To the editor:
In response to Tom Fletcher’s column, (In 2018, ideology meets reality, Capital News. Dec. 29), I am wondering whether, in the example he uses of the Site C dam, the reality he refers to is that vast amounts of valuable farm land would be flooded, land that could feed a million people—a good backup to have for a food source considering the problems California is facing with its huge environmental problems.
Is it a reality that as things stand now if the Site C dam proceeds, First Nations’ rights are not being respected? Is it a reality that expensive power will be sold at a loss while alternative sources are neglected and is it a reality that the poisoning of fish for at least a generation will happen if the dam proceeds? If these are not realities then he should explain what they are. Is a farming family not wanting to be forced off the land being ideological by trying to stay on their land? Is the same true of a First Nations’ group wanting to maintain its traditional way of life or of people worried about wildlife corridors being blocked by the water in the dam?
Perhaps Fletcher could answer these questions or else use different language when trying to make his point.
Peter Kerr, Kelowna
To report a typo, email: firstname.lastname@example.org.