UN doomsday scenario more bogus fearmongering

I was on 960 AM this morning on the Marc Patrone show and we discussed the release of the UNIPCC’s latest release forecasting more doom and gloom coming to us via “climate change”. This forecast is similiar to all the prior ones going back to the formation of the UN Environment Programme when Maurice Strong was the Programme Director and released the 1972 report. We covered a fair amount of ground and talked a short while about “tree planting” in Canada related to Trudeau’s promise to Greta Thunberg in 2019 that Canada would plant two billion trees. You can tune in on the podcast for August 10, 2021 starting at 48:13 up to 1:05:58 here:

For those who subscribe to NEWSTALK CANADA you can listen here:

https://newstalkcanada.com/?page_id=2527

Net-Zero by 2050 Seems Destined to Reference Money Left to Buy Food for Most of Canada’s Population

Robert Hornung, CEO of CanREA (Canadian Renewable Energy Association), recently finished a three-part series about the wonders of wind, solar and storage and indications (based on his verbiage) are; he is delighted with how the Trudeau led government are committed to achieving “net-zero” emissions by 2050.  The final sentence in his last article “Cape diem, Canada” tells the reader: “We have a fleeting opportunity to avert a catastrophe for our children and grandchildren. We need to seize it. Today.”  As one can imagine Hornung believes the world can be saved from the “changing climate” which he tells us is causing events showing: “our permafrost is melting, our coastal sea levels are rising, our snow-cover patterns are changing, and our weather is becoming more extreme, with floods, droughts, and intense storms on the rise.”  As one would expect he says the foregoing can be stopped as our electricity needs “can easily be supplied by Canada’s massive untapped renewable energy resources”.

All Canadians should realize we are now all being asked/told to relive what Ontarians were told by the McGuinty led government back in 2009 when they ushered in the GEA (Green Energy Act). The GEA caused electricity rates to more than double due to the push for renewable wind and solar generation. Ratepayers and taxpayers in the rest of Canada should take Hornung’s gloomy prognostications and concern themselves about the “net-zero” aspirations he exudes!

Hornung goes further and touts “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy,” the report released by Jonathon Wilkinson, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (MECC) in December 2020 bringing us the $170/tonne carbon-tax.  Hornung also seemed enamoured by another report from the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices whom I devoted four articles to in early 2020.  The CICC was a creation of Wilkinson’s predecessor Catherine McKenna using $20 million of our tax dollars.  The report Hornung referenced from the CICC is “Canada’s Net Zero Future” and it is 132 pages full of the fabrications Wilkinson and his boss, PM Trudeau, presumably ordered!  Doing a word search in the report for “net-zero” provides only 14 hits but one for “net zero” (without the hyphen) provides 588 hits. The word “tax” only appears twice-ie: 2 mentions, and it’s not in respect to the $170/tonne carbon-tax as it is referred to as a “carbon price”!

The report breaks down the various existing “safe bets” and possible “wild card” technologies that will purportedly allow us to meet Canada’s 2030 and 2050 emissions reduction targets. The “safe bets” include renewables such as wind, solar, biomass, hydro and also include storage (battery) and nuclear and of course transformation of our transportation modes via conversion of personal vehicles to EV. The report claims using those technologies along with increased insulation and heat pumps for buildings limited carbon capture, etc. etc. will easily allow us to meet the emissions reductions by 2030.  The “wild card” technologies include hydrogen, CCUS (carbon capture, utilization and sequestration), direct air capture, small modular reactors and a myriad of other technologies including changing our diet to consume less meat and dairy products and those will allow us to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Naturally they reference the UNIPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) several time as well as the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) in a favourable fashion as well as utilizing their reports to augment their views and recommendations.

The report also uses scary references and their reputed costs such as suggesting air pollution causes 20,000 annual deaths in Canada: “Harmful air pollutants that increase the risk of disease and premature death—pollutants such as particulate matter and ground-level ozone—are common by-products of GHG emissions. Globally, air pollution represents the single largest environmental threat to human health, according to the World Health Organization (2016), and it also takes a significant economic toll. In Canada, estimates suggest that air pollution kills around 20,000 Canadians annually, with more than 17,000 of those deaths attributable to fossil fuel use (Lelieveld et al., 2020). The direct welfare costs of fine particulate matter and ground-level ozone in Canada is estimated at as much as $46 billion per year (IISD, 2017), while Health Canada (2019a) estimates the total annual economic damage to public health from air pollution is approximately $114 billion.”  I should note Health Canada’s recent report echoed the same scary stuff and used the same reference perhaps to prepare us for the next pandemic and accompanying lock-downs.

