In response to M. Barbeau’s letter to the editor (Gazette, Feb. 18): I believe I actually stated, “an estimated one in four U.S. citizens count on the nuclear and conventional arms industry for employment” as a shorthand for the entire defence industry and military industry, the distinctions and complexities of which interested readers can research for themselves.
I didn't even say this is the actual case, but the argument is certainly forwarded by the industries themselves, and for example, president of Aerospace Industries Marion Blakeley warned in 2011 that possible defence funding cuts that could have totalled a trillion dollars over 10 years would “devastate the economy and the defence industrial base and undermine the national security of our country.”
I cited nuclear weapons because of their particularly evil nature and because a trillion dollars over 10 years was soon after allocated by President Obama for the renewal of that specific arsenal, a decision that would surely involve many jobs. But the gist of M. Barbeau's criticism seems to be that Americans and others have no right to comment on the oilsands because they are worse offenders. Whether they are or not is moot, although we have to factor in their population relative to ours. But surely you cannot lay the blame for policy on people who have no formal power to make policy and to compound the error, blame them for speaking out. And these activists do criticize their own country continuously and at great risks to themselves since draconian laws and penalties against activism are in the works, adding to the already draconian military-police type control methods taken against oil pipeline protesters in North Dakota.
More than ever, we are all citizens of the world and on the issue of anthropogenic global warming the actions of every country affect every other country. But exactly how is the oil industry regulated? I was under the apparently wrong impression that the object was to drain the oilsands as quickly as possible and build pipelines that seem for all the world redundant given our very limited market, so far. Three barrels of water are used to produce one barrel of oil, a commodity that is fast becoming more rare and more valuable than oil. Oil and the chemicals used to extract, refine and transport it have poisoned lakes and rivers, and private property. Deforestation has compounded the problem.
As a plus, green energy has just as much potential for job production as does oil. Germany uses no fossil fuels or nuclear energy and exports green technology quite profitably. While it was making the transition, many Canadians said it couldn't be done. Simply impossible. China is also making great strides in this direction but reasonably takes the position that Western countries that have for so long used the fossil fuels that caused the problem should be patient with its efforts and reduce their own CO2 emissions before criticizing them too severely. But it seems very likely that China will have the edge in new technology and leave us behind in our little, cosy corner of the world if we don't rouse ourselves from the stupor we have fallen into. The oil companies will have to switch over sometime. Let's hope it happens before too much additional damage is done.
Doris Wrench Eisler, St. Albert
