Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - June 09, 2012, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE A17 H ERE'S the irony about Canada's two- decade, shambolic, inept, half- hearted and contradictory response to the incontrovertible fact that the planet's surface climate has, over the past 150 years, warmed: It mirrors uncertainty about the predictive ability of climate science. In a way, the chaos of our response epitomizes the gaps in what we know. Our failure is, in fact, a direct consequence of those gaps. More than that, the uncertain response reflects genuine confusion, among ordinary people but also among policy- makers, about what Canadians can or should do about climate change. That extends into the federal Conservative caucus: Environment Minister Peter Kent has fielded questions from his colleagues, including the prime minister, about the reliability of climate science. Derided by environmentalists as an apologist for inaction, Kent within his party has played the role of activist. But he faces an uphill fight, one increasingly reflected in public opinion. Abacus Data late last month released a poll showing 55 per cent of Canadians are quite worried about the pollution of drinking water, rivers, lakes, reservoirs and the contamination of soil by toxic waste. But only a third of those surveyed said they worry a lot about climate change. This reflects a similar trend in the United States, measured by Gallup this past April. It seems we're really not all that concerned about climate change after all. For a politician to utter such heresy in Canada now, as former Alberta premier Ed Stelmach noted following the Alberta provincial election, is fraught with peril. Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith lost to Conservative Alison Redford, Stelmach said, because she dared say the scientific debate around climate change is still active. In other words, it's not entirely settled. In other words, reasonable people can disagree. Unthinkable. This is now the most fraught economic debate we have. It underlies Ontario's controversial Green Energy Act. It underlies NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's strategic decision to hurl thunderbolts at the oilpatch. But what if much of what we generally assume about the discussion were off the mark or incomplete? There are credible scientists who belong in neither ideological camp. They agree global warming, certainly over the past century, is incontrovertible. But they disagree on the level of certainty we can have about its causes. And they raise troubling questions about the wisdom of policy remedies based primarily on faith. For example, Ross McKitrick, a University of Guelph professor who has delved into the economics of climate change for more than a decade, says the planet's surface temperature is indeed gradually heating up - though the rate of warming has slowed in the past 10 years. And he allows the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may eventually be proven right in its finding carbon dioxide emitted due to fossil- fuel consumption is the cause. He also says other human activities - including changes to the Earth's surface caused by development and long- term solar cycles - may be a factor. McKitrick disagrees profoundly with the notion that the science is settled. More to the point, even if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is right, he is convinced all major policy remedies proposed so far would have been ineffective, even if implemented precisely as designed. " There's no way of fixing it by tinkering around the edges," he says. " Windmills are irrelevant. We're talking about shutting down industry and taking cars off the road." The human toll of rolling back development - which is unavoidable, if global CO2 emissions are to be sharply curbed - has yet to be carefully considered, McKitrick says. " Think of the alleviation of suffering that comes when people get electricity, access to motor vehicles, ordinary development. To stop all that from happening, it just seems to me that would be a much heavier human toll than just learning to adapt to climate change as it comes along." Judith Curry, chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, agrees. She posits human causes, but also other possible causes. One of her concerns is regional climate variability. " In some parts of the world, warming would be good," she says. " Think Canada, Russia, Northern China for starters. They might have more hospitable weather, longer growing seasons, a longer tourist season." Like McKitrick, Curry contends the cost- benefit analysis - a clear- headed comparison of the benefits of development and better infrastructure, against the benefits of lowering sea levels by perhaps two or three feet, over a century - has yet to be done. And she argues that, rather than developing big global carbon treaties that go nowhere, Western governments ought to put more resources into advancing the science of weather forecasting to better mitigate the damage hurricanes, floods, droughts and other weather- related disasters cause, especially in the Third World. There's more, but you get the point: Why is it, given that so much of the policy debate in our country now concerns what to do about climate change, that speaking about gaps in the science, which clearly do exist, is taboo? Michael Den Tandt is a columnist for Postmedia News. Cost of early death Re: MPI slammed over death benefits ( June 7). Steve Cancilla ought to be angry at the pittance he will receive for the loss of his partner. Manitoba Public Insurance spokesman Brian Smiley states that the personal injury protection plan is a no- fault system introduced in 1994, and it benefits are spelled out in