Dear editor:
In a recent column from Morgan Nagel (‘Environmental conservatism must prevail,’ July 24), the councillor seems puzzled by how a “proud Albertan conservative,” such as himself, could be at odds with the environmental movement.
Few would disagree with the statement that we Albertans live in some truly beautiful countryside here in the Bow Valley, and it is a responsibility of all residents, regardless of political partisanship, to protect it.
And yet, as soon as Coun. Nagel was elected last fall, he voted in favour of a budget that cut $200,000 worth of funding to green projects. These projects included cuts to public transit supported by GreenTrip, the grant funding to Sustainability Partners Uniting Resources (SPUR), with future cuts planned for the Cochrane CookHouse.
With a track record like that, there is little surprise that environmentally-minded people would disagree with the conservative agenda and its lack of environmental stewardship.
Nagel is correct when he says the Canadian conservative movement is held together mostly by the goal of balanced budgets — as in, they might balance some day — a task neither federal nor provincial conservatives have yet accomplished in over five years. And maybe, as Nagel suggests, the conservative movement is held together by its belief in free markets, but if this is so, why have recent news stories included several instances of back-to-work legislation and mandatory quotas for grain shipment to Canada’s railway companies? Both recent examples constitute interference in the free market.
Nagel makes a good point regarding the need for environmental stewardship in order for access to world markets.
At the same time, let’s not overlook the negotiation tactics taken by conservatives seeking pipelines. First, disclaim and contradict scientific research. Then cut funding to the scientific community, muzzling scientists and labelling environmental groups as “radicals” or “eco-extremists.”
Next, work to discredit several aboriginal groups while trying to navigate the pipeline over their lands.
Finally, go to a foreign country (the United States) with a “don’t take no for an answer” attitude, believing you can force the pipeline through several states.
Is it any surprise that with such lousy negotiating, we see a slowing of Albertans’ goal of getting bitumen to port?
I support Coun. Nagel’s sudden green awakening, and recognize the difficulty of balancing the goals of conservatives and environmentalists.
Under current conservative governments at provincial and federal levels, the environment continues to take a back seat in the face of cheap tax cuts, the continued sell-off of Canadian industry to foreign companies and countries, and even more deficit spending — the true hallmarks of the modern conservative movement.
However, I encourage Nagel in whatever efforts he may take to balance conservatism and environmental conservation at the municipal level.
Jamie Kleinsteuber
