To The Editor,
Reply to Mr. Van Eyken
The point of my letter was not to compare Canada to China. It was to show the futility of Canada sacrificing its citizens’ well-being by forcing price increases and hardships under the guise of saving the planet from a problem not of our creation. Meanwhile, all major fossil fuel users and producers carry on with no regard, and certainly no thanks for our efforts. Consider that Saudi Arabia’s Aramco Oil recently became the richest company ever. America is the world’s number one oil producer, and actively involved in wars to control foreign reserves. Russia has new pipelines to China and Europe. Fossil fuels are not going away any time soon.
Also, I wished to emphasize the effects of the sun on earth’s climate; as have been historically observed. Since writing that letter, the sun has set a modern record for number of days in a year without sunspots. A deep solar minimum. But politicians pay no attention to the sun.
Climate change has morphed into population control and as such there are powerful motivations for being on the winning side. The rich and influential, those who meet in exclusive enclaves to speak of impending doom and decide how much per invisible tonne of carbon should be charged, and how the monies should be divided, are not concerned about their future. That seems secure. For people on the sidelines who wonder if or how they they can afford the increased costs and implications, the prospects are not so bright.
The “Who benefits?” question was rhetorical.
Gordon Fraser
Champlain
