February 2011

I'm one of seven billion inhabitants on planet Earth as it travels an elliptical orbit around a flaming star, the sun. Earth's turning on its axis grants us day and night, while its tilt allows for changing seasons.

Conveniently, Earth's orbit allows for the existence of both animal and plant life. The thin sliver of atmosphere which surrounds the planet keeps us alive.

Unfortunately, we take all this for granted and continue to use Earth's resources as infinite, believing that economic growth is unlimited and sustainable.

The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment by 10,000 scientists warned that "the ability of Earth's ecosystems to sustain human's endeavours can no longer be taken for granted."

In 1961 humans used half the biocapacity of our planet. By 2006 this had grown to 94 per cent. By 2030 we'll need another planet to sustain greedy industrial demands.

Unfortunately, we're addicted to mindless consumerism and living beyond the Earth's ecological means. We produce more wastes than our environment can absorb.

Our federal and provincial governments, denying climate change, support costly nuclear reactors knowing that there's no safe way to contain the radioactive waste. The oil industry, another culprit, uses massive quantities of precious water and leaves polluted ponds and threatens our rivers and aquifers.

These governments are going "hell bent for leather" on a path that led to the collapse of former civilizations. Earth's inhabitants must work to preserve our unique status in the universe.

Joan Bell

Saskatoon

The Saskatchewan Environmental Society fully recognizes that climate change is the most serious and urgent issue facing the global community. SES's primary response to this challenge is our major energy efficiency and conservation programming, which is nationally recognized for its effectiveness.

Our programs help energy users minimize energy consumption while saving money and maintaining the level of services and comfort that they require.

If the editorial writers were to read their own newspaper, they would observe that my comments on small nuclear power reactors did not imply opposition to studying their feasibility.

What I did say, and what was quoted in the Jan. 27 article, was that in the context of an overall provincial energy strategy, it is unlikely that nuclear power would turn out to be a favourable option, both from the point of view of economics and of environmental impact.

We believe that Saskatchewan has better options in the form of greatly improved energy efficiency and a variety of safe renewable sources. We are working towards a goal of being able to phase out coal-fired electricity generation without resorting to nuclear power.

nuclear power. The cost of achieving reasonable greenhouse gas emission targets is estimated by the former chief economist for the World Bank to be significantly lower than the cost of doing nothing.

Ann Coxworth

Saskatchewan Environmental Society

Re: It's time to regain key nuclear lead (SP, Feb. 4). It's interesting to note that, despite his breathless ravings at the prospect of the government marching out its fantastic nuclear program for Saskatchewan, Minister Rob Norris was unable to disguise the fossilized mentality required to continue flogging this "dead horse."

As with most things which require common sense and progressive thinking, it's the reluctance of those in power to "see the light" that retards change.

Just ask Hosni Mubarak.

Elaine Hughes

Archerwill

Jim Harding, a member of the Regina Group for a Non-Nuclear Society, recently told a large Saskatoon audience that the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations has been given $1 million to determine whether it's feasible to store our 40,000 tonnes of nuclear waste in Northern Saskatchewan.

The Métis Nation also received money for the same purpose.

Does it make sense to move nuclear waste across Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan for storage in our North? Think of the hazards of moving so much nuclear waste such long distances, and many times over.

The majority of Saskatchewan people said "no" in 2009 to having nuclear power plants located along the Northern Saskatchewan River. Is not this message strong enough to say that Saskatchewan people do not want nuclear waste that's more radioactive than the original uranium stored here?

There are safer means of providing energy such as solar panels and wind turbines, as recommended by Clean Green. Why not encourage more Saskatchewan people to couple these clean forms of energy producers with the building of affordable housing?

Peggy Durant

Saskatoon