A response to climate change denier
Sir: Regarding Peter Clarke’s July 11 letter: “The climate alarmists are ramping up their rhetoric.”
Does Mr. Clarke think we should wait until the last tree is chopped down, the last breath of clean air taken, the last sip of fresh water drunk before declaring a climate emergency?
It will be nearly impossible to restore trees, natural plants, insects, birds and wildlife if there are no seeds, no species and no space left for such projects. What is more, we will save money if we make changes now, rather than wait for the situation to worsen.
The tone of Clarke’s letter suggests climate advocates are being unreasonable. In my experience, climate advocates want a healthy earth, so that they and future generations may thrive.
My request to climate change deniers is this: if there is no climate emergency now, then outline a list of criteria that will indicate a climate emergency is truly upon us.
If the list you create never transpires, then I will be as happy as you with the outcome. If it does transpire, then there will be a point in time that we can all agree to address the climate emergency together.
Lorraine Dolbear
Sarnia
Problems with senior care identified in report can be fixed
Sir: I was glad to see The Journal’s recent story exposing the senior care concerns contained in the report by Navigation Senior Care Lambton and Community Legal Assistance Sarnia (June 2019).
In 1987, the Ontario government enacted the Bill of Rights for nursing home residents, and later for other senior care facilities. The law requires the Bill of Rights be posted for clear viewing in the facilities.
Some of the rights include:
(1) Every resident has the right to be treated with courtesy and respect and in a way that fully recognizes the resident’s dignity and individuality, and to be free from mental and physical abuse;
(2) Every resident has the right to be properly sheltered, fed, clothed, groomed, and cared for in a manner consistent with his or her needs.”
Violations of the first right would constitute abuse while violations of the second right would constitute neglect.
Ignoring a resident’s call bell for help (e.g., physical distress, or to use the bathroom) within a reasonable period (5 to 10 minutes), or canceling the call bell and saying they will be back soon and not mean it or do so (one hour later is “not soon”) would constitute neglect.
Despite increased government inspections since 2013 it is clear more is needed.
A fundamental problem seems to be no recognition and inadequate prioritization by politicians at all levels. They need to realize the system is broken and understand the size and severity of the problem.
How many of these seniors are there? How many care hours are needed for health and dignity (for routine and urgent non-routine help)? Then they need to identify a complete correction for the system.
One problem is insufficient staffing levels, a result of inadequate funding.
Another is losing high quality staff (which possess the necessary empathy). They need full-time, not part-time, work and reasonable pay/ benefits. Excessive stress can lead to burnout and job resentment.
Potential future nursing home residents are worried seeing these “horror” stories, but it’s not too late for honest, caring politicians to fix the problem.
Manuel Marta
Sarnia
There’s already plenty of evidence of climate change
Sir: Regarding Peter Clarke and his letter (July 11) about “climate alarmists.”
What if they are right and he is wrong? He can go ahead and make fun of them. He can tell people losing their homes to wildfires because of no rain, people flooded in areas that have never seen so much water before, and farmers who haven’t been able to plant their crops until just recently — he can tell them not to worry because it’s ONLY the weather.
We in Sarnia, including Mr. Clarke, are very fortunate to live where we live. But maybe, just maybe, he shouldn’t be so stoical.
Maybe the scientists who say we still have a chance to change future weather are right. What if he is wrong?
Sharon Stewart
Sarnia