eca_review_2016_10_26

6 O c t o b e r 2 7 ' 1 6 c O r o n a t i o n / S t e t t l e r , A b . E C A r e v i e w
R
R
R
R
R
Published by
Coronation
Review
Limited
ON THE OTHER HAND
Time to stop denying
and just get on with it
by B. Schimke
Alberta still has many climate
change deniers and writing a column
in support of the carbon tax is likely
dangerous to my wellbeing. But the
reality is even if we don’t believe in
global warming the majority of
Canadians and most of the world do
believe global warming is the number
one threat to our planet. We just can’t
continue to think “they’re stupid and
we’re right”.
Suncor, the largest operator in the
oil sands, has supported a broad-based
price on carbon for years. They see it
as an important tool to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions in the fight
against climate change. Alberta’s
riches have declined for two reasons,
over supply of oil internationally and
our inability to address climate
change.
“
Alberta has chosen
to use the funds for
research and development
of emissions-lowering
technologies
While the Canadian and provincial
governments were dithering and
denying climate change, the world
moved past. In Alberta it’s understandable
after decades of being spoiled with
quick profits and huge pay cheques
from fossil fuels. Sure global warming
will have less direct effect on Alberta
and Saskatchewan because we’re far
away from oceans lapping off significant
portions of our land. And from an
agricultural perspective, Alberta and
Saskatchewan will actually benefit
from global warming as the climate
conditions should allow the number
one cash crop in the world, corn, to be
grown extensively on the prairies.
But, again we’re not alone in this world
and it’s not all about us.
What a difference it would have
made if we had been proactive on climate
change 15 years ago, as was
Germany. Instead we gained the reputation
of world slackers when we opted
out of the Kyoto accord and the federal
government starting gutting environmental
legislation to facilitate pipeline
construction.
Our timing was impeccably bad.
Fractioning in the United States made
it energy-self-sufficient; China couldn’t
keep up their torrid economic pace and
the science of climate change was
being accepted by the majority of the
world’s population, because it was
affecting their lives adversely.
Today, Germany powers virtually
all its domestic needs with low or noncarbon
emissions technology. Yet they
continue selling coal to less wealthy,
developing countries who cannot yet
“
72 pt
East Central Alberta
EVIEW
60 pt
48 pt
36 pt
V I E W P O I N T S
afford to move away from fossil fuels.
The Germans acted on the seismic
shift that was coming and they and
other European countries are now
leading the way into the new energy
world. It’s like we never learned any
lessons from the arrival of the combustion
engine and the resultant
Industrial Revolution. No one has ever
argued that fossil fuel won’t continue
to be a major power source for decades
to come, it’s just we’ve ran out of time
to continue to do nothing for the
future.
The carbon tax will generate a significant
amount of money and
contrary to what some Premiers say,
all the money goes back to the provincial
governments. Alberta has chosen
to use the funds for research and development
of emissions-lowering
technologies; looking to build jobs for
the future. Saskatchewan can use their
carbon taxes to lower taxes if that’s
their choice.
Trudeau was right to force the hand
of the provinces. At least three, perhaps
four provinces would have
continued to avoid real CO2 emission
reductions. A national carbon tax also
levels the playing field between
provinces.
Since all climate agreements are
between national governments, it is
most appropriate that our federal government
set the guidelines, giving
provinces flexibility but not abdication
rights.
And please, let’s not believe that we
the people haven’t paid industry before
to do research and development. Both
the federal and provincial governments
have poured millions of dollars
over the last 55 years into research and
new technology development to enable
our oil sands industry to be where it is
today. Don’t think that we the taxpayers
haven’t bailed out companies
either. I was at Syncrude during the
late 1970s and it was our two levels of
government that were solely responsible
for saving Syncrude. The
consortium had lost one major partner
and the rest weren’t prepared to carry
on and bear the extra risk. Today no
one could deny that our governments’
decisions to invest in Syncrude in the
1970s was a great one.
The same will happen with the
carbon tax. It will be used to motivate
the oil and gas industry to engage in
research and development for new and
better non-carbon emission options
and/or continue to improve emission
controls and processes for our carbonbased
industry.
