Re. Patrick MacDonald’s letter Wants renewable energy (Castanet, Aug. 9)
In spite of an admission from MacDonald that the "world would grind to a halt" without oil (which, I admit, is some progress on his part), he again provides no suggestions for economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels.
Again he defends Liberal debt accumulation but gives no dollar ceiling to which his grandchildren might object. Open-ended spending by any government while decimating the economy is not sustainable. And, again, he provides strong opinions against (front running Conservative leadership candidate) Pierre Poilievre and his policies.
Poilievre must be very scary indeed to left-leaning people across the country since he isn't even leader of his party and yet many are tripping over themselves to denounce him.
If you don't like him, then don't vote for him. It's quite an empty argument, or an arrogant one, to suggest that you simply "know" what someone may or may do in any hypothetical situation.
It's pretty rich to accuse Poilievre of "attack dog criticism" and then do exactly that yourself in your next breath.
Lastly, sadly, and most telling, I see that MacDonald has completely avoided answering any of the serious questions I posed in my last letter.
What exactly is the point of another repetitious letter?
Lloyd Vinish, Kelowna