I have some concerns with some statements made by Conservative candidate David Wilks, who says he is going to act conservatively in regard to security. I’m curious why he wouldn’t also act conservatively with regard to global warming and its ensuing climate change.
He says we should be pursuing oil sands and coal, two of the highest greenhouse gas sources of energy on the planet. Any money put into fossil fuel infrastructure (which he proposes), locks us into producing more greenhouse gasses for years.
We now need to be decreasing, not increasing, our greenhouse gas production, or we will head the planet towards more extreme droughts, deluges, heat and cold, super-storms, and movement of eco-zones.
At this point in global warming and its ensuing climate change, the lower elevation West Kootenay is destined to become like Southern Idaho between 2050 and 2080. Skiing (as we knew it last year) will be long since gone by 2050.
This winter was a good example of where weather patterns are heading. Talk to a skier, or some snowed-in-all-winter person on the East Coast, or the rest of the world with record high winter temperatures.
All of these extreme weather events point to the possibility of the destructive forces of nature destroying lives and infrastructure faster than we can rebuild them.
Security as a threat is not even in the ballpark compared to global warming and climate change as a threat to Canadians. If Wilks is willing to take a chance with this issue even though scientists tell us that we are guaranteed to suffer climate calamities, then he has lost my vote.
In renewable energy there is money, jobs (way more than in fossil fuels per dollar invested), and a safe future. It seems that the Greens are the only party willing to address this issue with policies that it warrants. That’s where my vote goes, unless Wilks changes his policies.