It is prudent to have several sources of energy. On the other hand, exporting our know-how (and our gas, which is still less polluting than coal) would undoubtedly have a more significant impact on the environment on a planetary scale than small gestures where appearances outweigh the substance.

Nice way to look at things! Listening to you, we shouldn’t do our part, leave it to others and see how it will end… Global warming is a global problem, indeed! If everyone is waiting for their neighbor to act before reacting, you might as well start building bubble cities that will protect the rich from climate change, because the middle class will not be able to afford to live there…

I recognize that relying solely on electricity generated by Hydro-Québec is a dangerous idea. We need gas, oil, especially since we are lucky to have these resources right here. Imagine a widespread power outage following a computer attack, or worse, a well-targeted military attack. Don’t forget that we are currently supporting Ukraine at war with Russia!

It is true that each isolated country has a minor impact on climate change. It takes the contribution of all countries to achieve results. If we follow your reasoning, each country is authorized not to fight climate change, insofar as they see the little influence of their actions. A drop of water is nothing taken in isolation, it is their multitude that makes their abundance. Not thinking in isolation is the solution to global warming, not the other way around.

Your letter hits the bull’s eye. We launch ourselves headlong towards false objectives. After more than 40 years of plans to reduce our waste, we continue to miss the targets. We continue the race for urban sprawl by confusing everything with the occupation of the territory. We build in flood zones and in wetlands. It is time to develop a strategic approach and no longer on a case-by-case basis. To clear your conscience by buying an electric car is to continue to ostrich. We need to change our behavior.

These arguments, all countries can use to justify their lack of effort. This type of selfish thinking is precisely the source of the climate problem.

(right letter)

This is called a left field idea. The arguments presented are credible, but this kind of debate is up to the countries participating in the various COPs. It was agreed by these countries that each would do its part to reduce its GHG emissions. Each country has made commitments to this effect. And each country must develop a strategy, allocate monetary and human resources, follow up seriously, so that all these efforts bear fruit and achieve their objectives. This way of doing things and the results obtained establish the credibility of countries committed to the fight against climate change and, for some, to act as a model to follow. Choosing to look elsewhere rather than in one’s own backyard is to carry on without fundamentally changing anything in our economy, which is what far too many government and corporate “leaders” have chosen to do for far too long, in constantly shoveling forward, resulting in the urgency to act that we know today to limit global warming (for which it is probably already too late). Yes to decarbonize Quebec and even faster than our government expects, because we are off course to reach our GHG reduction target.