This Canadian does not want climate action.
Understanding that publishers want to sell newspapers, it is therefore no surprise that they tend to take the majority view. Whether that opinion is based on fact or fiction is in most cases irrelevant.
To your editorial, why the qualifier “embarrassing about-face?” Can you point to any statement prior to this time by the prime minister indicating he would not go? If not, can I have a retraction, please?
Next, just because a bunch of hippies have illegally occupied some government office does not automatically assume that “Canadians” agree with them. My question would be were they charged for trespassing? If not, why not? Why would a series of sit-ins convince anybody? Surely if I started a sit-in at the Gazette, I would not convince the editor or publisher.
Which brings me to the Harris-Decima poll. The details of the poll are as yet not available to me. What exactly was the question and why was the question worded that way? If Jean Chrétien can ignore a signature on the Kyoto Accord then why can Stephen Harper not continue with that policy? And why should I care what the Europeans think of Canada? Only if they get in a mess like the Second World War or Bosnia do they know where to find us.
And please tell me where the editor found the “global consensus?” Did China, India and Indonesia agree to anything? Are Africa and Australia no longer part of your world? How does financial aid to developing countries help in reducing emission levels in the tarsands? Shouldn’t we spend that money at home?
One final question — if the Danes are so climate conscious, why are only half of their sea-based wind turbines operating? Answer: because it costs too much to service them. Perhaps they should send those funds to Eritrea?
Just noticed that this poll was taken prior to the climate-gate revelations. Perhaps you can have an editorial about that?
Joe Prins, St. Albert
