Canada’s Eco-warriors work to Create Canezuela

The word “fabricate” always comes to mind when reading press releases from the renewable energy crowd like CanWEA and CanSIA but not in the good way meaning to “construct or manufacture”!  Instead what enters the mind is the first definition of the word which is to “invent (false information)”!  That latter definition was in recent full display in respect to several press releases coming from CanWEA, CanSIA, Waterpower Canada and a few others.

Specifically, the press releases were in respect to a letter signed by 12 parties addressed to PM Trudeau and was assumedly fabricated by Merran Smith, Executive Director, Clean Energy Canada, Simon Fraser University with the major theme being:

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the vulnerability of the systems Canadians rely on, systems that stand to be similarly disrupted by climate-related impacts in the future absent a sustained and accelerated effort to mitigate carbon pollution while enhancing systemic resilience.”

Comparing the Covid-19 pandemic to the “climate emergency” is quite a stretch, ie: “fabrication”! The Covid-19 pandemic took just three months to severely impact the world’s economy whereas those shouting the world will end because of global warming unless we reduce carbon emissions has been their message for three decades.

The forecast that systems will be “similarly disrupted by climate-related impacts; is a fabrication!  No mention is made in the letter that emissions will contribute to “global warming” which has been the favourite dogma of the eco-warriors. Perhaps avoiding the term “global warming” is because recent evidence suggests increased emissions are not having that effect, as many real scientists have noted. A very recent headline in fact stated “Artic April Grips North America Breaking Hundreds of All-time Records” and looking back to April 2018 we were also experiencing an extremely cold April and meteorologists proclaimed: “April 2018 will likely end up being in the top 5 of the coldest in recorded history.”  These events (facts) are perhaps throwing a “wet blanket” on the past “global warming” forecasts by those reputed experts?

It is worth recalling a decade ago, “climate alarmists” and the “renewable energy” crowd convinced our naïve OLP Premier, Dalton McGuinty and Minister of Energy, George Smitherman, to create the GEA. Here is a look back at Smitherman’s and McGuinty’s quote’s in the Toronto Star in early 2009:  “Ontario’s Green Energy Act will create 50,000 new jobs in construction, trucking and engineering while laying the groundwork for developing projects more quickly, Energy Minister George Smitherman said today.”  “Premier Dalton McGuinty said while he understood a switch from making cars to making wind turbines may not be easy for workers in Ontario, green technology is key to boosting the province’s economy.”  Hmm, wonder how that turned out!

Fast forward from those days in early 2009 to see similar claims in the April 3, 2020 letter to our self-isolating PM signed by Robert Hornung. President of CanWEA and the other eleven who are either; not-for-profit eco-warrior groups or associations of “clean energy” industries, like CanSIA, WaterPower Canada, Electric Mobility Canada or Advanced Biofuels Canada etc.

The letter notes Clean Energy Canada commissioned a “modeling” by Navius Research and the result apparently was what they wanted and/or asked for.  Navius Research is a small research company whose employees/research experts seem to be products of the same University (Simon Fraser) housing Clean Energy Canada yet the letter to the PM didn’t disclose the conflicted connection.

The claim in the letter suggesting, “The analysis found that by 2030 Canada’s clean energy sector will employ 559,400 Canadians—in jobs like insulating homes, manufacturing electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, and ​building and maintaining renewable electricity projects​” is a rehash of what Ontarians were told except the claims are ten (10) times bigger.  Funnily enough, the employment levels suggested are actually less than those Natural Resources Canada reported as being employed (2018) in the oil and gas and related sectors in their recent “Energy Fact Book 2019-2020”.  Their facts state the oil and gas sector represented 7.7% ($160 billion) of Canada’s GDP and had direct and related employment of 576,000 jobs including 10,000 Indigenous people.

Most Canadians, if confronted with those two sets of facts, would be inclined to accept data provided by NRCAN rather than a prejudicial report from a small research firm whose experts were trained by those pushing to “mitigate carbon pollution”.

Just to “rub a little salt in the wounds” of Canadian taxpayers, Navius Research received approximately 20 contracts from the Federal Ministries of Natural Resources Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada valued in the neighbourhood of $800 thousand over the past several years.

The time has come to stop the madness of the eco-warriors who seem determined to turn Canada into Canezuela!

Author: parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog

Retired international banker.

17 thoughts on “Canada’s Eco-warriors work to Create Canezuela”

  1. March 2020 was Earth’s second-warmest March in 141 years of temperature records, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) reported in its monthly summary of global climate.

    NOAA’s report released Monday found that global land and ocean temperatures in March were 2.09 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average. That was the second-highest monthly temperature departure from average for any March in 141 years of recordkeeping, and it tied with February 2020 and December 2015 as the third-highest departure from average for any month in the 1,683-month record.

    Only February and March 2016, when a strong El Niño was present in the tropical Pacific Ocean, had higher temperature departures than March 2020, NOAA said.

    Ultimately, what’s most important is not whether a given month is a fraction of a degree warmer or colder. Rather, it’s the overall trend, which continues its upward climb since the late 1970s.

    March marked the 423rd consecutive month and 44th straight March that global temperatures have been above average in NOAA’s database. Earth’s five warmest Marches have occurred since 2015, and the 10 warmest have all occurred since 1990.


      1. Here is the rest of the world

        The projection distorts the size the the polar regions tremendously.


