12.08.2019 Views

LM Times August 12th 2019

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

4 Last Mountain <strong>Times</strong> • Monday, <strong>August</strong> 12, <strong>2019</strong> • lmtimes.ca<br />

Letter to the<br />

Editor<br />

Responses<br />

were<br />

straightforward<br />

and<br />

believable<br />

Thank you for the article<br />

titled: “NDP Leader and<br />

two candidates in town”, in<br />

the July 22nd edition of the<br />

Last Mountain <strong>Times</strong>. The<br />

discussion concerning the<br />

proposed Yancoal project<br />

was particularly interesting<br />

for me. My assessment of the<br />

Yancoal-related questions<br />

and answers relayed in the<br />

article did not “trash” Yancoal<br />

as your by-line at the top of<br />

the article suggested. Rather,<br />

I felt Ms. Nordal’s responses<br />

to questions about the project<br />

were straightforward and<br />

believable. Having attended<br />

several Yancoal project-related<br />

meetings sponsored by the<br />

Rural Municipality over the<br />

past several years, I believe<br />

that Ms. Nordal’s assessment<br />

of the project status, her view<br />

concerning the Environmental<br />

Assessment process flaws, and<br />

her suggestion to be careful<br />

about generalizing about the<br />

level of support for the project,<br />

is accurate. It is always good<br />

to learn about both the pros<br />

and cons concerning significant<br />

projects that would have<br />

a major impact on our farm<br />

community. The Yancoal proposal<br />

is an example of a project<br />

where lots has been written<br />

about potential economic<br />

benefits to local communities,<br />

but very little information has<br />

been available regarding the<br />

local farming community’s<br />

concerns about a major industrial<br />

development that would<br />

be located in their midst.<br />

-James Hoffman, Strasbourg<br />

(a ratepayer in RM 219<br />

Longlaketon, and not a member<br />

of a Yancoal ‘watchdog’ group)<br />

Disclaimer: opinions expressed<br />

are those of the writer<br />

Myths and misinformation fog<br />

climate change debate<br />

The answers to some questions to help you assess<br />

whether there really is a climate emergency<br />

With energy and the environment<br />

playing an important role in the fall<br />

election, Canadians face starkly different<br />

policy positions from political parties,<br />

together with a bewildering array of both<br />

information and disinformation. Here<br />

is my rather eclectic list of little-known<br />

facts, head-scratching paradoxes and<br />

utter hypocrisy.<br />

Climate Emergency<br />

On June 17, the House of Commons<br />

passed a motion declaring a National<br />

Climate Emergency. Firstly, there is<br />

no such thing as a “national” climate<br />

emergency. Climate change is global, not<br />

national, and Canada’s contribution to<br />

global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is<br />

a minuscule 1.6 per cent.<br />

Here are the answers to some questions<br />

that will help you assess whether<br />

there’s really a climate emergency. How<br />

much CO2 is in the atmosphere and how<br />

fast is it growing? A 2018 report from<br />

the U.S. National Oceans and Atmospheric<br />

Administration (NOAA) gives<br />

the answer. The concentration of CO2<br />

in the atmosphere is one molecule per<br />

2,500 molecules, compared with one<br />

molecule per 3,000 molecules 50 years<br />

ago. That’s an average growth rate of<br />

just 10 molecules per year. Apocalyptic<br />

projections of rapid sea level rises<br />

are driving municipal and provincial<br />

governments on both our east and west<br />

coasts to implement sea level rise plans.<br />

These include sterilizing waterfront from<br />

development, building sea barriers and<br />

Reality check<br />

Moe’s Sask. Party trumps Ford’s<br />

Conservatives when it comes to<br />

sketchy political donations<br />

Ontario Premier Doug Ford may be catching heat for promoting<br />

a winery on his propaganda network after accepting<br />

$2,050 in donations from its president, but Saskatchewan is<br />

still the ‘wild west’ when it comes to campaign finance laws.<br />

Thanks to outdated laws that the Sask. Party has refused<br />

to change, Saskatchewan is the only province in Canada that<br />

still allows big money to dominate its elected government and<br />

its decisions. Corporations, unions, organizations and individuals,<br />

including those from out of province, are allowed to<br />

donate unlimited amounts to Saskatchewan political parties<br />

and candidates. And the Sask. Party takes full advantage of the<br />

legislative vacuum, raking in millions from many of the same<br />

people and businesses that in turn enjoy lucrative government<br />

