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