Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks as Alberta Premier Danielle Smith listens in Fort McMurray on Oct. 1.Greg Halinda/The Canadian Press
Whose interest?
Re “Ottawa designates West Coast pipeline a project of national interest” (Oct. 2): Can we beat the United States at its own game?
During a time when Canada should be charting its own path in an increasingly complex world, I have been disappointed to watch us become more American. As Donald Trump cuts environmental regulations and campaigns on U.S. energy dominance, Canada talks about being an energy superpower.
It’s understandable that we turn to the familiar activity of natural resource extraction when we feel threatened, but this unimaginative approach will likely not help us become the important middle power we would like to be. In a world where demand for oil is decreasing, does it make sense to invest in a new pipeline and increased production?
Let’s start using our creative energies to find a better way forward.
Kyle Merritt Nelson, B.C.
Re “Mark Carney moved his pipeline politics a long way in a short time” (Oct. 2): It is suggested that trade war threats have “depolarized the politics of pipelines and solidified a public-opinion consensus for them.” Recent polls also show that many Canadians oppose public funding for pipelines, so they should still be considered divisive.
What unites Canadians is a desire for good jobs that align with a safe future for our children. The only economic scenario in which oil demand grows, and a new pipeline is justified, is an unlivable hothouse planet.
Who wants that?
Michael Polanyi Esquimalt, B.C.
Re “Clears things up” (Letters, Oct. 5): As these letter-writers demonstrate, even the most casual observer of debates over Alberta separatism would notice how they revolve around what Canada has or has not done for the oil industry.
A list of times Canada has not done its bidding is proof an independent Alberta is needed, while arguments against separation highlight occasions when Canada has in fact served oil interests, as though this were necessarily a social good.
I hope everyone reflects on this and queries whether the interests of Alberta and the oil industry are synonymous, as so many assume. That discussion is so centred on Big Oil should prompt us to wonder who sowed the seeds of Alberta separatism and whose interests the movement serves.
Perhaps there are relationships even more troubling than those that separatists seem to have with the Republican Party, itself the willing promoter of oil interests in U.S. domestic and foreign policy.
Geoff Read London, Ont.
Head in the sand
Re “The climate energy transition was a broken promise” (Report on Business, Oct. 1): It is claimed that climate action has been overplayed, hydrocarbons rule and will continue to do so and the Paris climate targets will not be met by 2050, if ever. So we should be “re-anchoring” in the fundamentals of affordability, competitiveness and productivity, and we should adapt to and manage the consequences of climate change (with more air conditioning in Europe, no less).
What is it about the proven physics of global warming that are misunderstood? Instead of acknowledging the reality of climate change but blithely advocating business as usual, we should all get our heads out of the oil sands and look at the worsening wildfires, floods, heat waves, glacier melt, etc., which are the inevitable consequences of such a policy.
James Duthie Nanaimo, B.C.
It is claimed that climate legislation and actions are “subordinating other essential social priorities,” but neglected are the inconvenient interconnections between climate change (a threat multiplier) and other major issues including the costs of food, health care, housing and insurance.
The cost of inaction will likely soon exceed the short-term profit incurred mainly by the oil industry. There is the challenge of a continuing increase in the world’s energy needs; renewables can provide tremendous economic opportunities and be developed faster if our politicians and the public better recognize the urgency.
China has certainly been way ahead of everyone else in this. Canada should align its investments with climate action by throwing less money at fossil fuel projects (which risk becoming stranded) and much more for renewables.
After all, a majority of Canadians want climate action.
Victor Dorian Edmonton
Missing middle
Re “Economic returns from defence spending push will require removing barriers for industry: report” (Report on Business, Sept. 29): In my experience, countries with strong defence industries have product development pipelines that necessarily include public and private laboratories, whose facilities are expensive and beyond the capability of most universities.
Universities typically work on discovery and proof of basic scientific concepts deemed to be low technology readiness level. Companies want to work with and polish technologies already proven in realistic conditions deemed high TRL.
It follows that public and private laboratories which can provide, for example, realistic temperature, pressure, electromagnetic interference and vibration conditions (deemed mid-TRL) are necessary to fill in the gap between what universities learn and what companies need.
As well, intellectual property should remain in Canada, but a key barrier is how to put it in the hands of companies that can best exploit it. IP in the long-term hands of the government or a university would generate little economic value.
Steve Zan Ottawa
New season
Re “CBC to air PWHL games on revamped Hockey Night in Canada this fall” (Sports, Sept. 29): I am not a hockey fan, but I am outraged that the tradition of Hockey Night in Canada will no longer be shown in its usual format.
This program has shown National Hockey League games for more than 70 years on CBC. Instead games will now only appear on channels which viewers must pay for.
There are NHL fans who may not have the means to pay for an extra channel. How many pensioners who enjoy the NHL, for example, simply cannot afford it? We pay enough for the channels we currently have.
I understand Professional Women’s Hockey League games will air on HNIC, which many will watch and enjoy. However for fans of well-known NHL teams, this is a greedy decision which has resulted in Saturday night never being the same.
Ann Neilson London, Ont.
This is great news for hockey fans, as well as those just happy to see a longtime Canadian television institution continue.
Along with airing the professional women’s games, this revamp provides an opportunity to further change Hockey Night in Canada by making it a show that looks at all aspects of Canadan hockey, perhaps in a newsmagazine style.
There are a lot of hockey leagues and activities in the country that don’t get the exposure they deserve. A new HNIC could go a long way to correct this, as well as make a program that millions of hockey-mad Canadians would be happy to watch.
Don Sancton Beaconsfield, Que.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: [email protected]
