Dear Editor:
As a younger member of your readership, I have found myself both depressed and darkly amused by the back-and-forth on climate change by older readers in your letters section this summer.
Mr. Peter Mandic and many others have been vocal in their belief that Canada should do nothing to combat climate change and secure a safe future for me; and even this does not stir me to write. It’s an insultingly common refrain that deserves little response.
However, I felt compelled to write in after seeing that the weekly poll was asking “is climate change a major factor in increased damage from wildfires?” Why would you ask if science is true? Is this a tabloid? Last week’s poll was simply asking opinion on the Greenbelt report, but this week’s question invites a debate on whether or not a scientifically true fact is actually true.
I’m disappointed in this newspaper’s commitment to truth, and refusal to repeat the science: the UN states that we will “witness a global increase in the occurrence of extreme fires of up to 14% by 2030, 30% by 2050 and 50% by the end of this century.” This obviously includes the massive increase in wildfire destruction in 2023.
Why does a 25-year-old reader have to include this context instead of the seasoned reporters and editors who will soon be writing about ever-closer wildfires?
The Aug. 24 edition even includes a special column (on page 6) from Vancouver describing the destruction of Kelowna and Yellowknife, but this newspaper simultaneously publishes letters baselessly blaming “arson” for the fires.
I expected natural disasters, but I never expected this much denial by older folks, or the systemic failure to address it by the press.
Jeremy Squires,
Guelph