses a universal tax on carbon. It was also awarded to Paul Romer, who researched why economies grow and showed that the key is innovation.
Both these men and the scientific community tell us that a shift is a priority and also feasible within the laws of physics and chemistry. We need to shift from present practices to those that will make our planet sustainable. Polluting forms of energy, particularly those involving fossil fuels, must be stopped. This can be done by no longer supporting oil companies with tax breaks and other incentives of all kinds, not to mention new projects in a dying industry, costing millions.
Funds should be rerouted to clean energy and retraining our workforce to find employment to deal with this shift. We citizens must be protected from rising costs with a fee and dividend approach to carbon pricing. If we receive the dividends from carbon pricing paid directly back to us we can all pull our weight to bring ourselves into a good balance.
Marylee Banyard, Nelson, B.C.
Who has the most to gain from an Olympics?
Re: Olympic vote seems stacked on the Yes side, Opinion, Oct. 9
I agree with Breakenridge that the bid process seems to be heavily biased in favour of a "yes." The important question is why?
For the greater glory of the city and our children is simply not credible. The investigative maxim of "follow the money" should apply here. As Adam Smith wrote many years ago the major motivator in business is greed and personal gain. So who would that be? Wouldn't it be interesting to find out and devise a system where those expecting to gain are made to bear the inevitable overrun costs. Just see what that would do to the vote result.
Keith Todd, Calgary