Letters, May 16

Bridge problems

I find it quite ironic that pedestrians are unable to walk over Arlington Bridge because it’s not safe. Now people have to walk a great distance to get to the other side of the bridge.

However, during this past winter there was a bobcat plow on top of the bridge clearing snow, I guess trying to reduce weight. A bobcat weighs approximately 3,500 pounds.

Does it make sense that it’s safe for a bobcat but not a 200-pound person? Also all the traffic lights on Arlington are still set for the amount of traffic that used to come off the bridge. So now you sit at the major intersections like Selkirk and very seldom do any vehicles go past. Maybe it’s time to change these lights and also open the bridge to pedestrians.

Gary Brock

Winnipeg

On the Seal River watershed proposal

Stop viewing nature as a critical economic asset. Trees, water, soil, plants, animals, and fish have the right to remain free from human interference. Development brings access, which in turn brings habitat fragmentation, soil and hydrological damage, fauna disturbance and exploitation, invasive species, pollution and waste.

As such, development and protecting the ecological integrity of a park, whether it be provincial or national, do not go hand in hand. Development is intended to serve the best interests of humans, not the best interest of the environment! We must learn from our past failures.

Humans are not above nature. Arrogance and greed is what has put us on our current destructive path. Leave the Seal River watershed pristine, free of all development, as only Mother Nature knows what is best for it.

Hank Hristienko

Winnipeg

Mayoral candidates

Re: Progressive candidate sorely missing from mayoral race (May 14)

Thank you to Tom Brodbeck for raising the alarm about the mayoralty race. Our city needs new progressive leadership.

Two names came to mind: Brent Bellamy and Erna Buffie. Their columns have always inspired and challenged readers to think about the environment and responsible development in our city while at the same time presenting positive and creative visions for the future.

If either of these well-known Winnipeggers ran for office I believe there would be a groundswell of support. Our city cannot afford another four years of Scott Gillingham.

Ellen Karlinsky

Winnipeg

Helping polluters

Re: Carney, Smith set to make energy announcement; carbon price deal expected (May 15)

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s plan to delay industrial carbon pricing to $130/tonne until 2040 is a gift to polluters. Canada’s largest polluters are supposed to face real, immediate incentives to cut emissions, but a memorandum of understanding with Alberta pushes the price increase to 2040, effectively turning the policy into a licence to pollute. The stated reason is to “unite the country,” yet unity cannot come at the cost of climate action, especially after an Alberta judge rejected the separation referendum petition.

At the same time, the government has cancelled the consumer carbon price (with rebates), scrapped the oil and gas pollution cap, and further limited industrial carbon pricing for the oil and gas sector, which costs the industry just dimes per barrel. This raises a clear question: what does Carney truly value?

Experts have argued that $130/tonne by 2030 is achievable and necessary, and would unlock tens of billions in clean energy investment. Instead, industry profits are soaring to nearly $100 billion this year, while Canadians face the consequences of inaction. Delaying pricing until 2040 will add millions of tonnes of pollution and make net-zero targets impossible.

Big Oil, with war-driven profits in 2026, chooses shareholder payouts over new projects. They balk at spending dimes per barrel for the climate crisis, but fork over billions for dividends to shareholders? When profits trump the planet, we all lose.

Lori Bohn

Winnipeg

Felines deserve better

Re: Man admits to killing three cats, dumping two under bridge (May 13)

I grew up around cats and sometimes their kittens, including feral/stray felines, and developed a lifelong appreciation and affection for cats in general. As a young boy, finding them slaughtered the first thing in the morning was quite traumatizing. They were lost to larger predators — perhaps even a cat-hating human. I knew about a few guys willing to procure sick satisfaction from torturing to death those naively-trusting thus likely sweet-natured cats whose owners had allowed to wander the neighborhood, even at night.

Cats are incredibly silly, funny, beautiful and precious pet animals. Yet human apathy, the throwaway mentality/culture and even some public hostility toward them often enough result in feral and homeless cat population explosions, thus their inevitable neglect and suffering, including severe illness and starvation. With the mindset of feline disposability, it might be: “Oh, there’s a lot more whence they came.”

It’s likely that only when their over-abundance is greatly reduced in number through consistent publicly funded spay/neuter programs, might these beautiful animals’ soothing, even therapeutic — many owners describe them as somewhat symbiotic — presence, along with their innocence, be truly appreciated rather than taken for granted or even resented.

Clearly, many or most people cannot relate to cat owners finding preciousness and other qualities in their beloved pets, including a non-humanly innocence, that make losing them someday such a horrible heartbreak.

As for the human species, along with our “intelligence” comes a proportionate reprehensible potential for evil behavior, e.g. malice for malice’s sake. With our four-legged friends, however, there definitely is a beautiful absence of that undesirable distinctly human trait. While animals, including cats, can react violently, it is typically due to reactive distrust/dislike or necessity/sustenance. But leave it to us humans, with our higher capacity for intelligence, to commit a spiteful act, even if only because we can.

Frank Sterle Jr.

White Rock, B.C.

Focus on proven tech

Re: The dangers of gambling on nuclear power (Think Tank, May 15)

It is increasingly difficult to ignore the gap between economic reality and Canadian energy policy. While global data confirms that wind, solar, and battery storage are now the cheapest and fastest energy sources to deploy, several governments continue to favor natural gas and nuclear power.

The math doesn’t add up for the taxpayer, but it certainly adds up for the industry players involved. We see the fossil fuel lobby fighting to protect the value of aging pipelines and gas plants, while large-scale engineering firms and nuclear consortia push small modular reactors (SMRs). In the case of SMRs, the motivation is clear: they are seeking massive public subsidies to fund their own research and development in hopes of securing future export profits.

Why should citizens be locked into higher rates and longer construction timelines just to act as a venture capital fund for the nuclear industry or to protect the bottom line of gas utilities?

Manitoba’s path forward should be built on the proven, low-cost technologies we have now — wind and solar — rather than expensive bets on speculative nuclear designs or carbon-heavy gas. It is time our provincial and federal investments reflect the lowest cost for citizens, not the highest return for industry.

Stuart Williams

Winnipeg