Oilfield pumpjacks operate on wells in the Duvernay oil formation north of Red Deer, Alta. on Aug.14, 2019.Larry MacDougal/The Canadian Press
What’s the plan, man?
Re “The politics of pragmatism is causing progressive politicians to ditch their climate policies” (Sept. 16): Great minds actually do think alike.
In the U.S. presidential debate, Donald Trump said he had “concepts of a plan” to fix the Affordable Care Act. “If we can come up with a plan that’s going to cost our people, our population, less money and be better health care than Obamacare, then I would absolutely do it,” he said.
Then Jagmeet Singh on the carbon tax: “We want to see an approach to fighting the climate crisis where it doesn’t put the burden on the backs of working people, where big polluters have to pay their fair share,” he said. “We’ve been working on a plan, and we’ll be releasing our plan, our vision, for how we can do that in a stronger way in the coming months.”
Both are trumped by Pierre Poilievre’s rhyming slogans – no need for even an undefined concept, let alone a distant vision or, heaven forbid, an actual plan.
We are told democracy gives us the leaders we deserve. What sins we must have committed to have earned such simple-minded nonsense.
John Kidder Ashcroft, B.C.
Pierre Poilievre, multiple premiers and Jagmeet Singh have now succumbed to the idea that carbon pricing is a burden on the middle class. I can’t refer to these people as leaders, but “opportunists” seems to fit.
Could The Globe please explain once and for all how carbon pricing and rebates work. The government seems incapable of a coherent explanation.
Bruce Henry Waterloo, Ont.
Climate change and biodiversity
Re “Conservation efforts must be balanced with the needs of the clean-energy transition” (Report on Business, Sept. 12): Contributor Hugo Cordeau rightly identifies the potential conflict between the physical needs of a clean-energy economy and place-based conservation. He is wrong, however, to suggest that concern with particular places is a manifestation of only local concern and a lack of global thinking.
In addition to climate change, we have a twin environmental crisis in the loss of biodiversity. The rate of loss of plant and animal species is well above natural levels, and the populations of some individual species are in steep decline. One of the major drivers of this loss is habitat loss and degradation, mainly from human development. There is an urgent need, therefore, to limit our impact on landscapes and seascapes.
To minimize the conflict between climate and biodiversity action, we must identify the high-priority areas for each of those purposes. Where no conflict exists, locations should be reserved promptly for the high-priority use. That means measures such as designated energy corridors and protected areas. Where the two needs conflict, a principled and well-informed negotiation should occur, perhaps using new conflict resolution or market policy tools. In both cases, we should be pursuing this with urgency.
David Poulton, PhD candidate, School of the Environment, University of Queensland; Calgary
No rematch
Re “The victorious Harris should resist the urge to debate Trump again” (Opinion, Sept. 12): Columnist Lawrence Martin suggests that it is hard for Kamala Harris to rebut a line of attack asking why she and Joe Biden have not done more of what she is advocating for during their 3.5 years in office. Not really.
For most of that time, the possibility of sensible legislation has been blocked by a dysfunctional, obstructionist, Republican-controlled House of Representatives more interested in doing Donald Trump’s bidding than in addressing issues of concern to the American people. And then there is the corrupt, conservative-oriented U.S. Supreme Court, blocking initiatives such as student loan forgiveness.
It is actually remarkable how much the Biden administration has accomplished in such a divided political climate, including major infrastructure funding and the Inflation Reduction Act. Ms. Harris should have no problem defending and running on her record.
Tom MacDonald Ottawa
She’s the boss
Re “Turning doubters into believers” (Opinion, Sept. 12): One good potential reason that Kamala Harris is surprising us all with her political smarts and stage skills, despite being a low-profile and seemingly underperforming vice-president, is that she was ensuring she fulfilled the prime directive of any vice-president (or subordinate): Don’t show up the boss.
Particularly over the past 18 months, when the debate about Joe Biden’s fitness to run again was rampant, Ms. Harris dutifully stayed quiet and followed the low-key tone of the Biden presidency. Now freed to be her own person and become the boss herself, she can let her clear natural talents shine once more, as she did in the debate.
May she continue to pleasantly surprise us all.
Don Sancton Beaconsfield, Que.
Here’s why not
Re “Canadians must be allowed to see what’s in the Deschênes report” (Opinion, Sept. 11): As columnist Marsha Lederman indicates, “the [Deschênes] commission, which considered about 900 cases, recommended action be taken against 20 suspected Nazi war criminals living in Canada; cases against 218 suspects required further investigation. Accusations against more than 600 were dismissed.”
There are at least two reasons why the names of those 600-plus people, who were already subjected to a two-year investigation, should not be released. The first is the “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” thinking of most people. The damage to the reputation of the 600-plus by the unsubstantiated allegations that they were Nazi war criminals will not be undone.
The second argument is summed up by the proverb “guilty by association.” Ms. Lederman states that “nobody will blame Canadian children and grandchildren of alleged Nazi collaborators.” Maybe not “blame” for Nazi atrocities, but any family members will be unreasonably affected by the association of their family with the allegation of being a Nazi war criminal – see the first proverb, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
Clare Hauer Vancouver
Good for whom?
Re “Canada’s ‘ruthless oligopoly’ in banking is good, actually” (Report on Business, Sept. 12): Some years ago, the Bank of Montreal closed my local branch. This was the only bank branch in the area that was open on Saturdays.
I asked the marketing manager in Vancouver why the branch had been closed. “Because we did a survey and found that 75 per cent of the people using that branch were not Bank of Montreal customers,” he replied.
Now think about that. Here is a business that thinks it is a problem when its competitors’ customers are using its facilities. Any other industry would die for such a market opportunity. But bankers see this as a cost problem.
Canadian banking needs real competition as an incentive to cut bloat and focus on customers’ needs. Bring on foreign competition.
Tony Woodruff Burnaby, B.C.
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: letters@globeandmail.com