the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act. This no- fault insurance he speaks about is a way for MPI to brag that it has low insurance rates when it actuality means " no insurance." It also means that Cancilla cannot go to court to seek more money for his and his family's loss. KIM SIGURDSON Winnipeg �� Yes, this is truly a tragic death but to put this in the paper to garner more sympathy is pathetic. There are lots of people who have lost their mates at a young age from other things, such as cancer, and they must carry on raising their children and not receiving at the least $ 57,000. Nowadays, the bottom line is always money, and as the Autopac spokesman points out, this is not life insurance. My husband's first wife died from cancer at age 36 and he had to carry on with four children, one of whom is mentally challenged. Not once did he ever think that someone else should be responsible financially. He just went to work and did his best to raise them. GWEN GIBSON Winnipeg Relying on science Re: Scientists heap pressure on Ottawa ( June 6). Canadians rely on government scientists to provide us with the best possible advice on matters that concern our health and wellbeing. We need good, unbiased information to combat disease, to ensure the safety of our food and water supplies, to assess and fix the environmental impacts of resource developments and to respond to changes in population and climate. Neither universities nor the private sector are well- equipped to undertake the comprehensive, long- term research required to address these and other important national issues. By muzzling and laying off government scientists, watering down key environmental legislation and cancelling important research programs such as the Experimental Lakes Area, the Conservative government will weaken Canadian's understanding of their world. This policy will lead to poor and unwise decisions on how we regulate human activities and respond to environmental changes. The long- term costs to Canadian society will far outweigh the short- term political and economic gains. BRUCE STEWART Winnipeg �� Scientific knowledge allows the truth to be seen. It solves practical problems in a polluted world. We Canadians need to focus on solutions and ensure we can continue to benefit from clean water. How can we prevent companies, enterprises and industries from contaminating our freshwater supplies and adding pollutants to our lakes? Environmental science needs to be done in a way that it is visible and accountable to the citizens who will ultimately pay for it. The data the scientists collect must be shared and not become proprietary government or academic projects. We need to be concerned about how industries whose main concern is their shareholders affect our watershed. We need a strong and vocal water- stewardship program to remedy the problems and causes of our waters being polluted. Solutions can be found through biology in engineering. Let us support our scientists. JEANNETTE CHARBONNEAU Winnipeg �� Why is the Harper Conservative government muzzling scientists, dismantling internationally recognized scientific facilities and cutting funding to scientists and their research? Even with the feeble premise of budgetary restraint, it doesn't add up. The Experimental Lakes Area actually makes money. The government has already shut down the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory ( PEARL) in Eureka, Nunavut, another internationally recognized and unique facility. The cost of these facilities is minuscule compared to the value of the information they produced. Is this government afraid that actual, fact- based research might interfere with its ideological agenda? KATE BLACKSTONE Winnipeg Voices silenced I have been reading articles and letters to the editor concerning the development of Parcel Four at The Forks. Many ideas have come forward from both politicians and citizens of Winnipeg that are not appropriate, other than the idea of making this plot of land into a beautiful and nurturing green space. What has caught my attention in all this back- and- forth debate on the development of this piece of land is the deafeningly silenced voice of First Nations people. My suggestion as to what should be done with Parcel Four is to hand it over to the rightful owners ( the First Nations) as a gesture of asking for forgiveness as part of the truth and reconciliation process. Let First Nations people decide how they want to develop it and support them in their efforts to heal from the oppressive colonization process that still exists today. This is an opportunity for government officials and citizens to truly put money where our mouths are. Let us swallow our guilt, use it to muster the courage needed to be conscious and honest about the process in which this piece of land was obtained. Let us not forget who is the rightful owner of this land. GERALD FOURNIER Winnipeg �� Something is really bothering me in the news lately. There is mercury poisoning in rivers throughout Ontario First Nations reserves. It took doctors from the Orient to bring it to the attention of authorities. There have been babies born with tumours, and it is crippling the elders. There are horror houses ( rented here in our city by aboriginal people) owned by a couple who have been slapped on the wrist time after time and still their rental properties are allowed to collect revenue without a single repair. There was a murderer sending body parts to politicians in Eastern Canada, and within 48 hours, he is caught halfway around the world. Yet more than a dozen aboriginal girls have been murdered, their bodies found dumped around the outskirts of our city, and these atrocities still remain unsolved. There must be an ongoing war