Article content

Re: Liberals, Alberta square off over timeline for net-zero power grid; UCP government initiates $8-million ad campaign opposing the federal plan, Oct. 2

I appreciate the balance in Chris Varcoe’s article about net-zero grid regulations. For instance, it’s interesting to know that the Pembina Institute has done research to show that there are several ways for Alberta to reach that goal by 2035.

Article content

I was led to find the site https://tellthefeds.ca/. Not only is the Alberta government spending money to encourage people to express their displeasure to city councillors who vote to make homes safer by banning new gas hookups, it’s also got this slick website.

Pollution is not just contaminating the water, the Earth, it’s getting to our minds. Alberta’s Canadian Energy Centre (known as the “war room”) spent $22 million last year. It’s impossible to know exactly how that money was used as the centre is not subject to freedom of information laws.

I would suggest people wanting to better understand what’s going on read former Alberta opposition leader Kevin Taft’s book, Oil’s Deep State.

Jan Slakov, Van Anda, B.C.

Pension decision a matter of fairness

When it comes to choosing between the Canada Pension Plan or an Alberta pension plan, should Albertans take the high road or the low road?

Some might argue that since we have been treated unfairly for decades with equalization payments, it is now our turn to be unfair by insisting our supposed overpayments to the CPP be returned to us. However, this does not take account of the numerous working-age newcomers to Alberta whose contributions helped pay for the pensions of parents and grandparents living in other provinces.

Article content

My guess is that a large majority of Albertans will choose to stick with the CPP simply because it is more fair to the rest of Canada.

Who knows? Maybe the rest of Canada will learn something from this.

Peter Mannistu, Calgary

Saddledome will be missed

Having just returned from Vancouver where we attended a three-day international tennis tournament at Rogers Arena, I reflect upon the upcoming demise of our iconic Saddledome. While Rogers Arena is 12 years newer, I feel our Saddledome is far superior. And yet our Dome is up for demolition. Such a shame.

Rogers Arena to me felt quite utilitarian, little architectural style setting it apart from any arena. I have never had a bad seat at the Saddledome. But at Rogers, every row of seats has a large bar running the length of each row. Depending on your height, you can either slouch down to see under the bar, or lean forward to see over the bar.

In our Dome, there is a full, uninterrupted view of the ice surface or stage from anywhere. Each row of seats sits comfortably above the row below with no craning to see over people.

I understand the economic life of our Dome doesn’t warrant the costs to upgrade, but I would keep ours over Rogers Arena all day long.  

Tim Creelman, Calgary

Share this article in your social network