And lastly, the carbon tax will show
the world that Canada is prepared to
pony up and do our part to reduce
greenhouse gases. And that surely will
go much further in securing pipelines
and moving our oil sands’ output to
markets than our denial and ignore
strategies of the last 15 years.
LETTERS POLICY • Letters to the Editor are
welcomed • Must be signed and a phone number
included so the writer’s identity can be verified.
• eca Review reserves the right to edit letters for
legal considerations, taste and brevity. Letters and
columns submitted are not necessarily the opinion
of this newspaper.
Member of:
Office Hours Mon. - Fri. 9 am - 5 pm
R
30 pt
Subscriptions:
4923 - Victoria Avenue
$42.00 in Canada; $74.20 in US;
Tel. (403) 578-4111 Fax (403) 578-2088
R
24 pt
$135.15 Overseas. (All prices include GST) Mail: Box 70, Coronation, AB Canada, T0C 1C0 Website ECAreview.com
Much less democratic
than present system
by Herman Schwenk
Well I’m back for a couple of issues at
least.
I know some of you were disappointed
that I wasn’t
submitting columns
during the summer. I’ve
got to the age where I
can’t concentrate on two
or more activities at once.
During the summer I am
busy with my garden and
yard work every day and
haven’t the time or inclination
to think about
Schwenk
issues for a column.
In the Oct. 6 issue of
the ECA Review there
PRAIRIEVIEW
Gayle Jaraway
MarKetinG 403-578-4111
advertise@ecareview.com
Joyce Webster
Publisher/Editor
publisher@ecareview.com
was a letter to the editor from Frank
VanderKley of Trochu, Ab. on how he
thinks we should change the way we
would elect our MP’s in the future. He
claims that the process would be more
democratic than our ‘first past the post
system’.
The system he proposes, in my mind,
would be much less democratic than
our present system and I will explain
why.
With our present system of electing
MP’s, they are accountable to the
people in their constituency and once
elected they are representing all the
people in that constituency, not just the
ones that voted for them.
There has been a lot of debate for the
past few years about our unelected
senators. They are not accountable to
the people that they are supposed to
represent. They are only accountable
to the prime minister who appoints
them.
Vanderkley’s proposal for electing
MP’s would be even worse. There
would be absolutely no connection
between the MP and the people that he
or she is supposed to represent.
You would simply be voting for a
party and God knows what kind of
screwballs the party would be
appointing as MP’s.
For an MP to effectively represent
his or her constituents they need to
have some kind of personal relationship
with their constituents.
With our present ‘first past the post
system’ a person has to go through a
double process to become an MP.
They first have to contest a
nomination process by members
of the party that they will represent
in the election to be a
candidate.
Secondly they will have to convince
more electors in their
constituency than the candidates
from the other parties that they
are the best person to represent
them in government when the
election is called.
Once elected an MP is responsible
and accountable to
represent the concerns of all the people
in their constituency, not just the concerns
of the people who voted for them.
Every MP has one or more offices
that are available for constituents to
discuss their concerns or issues with
that MP.
With the system that is proposed by
VanderKley, voters would not have any
connection with an MP and I think the
MP couldn’t care less what the people
think. His or her main responsibility
is to represent the position of the party
that they were appointed by.
What VanderKley is proposing is a
system that is similar to what most of
the European countries have. Anyone
who is paying attention will soon
realize that many of those countries
are basket cases such as Greece or
Spain, or are outright dictatorships
like they have in Russia right now.
Is this the kind of Government we
want in Canada? I think not.
I am not suggesting that the system
we have now isn’t perfect. But there
are ways to fix it without throwing the
baby out with the bath water.
I agree, even with our present
system, parties and leaders have too
much control over their MP’s.
The MP’s could override their
leaders and fix the system by forcing
legislation through that would give
themselves more authority if they
would just agree to do it.
Elaine Nielsen
MarKetinG 403-854-4560
contact@ecareview.com
Yvonne Thulien
Manager
admin@ecareview.com
Dan peterkin
MarKetinG 403-578-6888
marketing@ecareview.com
Bonny WilliaMS
Circ./Office
Lisa Myers-SOrtland
Graphic Artist
R
18 pt