declared against the aboriginal community of Canada. With each news headline, it becomes more confusing as to who is financing this offensive. RANDY RANVILLE Winnipeg HAVE YOUR SAY: The Free Press welcomes letters from readers. Include the author's name, address and telephone number. Letters may be edited. Letters to the Editor, 1355 Mountain Avenue, Winnipeg, R2X 3B6. Fax 697- 7412. Email letters@ freepress. mb. ca Letters represent the opinions of their writers and do not reflect the opinions of the Winnipeg Free Press or its staff. �� LETTER OF THE DAY Re: God- given duty ( Letters, June 6). I was not aware that it is a " God- given duty" for parents to provide sex education to their children. If more parents would actually exercise this divine right, then perhaps there would not be such a need for school teachers to pick up the slack. Unfortunately, those parents who protest compulsory sex education are probably the same parents who themselves will not educate their children. Indeed, many such parents would seem to prefer to leave their children ignorant or misinformed, naively thinking that their children will abstain from sex until marriage. And let us not denigrate the word " education" by pairing it with the words " abstinence only." It has been demonstrated that abstinence indoctrination generally only delays the onset of sexual activity by a few months, at which point the parties are less likely to take risk- reducing steps, thanks to their relative ignorance. It should be trite to reference the myriad studies that show sex education reduces the risks associated with sex and that it does not, in fact, sexualize children any more than they already are or will be. These are reasons why schools should provide sex education to students. But what about the parents? The fact that we still have parents who think the fluid concepts of gender and sexuality ( i. e. homosexuality) are immoral indicates that some parents should probably be joining their children in these sex- education classes. KEITH LENTON Winnipeg z Winnipeg Free Press Saturday, June 9, 2012 A 17 POLL �� TODAY'S QUESTION Do you think the new recycling carts being introduced will encourage Winnipeggers to recycle more? �� Vote online at winnipegfreepress. com �� PREVIOUS QUESTION Should Dean Del Mastro step down for allegedly breaching the spending limit for his 2008 election campaign? Yes 58% ( 1,955 votes) No 26% ( 891 votes) Too early to say 16% ( 537 votes) TOTAL VOTES: 3,383 Winnipeg Free Press est 1872 / Winnipeg Tribune est 1890 VOL 140 NO 206 2012 Winnipeg Free Press, a division of FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership. Published seven days a week at 1355 Mountain Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba R2X 3B6, PH: 697- 7000 BOB COX / Publisher MARGO GOODHAND / Editor JULIE CARL / Deputy editor ALAN DIAZ / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ARCHIVES Students attend a sex- education class in Florida. Picking up parents' slack I F there weren't already compelling enough reasons for you to quit smoking, think about the risk to your vision. While it's well- known smoking can cause cancer, heart disease and strokes, up until recently there has been little awareness about the fact smoking can also cause serious and permanent vision loss. For a long time, I personally bemoaned the fact Canada had no requirements that cigarette packaging carry a warning about smoking and blindness. Cigarette packaging in other countries - such as Australia, for example - have carried the message " smoking causes blindness" for some time. But soon my wish will be granted. New regulations for tobacco- product labelling in Canada mean that, as of June 19, retailers can only legally sell cigarettes that display new health warnings, including the fact that smoking increases your risk of blindness. Specifically, the warning points to the risk of age- related macular degeneration ( AMD), which is the leading cause of vision loss in Canadians 50 years and older. AMD causes damage to the macula, the central part of the retina responsible for seeing fine details ( such as reading print or seeing faces). People with AMD generally experience blurred central vision and a growing central blind spot. We've known for some time primary and secondhand smoke from cigarettes is a major risk factor for AMD. Current smokers have up to four times the risk of developing AMD compared to nonsmokers or past smokers. Smokers may also develop the disease about 10 years earlier than nonsmokers. How much you smoke also affects your risk of acquiring AMD. People who smoke more have a higher risk of developing AMD than those who smoke less. The good news? Quitting can make a difference. Studies indicate a person's risk for AMD will decrease each year they don't smoke, so after 20 years, the risk is equal to that of someone who has never smoked. In addition to AMD, smoking is a risk factor for developing cataracts and vision loss from diabetic retinopathy. I sincerely hope those people who are still smoking will heed the new warnings about the risk of vision loss. They need to know living with vision loss can be life- altering. Clinical depression is three times as common in people with vision loss compared to the general population. And seniors with vision loss face twice the risk of falls and four times for hip fractures. So, if the well- known risks associated with smoking aren't enough to make you quit, think about the implications of losing your sight. Keith Gordon is vice- president, research, for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Tilting with windmills MICHAEL DEN TANDT By Keith Gordon Cigarette labelling finally includes blindness A_ 17_ Jun- 09- 12_ FP_ 01. indd A17 6/ 8/ 12 7: 04: 47 PM ;