Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meets with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in Calgary on March 13.Todd Korol/The Canadian Press
Leadership material
Re “We all deserve affordable homes and a stable climate – and that is achievable” (March 15): Here’s to contributor Mark Carney, a clear voice of leadership who presents big – and doable – ideas for momentum on housing and climate.
Real leaders don’t bark from their chains of opportunity. Real leaders never stoop to fault and blame. Real leaders stand tall, serving us with researched solutions requiring action now.
Barbara Coyle Ottawa
Contributor Mark Carney covers all the bases in terms of what he thinks needs to happen out to the end of this decade. It’s a long list – long on “what,” but short on “how” and “who” pays.
This reads to me like a clear statement of his bona fides for public office and a clear shot across Justin Trudeau’s bow.
Chris Gates Cobourg, Ont.
Lasting legacy
Re “On the carbon tax, Justin Trudeau’s job is indeed to be popular” (March 15, Report on Business): Justin Trudeau refers to himself as a far-seeing Prime Minister who wants to leave a legacy for future generations, even if it means he will be unpopular.
As an accountant, I am in complete agreement: He will leave a legacy for future generations of high national debt and the attendant, ongoing high interest payments.
According to national polls, his popularity has descended to new lows. His legacy on reducing factors contributing to climate change is still to be determined.
I’m not sure Mr. Trudeau sees it this way, but the inconvenient facts I see don’t agree with him.
John Pitts London, Ont.
As a senior, I say bring on carbon tax increases.
Yes, my home heating costs will go up, but I can choose to mitigate that by reducing consumption. I don’t drive an oversized SUV or truck. I don’t idle in drive-thrus and school pickup lanes.
The carbon tax is about encouraging people to make better choices for the sake of the planet. It’s clear to me that so many people are not on board with this objective.
For my lifestyle choices, the carbon rebate is a bonus. I hope the government drives it to the point where people finally make better choices.
It disturbs me that Conservatives are rallying around “axe-the-tax.” It seems that people have two choices: Support the carbon tax and maximize their net benefit from rebates – or scream a populist slogan and blame the government when climate disaster comes for them.
David Gelder Mississauga
In theory, the carbon tax seems straightforward: Raise the cost of carbon-emitting materials until users turn to more benign products.
In practice, however, the matter is not so simple. Do alternatives presently exist? Unless the carbon tax is global, it will probably be political suicide for a government that uses it as the sole or even primary means of combatting climate change.
In consequence, our government’s use of the carbon tax amounts to less than one-third of its climate measures. At present levels, it seems fair to ask whether the tax has any deterrent value. I see no evidence that it does.
Furthermore, by providing extensive rebates and exemptions, the government undoubtedly reduces what potential impact the tax might possibly have had.
In short, the carbon tax seems more like a virtue-signaling statement than anything else.
John Sutherland Calgary
All in
Re “EVs shift into a higher gear” (Editorial, March 14): Right now, most taxpayers drive gas vehicles while funding electric vehicle subsidies for those who are wealthier. But “zero-emission” vehicles don’t mean zero climate costs.
What are the climate costs of rare earth mining for batteries? Of increased tire wear and replacement resulting from the heavier weight of EVs? Of more wear and repair of roads, bridges and parking garages? Of increased electricity generation? Of manufacturing and installing public and private chargers? Of ultimate EV battery recycling or disposal?
These indirect climate costs are borne by all of us. How do they stack up against the climate costs of continuing to use gas?
We almost certainly need to switch to EVs, but let’s be clear about all the costs and who will pay them.
Ellen Anderson Summerside, PEI
Green response
Re “Is private-equity giant Brookfield’s new green fund really so green?” (Report on Business, March 12): Contributor Michael Sambasivam states that the Brookfield Global Transition Fund lacks green credentials, in part because Brookfield in his view does not do enough reporting on downstream emissions. This does not recognize that the part of our business which manages the fund – Renewable Power & Transition – has been reporting these emissions since 2021.
Mr. Sambasivam also writes that the wider Brookfield business is underestimating emissions based on an analysis by Private Equity Climate Risks and relied upon by his organization Investors for Paris Compliance. We believe PECR’s analysis to be deeply flawed. For example, it attributes the full emissions of our portfolio companies to Brookfield, even where we own only a stake or a non-control interest. This runs counter to well-established international guidance.
Brookfield has been amongst the leaders in emissions reporting and investments in reducing greenhouse gases. We believe PECR’s data is sensationalist and does nothing to help advance this important debate.
Justin Beber, COO, Brookfield Asset Management Toronto
Lead by example
Re “Stop undervaluing the contributions that international students make to Canada” (March 12): In 1954, I received a scholarship to an elite liberal arts college in the United States that was worth more than my father earned in a year (we were very poor), because the school valued foreign students for enhancing the education of American students. I find it humiliating that Canada, a wealthy nation, exploits poor countries by charging high university fees as a screening device for potential immigrants.
Universities should encourage exchange of experiences and perspectives between Canadian and foreign students, because such knowledge is critical to comprehend and potentially resolve many global issues, from war to poverty to ecological crises. If university education and training really are important for developing countries, we should be providing free access for their top students on the understanding that they will return to their native lands, not skimmed off to serve our needs.
David Suzuki Vancouver
All in the family
Re “William Herschel discovers Uranus” (Moment in Time, March 13): Yes, William Herschel was credited for discovering Uranus. But more acknowledgment should be given to his sister Caroline, who was indispensable in helping his work and made many discoveries of comets and nebulae in her own right.
Sylvie Glossop Toronto
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com