On first reading of recent articles by Paul Schratz (Oct. 7) and Christine Legal (Nov. 11), it would be possible to conclude there is a conflict between them. Not so. Everybody supports efforts to clean up our environment and protect the health and beauty of God's creation and would applaud Christine Legal's leadership in local action toward that end.
However, as we move forward (with global actions) we must pay attention to the evolving science. Debate is good (as used to be the unchallenged tradition in science). There is no such thing as knowing too much about our environment, and each new piece of information can influence our decisions as to what our goal should be and how we should try to get there.
More discussion might have avoided the mistake of subsidizing the production of ethanol from corn as a fuel additive, which is now highly controversial due to the diversion of food to fuel and other reasons.
The earth is much greener now than it was 30 or so years ago due to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by humans. Plants constitute 80 per cent of the earth's biomass. That is good news, is it not? In particular, that means improved crop yields. For the near starving millions on the planet, that is a good thing too, is it not?
Conversely, rolling back the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reduce crop yields. That won't make much difference to us fat cats. But in the Third World it will push millions back to near-starvation subsistence.
In 1850, 80 per cent of the global population lived in extreme poverty. Because of our carbon-based economy, that number has been reduced to under 10 per cent. Is it even moral to adopt policies that will roll back these gains?
We have a duty of care to do no more harm with fake cures than might be caused by an uncertain problem far in the future. Debate is an essential component of our education.
Norman Reilly
Coquitlam
Following the appointment of his new cabinet, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with members of the media and said he would be looking after women’s rights. Good news for the Canadian abortion industry.
He also promised to look after children’s welfare. Really? He has been looking after their “welfare” for several years now. Abortion in this “overcrowded” country is costing the lives of 100,000 babies a year. These babies could have grown up and had children of their own, giving Canada a more stable population.
Justin Trudeau has taken what his father Pierre Trudeau started and expanded it. Do you suppose God would congratulate him for this and other immoral laws that contravene his law?
John Bueno
North Vancouver
