let­ters

The Guardian (Charlottetown) - - EDITORIAL -

Also good rea­sons for build­ing pipe­lines

Poor Justin Trudeau, shown try­ing his best to strad­dle the con­flict­ing de­mands of re­duc­ing oil con­sump­tion and get­ting the pipe­line built, as shown in the car­toon in the Jan. 11 Guardian.

It well rep­re­sents the dilemma fac­ing leg­is­la­tors. There are good rea­sons for re­duc­ing con­sump­tion of fos­sil fu­els, and also good rea­sons for build­ing pipe­lines. Those in op­po­si­tion to pipe­lines might like to do a bit of think­ing on the con­se­quences of that stance. With the best will in the world, we will need oil for some time to come un­til al­ter­na­tives are es­tab­lished.

Many in­dus­tries do not have the op­tion of chang­ing to a dif­fer­ent fuel. Farm­ing, fish­ing, ship­ping, min­ing and air­lines do not have any op­tion at this stage.

And if we ig­nore the com­bus­tion of oil, we need huge quan­ti­ties for the petro-chem­i­cal in­dus­try that makes all kinds of syn­thetic ma­te­ri­als, in­clud­ing the huge fi­bre­glass blades of the Greens’ beloved wind tur­bines.

The only al­ter­na­tive to mov­ing oil by pipe­lines is by rail. Their car­bon foot­print is huge. Even empty, they use large amounts of oil to merely move, and there is the cost of fill­ing them, driv­ing them up moun­tains, and then pump­ing them dry, then mov­ing them back again empty. An ac­ci­dent is hor­rific, as we saw at Lac Me­gan­tic. Prop­erly built pipe­lines are so much safer, cheaper, and with a much lower foot­print.

Ban­ning pipe­lines will only make the prob­lem of emis­sions worse.

Pipe­line pro­test­ers, do a bit of think­ing!

Peter Noakes, Char­lot­te­town

Open house well or­ga­nized

The re­cent open house to in­vite ideas on a pro­posed bi­cy­cle link be­tween the Con­fed­er­a­tion Trail and Vic­to­ria Park was ex­cep­tion­ally well or­ga­nized. The venue, en­gi­neer­ing study, in­ter­ac­tive dis­plays, in­for­ma­tion boards, pam­phlets, pleas­ant of­fi­cials, re­fresh­ments and gen­er­ally ac­ces­si­ble lay­out were all strongly sup­port­ive to any at­tendee wish­ing to of­fer his/he/its two cents worth. The fo­cus was on the pub­lic; the for­mal reg­is­tra­tion was a use­ful con­duit for fur­ther ex­change of in­for­ma­tion. Hats off! Gary Gagnon, Char­lot­te­town

Let the peo­ple speak

Cit­i­zens of Sum­mer­side not be­ing al­lowed to ask ques­tions dur­ing monthly coun­cil meet­ings must be ex­plained to the gen­eral pub­lic. City pol­icy un­der the new Mu­nic­i­pal Gov­ern­ment Act, Sec­tion 20, does set out pro­ce­dure al­low­ing res­i­dents to speak on is­sues con­cern­ing fund­ing, zon­ing is­sues, by-Law, de­vel­op­ment, etc. All these re­quests have to be sent the CAO, found days in ad­vance. I have no prob­lem with this pro­ce­dure. My con­cern is peo­ple in the gallery at the monthly meet­ing are not al­lowed to speak.

I cer­tainly chal­lenge city coun­cil on this. Our Char­ter of Rights and Free­doms al­lows ev­ery­one the free­dom of speech, and yes this would in­clude our monthly coun­cil meet­ing, that deals with our tax dol­lars. This chal­lenge will hap­pen in city coun­cil meet­ings soon.

City coun­cil talks about open­ness, ac­count­abil­ity and trans­parency, then does not al­low cit­i­zens at­tend­ing to speak.

This is not an open process. Coun­cil must re­view this, to en­sure peo­ple are not de­nied their free­dom of speech.

What pos­si­bly could be wrong with pub­lic en­gage­ment at monthly meet­ing?

This should be ex­plained fully to the pub­lic. Not al­low­ing pub­lic en­gage­ment at monthly meet­ings in just wrong.

We will wait for a pub­lic re­sponse from Mayor Basil Ste­wart

David Grif­fin,

Sum­mer­side

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.