    1. No one debates whether global average temperatures are rising, but they do very much debate the far more important questions such as: Which portion of the rise is due to human activities, and specifically to carbon dioxide emissions? (debatable, but maybe half). What evidence is there that the rises attributable to human-caused carbon dioxide emissions will cause catastrophic effects? (little or none) How well have models used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change done in projecting actual temperature changes (modelled changes are more than twice as high as those actually measured). What have been the consequences of international agreements to reduce GHG emissions since 1990? (global emissions have risen 45% and are on a path to rise at least another 20% by 2040, due to economic development in Asia). What, practically, would be the effects of Canadian emissions reductions on the overall trends in global emissions or on temperatures? (zero)


  2. Liberals have deep pockets to fill; most contracts given have a return addressed envelope with the donation request form.
    It has been noted that the PPM of CO2 have hardly changed since the lockdowns started worldwide. I guess Gore, Dicaprio and the 16 year old school dropout will have to go back to school before they continue their alarmist mission.


    1. Why would you except the CO2 levels to change? CO2 is a well-mixd, persistent, non-condensing greenhouse gas that can stay in the in atmosphere for hundreds of years.


      1. Jack, Wish your spelling was better so people might understand what you are trying to say! Hope your not breathing out any of the nasty CO2 that makes all things on earth grow!

        Jack if you are trying to convert me your wasting your time and that of 99.99% of those who visit my site. You would be better off putting your comments on Environmental Defence or Pembina, etc. where you might even get a like or two. Take your hockey stick somewhere else where you can score! Hope you understand the “double entendre” in the last sentence!


  3. Thank you Parker. Again your critical thinking capacity is so much appreciated!
    Here’s a link to a very long and thorough analysis of the motivations behind the push from climate change alarmists. Canadians need to be critical thinkers to assess these motives and they need to stay on the alert and be willing to call out the sources.

    More Than 400 News Outlets Partner With A Project Seeking Media To Beef Up Climate Coverage Amid Pandemic


  4. The attempts to equate the coronavirus and the global warming hypothesis are based on fundamental misunderstandings of both problems. The coronavirus is a real, here-and-now health problem that threatens the lives of hundreds of thousands of people globally and which different countries can address each in its own ways. The hypothesis that humans are causing catastrophic global warming concerns what may happen in the distant future, based on complex computer models that are based on many assumptions about the possible effects of increased carbon dioxide concentrations on climate and another set of models that attempt to assess the consequences of those climatic changes on the economy. Every aspect of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis is subject to vigorous debate because of all the unknowns and the absence of an accepted theory of the climate. The climate issue is a global issue in respect of which what any one country does may have little impact on the local or global effects. The only similarity lies in the desire of those who claim a climate “emergency” to see the same type of draconian but temporary interventions that some governments have chosen to deal with the coronavirus applied permanently with respect to energy use.


    1. You have expressed an issue raised some time ago in the book, New World, New Minds. Humans seem to be hardwired to think about the temporally and spatially proximate. That served us well when we lived on the savanna and survival depended on immediate situational awareness. We now live in a world in which that does not serve us well. We are creating environmental issues that have long-term and global consequences.


      1. I presume you have got our Prime Minister and his cabinet to agree with you and he will self-isolate for the balance of his time in power instead of travelling the planet to get the UN security council seat , take holidays in the sunny climes or surf in BC. Maybe you could get DiCaprio to understand what a chinook is and stop him from renting those $600 million yachts too while your at it! Both Trudeau and DeCaprio are busy setting bad examples even though they both profess to buy into the climate emergency!


  5. Beware of False Green Prophet$

    Canada needs honest viable energy and environmental policies based on science and economics, not on political rhetoric, nonscience or nonsense.

    Prime Minister Trudeau’s proposed carbon tax is a clear example of this because of the delay in keeping his December 9, 2016, promise to create a matching national clean fuel standard “based on life cycle analysis” billed as “the single biggest element of Canada’s national emissions reduction plan”.

    There are at least seven major types of pollution caused in the life cycle of the production and utilization of energy: abiotic depletion; acidification; eutrophication; global warming; human toxicity; ozone layer depletion; and terrestrial ecotoxicity.

    The Trudeau Liberal government’s proposed carbon tax applies to fossil fuels like coal, oil and bitumen, but exempts other forms of energy including natural gas used for power generation, which is worse over the 20 to 50 year time frame, and likely will so-called renewable fuels such as bio-fuels including those made from food crops, and biomass such as wood.

    This applies to other so-called renewable energy sources like wood biomass, shown as not being “carbon neutral” at all, because the immediate harm from releasing the carbon in it and the fifty years or more needed to grow the trees to replace it actually makes it worse.

    Taxpayer subsidies, mandatory use laws and exemptions from carbon and life cycle taxes further increase the negative impacts of these pseudoscience based policies.

    That’s why the user-pay life cycle clean fuel policy should have been fully formulated and implemented before any other steps were taken.

    We need to find ways as a country to economically and sustainably develop and utilize our vast fossil fuel and renewable energy resources to our advantage, instead of exporting them for the benefit of others at huge discounts while unnecessarily increasing life cycle environmental impacts. (Click link or image to read complete article)


    1. Thank you Parker for your realistic presentations.
      Is climate change not the new Religion? Does it not have the same bases as a religion? Does this religion not have extremists?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: