Please don’t ban gas leaf blowers
Re: “Oak Bay councillor wants to ban gas leaf blowers,” Nov. 23.
Gas-powered blowers are noisy and they do pollute our air (just like jet airliners, cars, etc.). It would be wonderful and great if we could all shift to using battery-powered blowers, and for homeowners who take care of their own small residential lots, it is possible.
If professional landscapers were forced to get rid of their gas-powered leaf blowers (and other gas-powered equipment), then we would have to carry several extra fully-charged batteries in our trucks every day (not cost effective). The average amount of time that a battery in a battery-powered blower lasts is 20 minutes. Battery-powered lawn and garden equipment is not nearly as powerful as gas-powered equipment.
If our federal and provincial governments put more pressure on the manufacturers of battery-powered lawn and garden equipment so as to produce more powerful equipment that would last a lot longer than 20 minutes per charge, then professional landscapers would be much more interested in going the way of battery-powered lawn and garden equipment.
Mike McQuay Lawn & Garden
Victoria
Set a noise limit for leaf blowers
I wholeheartedly agree with banning certain leaf blowers that emit a level of noise above a certain decibel rating. There are two gas-powered backpack style leaf blowers in our neighbourhood that can be heard from a great distance and sound like some kind of automatic weapon, sometimes for hours. With the technology available today, there is little need for an engine to be that noisy. We live on an acreage and an electric leaf blower makes short work of clearing debris from our driveway, taking 15 minutes about 10 times yearly. So, I do see a need for some leaf blowers, but set a noise limit.
Mike Wilkinson
Duncan
Using fossil fuel isn’t hypocritical
Re: “If you don’t like fossil fuel, don’t use it,” letter, Nov. 24.
The letter writer thinks everybody who wants to reduce the use of fossil fuels is a hypocrite, if they use any fossil fuels at all. I guess that makes all those opposed to logging old-growth forests hypocrites, if they own anything wooden. The world is not a binary option.
Thoughtful people can want a reduction in fossil-fuel production and use, while still accepting that some hydrocarbons will always be needed. We should certainly try to replace fossil fuels with better options as those better options become available.
If we upgrade our housing stock to be more energy-efficient, we can reduce our energy consumption. If we drive less and use more energy-efficient transportation, we can reduce our energy consumption. The good news is that as we save energy, we also save money.
Why would anybody be against improving the environment and saving money at the same time? The vast majority of people who want to reduce the use of fossil fuels aren’t hypocrites; they are practical citizens who want a better future for everybody.
S.I. Petersen
Nanaimo
Fossil-fuel dependency and hypocrisy
A letter to the editor says it’s hypocritical for people who use fossil fuels to call for a transition to renewables. This is faulty thinking. The science of climate change is unequivocal; we must leave most of the remaining fossil-fuel reserves in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. Therefore, we must begin the transition immediately, even though the change will not be instantaneous.
I agree that the best way to put a product out of business is to stop using it. However, for those who want to do that with fossil fuels, the deck is heavily stacked against them, because our existing societal energy infrastructure tends to compel the use of fossil fuels and preclude alternatives.
We heavily subsidize the system we don’t want, namely fossil-fuel extraction, distribution and end-use infrastructure, by many direct and indirect tax breaks and subsidies, guaranteeing that the fossil fuels will get extracted, transported and used.
Meanwhile, the system we do want, renewables infrastructure and energy production, gets significantly less money. It is far, far from a level playing field.
When you are stuck in a place of unwanted dependency that is based on outmoded and inequitable policy, it is not hypocritical to condemn the system and call for change.
Alex Zimmerman
Victoria
Closing cannabis stores is poor policy
Re: “Victoria pot shop packed a day after raid,” Nov. 16.
Cannabis is legal. Many people use it for medicinal purposes, as well as recreational. The licensing process sounds purposely complex and incompetently applied. Putting people out of work and making it difficult to get legal substances is not a good use of tax dollars. Why not look at best practices in other provinces, where the liquor commissions and private retailers have been successfully used for cannabis sales?
Judy Lightwater
Victoria
The problem is not the tech boom
Re: “U.S. tech boom is coming to B.C., but at a steep price,” Nov. 10.
The article on the issues faced by Seattle starts with a false premise: economic booms are inherently damaging. The problem really resides in the inability to capture the value of the boom for all residents in a particular area.
If people are getting better wages in a sector, it is expected that they will be able and willing to spend more and prices will rise accordingly (Economics 101). However, if the wages for one sector of the population do not grow accordingly, a gap is created and the cycle goes on and on until it is impossible to close.
The real problem is public policies that enable these disparities to flourish. As a society, that should be our main concern, working toward a model where everyone reaps the benefits of such booms.
Daniel Sanchez
Victoria
No honour in victory gesture over whale
Re: “After 20 years, tribe hopes to hunt whales again,” Nov. 17.
I was somewhat taken aback by the photo of the whale hunt, taken in 1999 in Washington.
Standing on the carcass of the whale with hands raised in what appears to be a victory gesture is hardly my idea of honouring it, as is often claimed.
The article stated that the whale was shot with a high-powered rifle after being harpooned, in order to “minimize” its suffering. How thoughtful. It wouldn’t have suffered at all if it had not been assassinated.
M.C. Bush
Comox
Editorial cartoon was in poor taste
Re: “Life in the Duchy of Saskaberta,” Adrian Raeside cartoon, Nov. 24.
I found the editorial cartoon in Sunday’s paper to be of poor taste and offensive. It is a continuance of attempts to paint our neighbours to the east in a negative, inaccurate and unflattering way. Having lived in Alberta, I can attest to the fact that our neighbours are not all cowboys or rednecks, as depicted in this less-than-humorous cartoon. We need more efforts to unify the country and not bash our neighbours.
Jack Mulkins
Victoria
Removing Macdonald statue makes sense
Re: “The wrongs of history remain, regardless of their name,” Lawrie McFarlane column, Nov. 24.
Why does the Times Colonist persist in publishing historically illiterate political commentary about the statue of John A. Macdonald? Plenty of people objected to his policies regarding residential schools and starving the Indigenous peoples of the Prairies. They were ignored. This is all well-documented in (mainly recent) scholarly books any member of the public can borrow from the UVic library.
I call on everyone commenting on this issue to inform themselves prior to spouting uninformed opinion, old-fashioned nationalist apologetics and partisan cant.
The statue was erected by a partisan group of Tories in the 1980s.
It was a political act. Removing it was, too. And a good one — it was requested by Indigenous members of the City Family.
Repressing the past and pretending it has no effect on us today is the opposite of reconciliation.
Andrew Gow
Professor emeritus of history at University of Alberta
Victoria
Send us your letters
• Email: letters@timescolonist.com
• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 2621 Douglas St., Victoria, B.C. V8T 4M2.