contracts and Crown board appointments.<br />

One need look no further than the backyard of the provincial<br />

even buying out and destroying homes<br />

that are deemed vulnerable. So just how<br />

fast are sea levels rising? Here again,<br />

the NOAA provides the answer. Despite<br />

all the calamitous rhetoric, the NOAA<br />

states that sea levels “continue to rise at<br />

the rate of about one-eighth of an inch<br />

(3.2 mm) per year.” At that rate, a house<br />

built 10 feet above sea level today would<br />

still be 9 feet 7 inches above sea level 40<br />

years from now.<br />

Climate Change Hypocrisy<br />

South Africa, India, the Philippines,<br />

South Korea, Japan and China – all<br />

signatories to the Paris climate accord<br />

– are building a combined 1,800 new<br />

coal-fired power plants. Coal plants emit<br />

twice as much CO2 as natural gas plants.<br />

Meanwhile, international environmental<br />

groups campaign against sending Canadian<br />

LNG to those countries.<br />

And here at home, Justin Trudeau’s<br />

Liberals have introduced a tax specifically<br />

designed discourage the building<br />

of new cleaner-burning gas-fired power<br />

plants as they pursue the fantasy that<br />

wind and solar will keep the lights on.<br />

Good luck with that. After hundreds of<br />

billions of dollars invested, wind and solar<br />

contribute just two per cent of global<br />

energy supply. And that’s only when the<br />

wind is blowing, and the sun is shining.<br />

Climate Change Monovision<br />

The Intergovernmental Panel on<br />

Climate Change (IPCC) would have us<br />

believe that fossil fuel emissions are the<br />

sole reason for climate change. But what<br />

EDITORIALS, LETTERS & OPINIONS<br />

about urbanization and deforestation? A<br />

study by the UN Department of Economic<br />

and Social Affairs states that the urban<br />

population rose from 750 million in 1950<br />

to 4.2 billion in 2018. We don’t need<br />

the IPCC’s complex computer models to<br />

know that cities are hotter. All we have<br />

to do is walk from a paved sun-heated<br />

street lined with concrete buildings to a<br />

grassy park. Rather than reflecting the<br />

sun’s rays back to outer space, all that<br />

concrete and pavement absorbs the sun<br />

rays, creating a giant heat sink. Likewise,<br />

deforestation is turning vast tracts of<br />

cool African and South American jungles<br />

into heat-absorbing barrens. The U.S.<br />

EPA summarizes the combined effect,<br />

“Processes such as deforestation and<br />

urbanization … contribute to changes in<br />

climate.” Trying to deal with any problem<br />

without considering all possible<br />

causes is both a foolish and dangerous<br />

strategy.<br />

First, do no harm<br />

The Liberal government’s proposed<br />

“national clean fuel standard” requires<br />

increased biofuel content in motor fuels.<br />

Government mandated biofuel content<br />

requirements in North America and the<br />

EU have driven the burning of critically<br />

important jungle habitat to make way for<br />

palm oil plantations. On the islands of<br />

Borneo and Sumatra, more than 50,000<br />

Orangutans have died because of palm<br />

oil deforestation.<br />

Who burns the stuff anyway?<br />

Several municipal councils, including<br />

Toronto and Victoria, are looking to sue<br />

fossil-fuel producers for causing climate<br />

change, but 70 per cent of emissions<br />

CONTINUES on PAGE 6<br />

Legislative building for evidence, where the Sask. Party recently<br />

rewrote the rules governing Wascana Park to push through<br />

a shockingly sweet deal on prime public real estate for their<br />

largest corporate donor, that also donated $10,000 to Scott<br />

Moe’s leadership campaign.<br />

A simple comparison of the Sask Party’s donor list to the<br />

Government of Saskatchewan’s annual payee list (Public<br />

Accounts Vol. 2) reveals a pattern repeated year after year: a<br />

steady stream of cash flowing from donors to the Sask Party<br />

amounting to over $2 million over the last decade, and a long<br />

list of government contracts going to Sask. Party donors.<br />

In 2017, the Saskatchewan NDP tabled legislation to ban all<br />

corporate and union donations in order to hand power back to<br />

the people of our province, but the Sask Party government’s<br />

MLAs unanimously voted against the measure.<br />

Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia<br />

have moved to limit influence on their politics, but Scott<br />

Moe’s Sask. Party seems just fine with the status quo. Doug<br />

Ford only wishes he had it so good.<br />

-Ryan Meili, Leader of NDP Opposition<br />

Disclaimer: opinions expressed are those of the writer

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!