The Hamilton Spectator: - 3 Letters to the Editor

Benefit of conservation

Peter Shepherd Toronto - Sept 7, 2007

Re: 'OPP should bill Greenpeace' (Editorial, Sept. 4)

Your editorial makes a number of unfounded allegations about Greenpeace.

Greenpeace is indeed a grass-roots organization, solely funded by contributions from individuals who agree that protecting the Earth from overconsumption by this generation for the sake of future generations is a worthy goal.

Your editorial is being penny- wise/pound-foolish by viewing only short-term, local public safety and denigrating Greenpeace's action as a crass stunt or antic.

Crass denotes something undignified, base or materialistic, none of which describe Greenpeace's motive or message.

Their message is that if one believes in long-term public safety, then the greater cost by far would be incurred by ignoring Sir Nicholas Stern's advice, that reducing our carbon emissions as quickly as possible is five to 20 times cheaper than dealing with the consequences of the profligate burning of fossil fuels.

Ontario uses energy at a rate far greater than California, and could benefit from a conservation plan and incentives much closer to theirs.

OPP on Greenpeace watch 'a costly police farce'

P.L. Stirling, Wainfleet - Sept 7, 2007

Re: 'OPP should bill Greenpeace' (Editorial, Sept. 4)

Your editorial was off the mark.

The OPP response to the arrival of the Arctic Sunrise in the Welland Canal and Lake Erie was overkill.

Cruisers and undercover officers everywhere, surveillance helicopters overhead, marine units out in full force tracking the vessel while scaring the locals who thought there must be dangerous cargo being shipped through the canal.

The police should know that there are no violent incidents with Greenpeace. No guns, no bombs, no weapons of any sort. Just powerful words to remind us, on one of the smoggiest days of the summer, that we are living in the midst of one of the single largest polluters in North America, Nanticoke OPG.

Ask Julian Fantino what it cost to conduct this American homeland-security-type exercise. Ask why OPP were surrounding Nanticoke for days. Slow crime summer in Ontario? I think not. Just a lot easier and safer for the OPP to chase peaceniks across the waterways. The next time Fantino asks for money for his underfunded police budget, let's remind him about this costly police farce.

Greenpeace usually right

Bill Brush, Hamilton Sep 7, 2007

Re: 'OPP should bill Greenpeace' (Editorial, Sept. 4)

If you folks are in favour of leaving that mess at Nanticoke alone and let it pollute, just say so. Going after Greenpeace to pay the OPP to do their job, is, well I don't know.

Greenpeace is a responsible organization. Their arguments are for the sake of the Earth, and while they may be ahead of their time they are usually right. They are responsible enough to make their point and to pay what they owe because they can. In the other cases you mention you made no mention of the police being reimbursed there, so why here?

Although Julian Fantino would love to get some money out of Greenpeace, I doubt even he would have the gall to send the letter, any more than the Alabama State Police would have had the gall to send a bill to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

<< Back to Previous Page