Letters to the editor, April 24
Article content
Attrition cuts not painless
It seems people feel if cuts in spending are made by attrition, that's OK. No one is handed a pink slip; no one has lost their job. But what about the service that person provided? If no one is hired to fill that position, it will not be done.
For example, my oncologist retired. That will save the hospital his salary. Good, right? But what about his many patients, me included?
If no one is hired to replace him (miss you Dr. Verma), it leaves a good many patients fighting cancer without professional help. You tell me is that is painless.
Margaret (Peggy) Bond
Portland
Act on reducing carbon
Re: "Carbon pricing, political pricing," April 23.
Bang on with the facts, Michael Warren. And bang on with the interpretation that politicians who threaten to cancel carbon pricing are taking advantage of voter confusion. I would also add the following observations. These politicians seem to think they are offering candy to a frightened electorate, ever concerned about their wallet. Such a concern is always at play in any election for people are generally resistant to change, according to the general systems theory. It is an opportunistic political move to try to bank on people's fears of losing their wallet.
The larger truth is that all of us live in a very dire here and now, where very little time is left to clean up the carbon in the air before we lose control over its long-term impacts. All politicians need to be open and honest about this fact for our common good rather than opportunistically trying to bank on confusion and fear. The message we need to consistently hear from all politicians is that they are joining the army of leaders who have started to give the heave-ho to carbon with immediate and ongoing effective carbon pricing. Simply put: timing matters much now.
Carole Lavallee
Chelmsford, Ont.
Moves contradictory
Re: "Canada and France promise action," April 17.
Pardon me if I'm confused! Trudeau and Macron just signed a new France-Canada partnership on climate and environment, an initiative that will "encourage and accelerate the achievement of the Paris Agreement targets." Meanwhile, this country is falling far short of achieving the emissions reductions we committed to in Paris, and the very same Trudeau is busy trying to rescue a pipeline deal that will allow Alberta to increase output from the oilsands by 40 per cent over the next 12 years. Does this make any sense?
Dr. Elaine Blacklock
Sudbury
The Kingston Whig-Standard 2018 ©