Needless to say, the CICC report suggests the move to lower levels of carbon emissions coupled with the recommendations on using “safe bets” and evolving “wild card” technologies will not only help to reduce “global warming” and presumably reduce air pollution; but it will also reduce our expenditure on energy as a share of income. 

We should view the graph above, suggesting energy expenditures as a share of income will drop as pure unadulterated fabrication!  Not even the Ontario Liberal Government during the McGuinty/Wynne era promised our electricity costs would drop due to the adoption of clean energy from wind and solar.  They suggested rates would increase one percent (1%) but Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers know we were lied to and the actual cost increase was well over 100% and we must live with that for 10 more years!  One should doubt the CICC report has provided us with anything close to actual outcomes!

Some of those at the CICC, such as Bruce Lourie patted themselves on the back for being instrumental in getting the Ontario Liberals to buy into the renewable energy push. He and others* have played a big role in getting the CICC established and have continued to successfully push their agenda.

We should all suspect the Hornung forecast of the “catastrophe for our children and grandchildren” will be related to the unaffordable costs of just trying to survive a Canadian winter with those “baseboard”** electric heaters the CICC sees in our future!

*Rick Smith, a Lourie cohort has just been named as the new President of CICC

**Reminds me of the early sixties adds about how we could “live better electrically”.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities want more tax dollars to mitigate Climate Change

The FCM recently released a report titled “Building Back Better together“ which closely mimics messages included in The Speech from the Throne. “Building Back Better”, which was the heading on page 16 of the Throne Speech, is just one example.

The FCM’s report states: “Municipalities are on the front lines of new climate extremes, making the most of tools available to protect homes, businesses and communities. The federal Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF) has been key, but the $2B available for 2018–2028 is already almost fully committed.”  The municipalities have blown through the $2B handed to them by us taxpayers and now want more—a lot more! The report goes on to note: “Municipalities are increasingly setting ambitious climate targets and leading on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. With cities and communities influencing half of all emissions, scaling up local action is key to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.” The latter clearly indicates municipal politicians are fully on-board with the “Green Recovery” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his minions are planning!

The FCM’s report lists their climate change programs (several)  including the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) and the $950 million they received from the 2019 Federal budget for that program.

The FCM’s Wish List for “climate change”

Based on the “Building Back Better together” report, the FCM seeks more tax dollars including: $2.7 billion in federal grant funding will support replacing half the 14,000 diesel buses currently on the road with fully electric or other ZEV models by 2030”, “$350 million over three years—for eligible capital costs for inter-city and regional mobility services across the country”, “$2.5 to $5 billion of economic recovery funding directly to the municipal sector to help communities finance and scale proven climate change mitigation and resilience solutions” and “by doubling the proposed new federal investment in DMAF to $2 billion”! 

To top off their demand they also want the GTF (Gas Tax Fund) doubled so they annually receive $4.4 billion.

They apparently don’t understand the hypocrisy of the foregoing in view of their stand to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and the conversion of their fleet of buses to EV!  Where will the money come from if we are all driving EV in 2050?  In total, and only related to the issue of “climate change”, the FCMs are collectively asking the Trudeau led government for over $10 billion in additional funding and billions more for other objectives.  Apparently, they believe that even though last week’s fiscal update suggested Canada will have an annual deficit of $400 billion, there is still lots of room for more funding.  Should their ask fall on deaf ears, home owners and businesses can expect huge realty tax increases and/or services to be slashed?  If Vancouver is an example; realty taxes may climb 12% as they are reputedly “staring down the barrel of a pandemic-driven deficit” and forced to use $57 million of reserve funds to keep tax increases at 5%. Presumably other municipalities across the country are “staring down” that same barrel! One should realize those pleading on behalf of the FCM are principally “elected” municipal politicians who apparently believe, they deserve more tax dollars.  They want handouts while supporting the crippling of the oil and gas sector who have supplied a huge portion of past handouts!

How ironic!   

Municipal Chief Administrative Officer’s (CAO) view of climate change is a smaller issue

Examining the CAO’s (also titled as; County Administrator, City Manager and Town Manager) views versus municipal politicians’ views is an interesting exercise. The CAO is charged with delivering what his political master instructs him/her to do though bylaws, orders in council, etc. etc. 

Strategy Corporation (SC) conduct annual surveys of CAOs and the most recent one for 2019 highlights significant differences from elected councillors, mayors, etc. and what they consider important.

The survey (NB) ranks the CAOs concerns and they differ considerably from those touted in the FCM report and one should note; this was before the Covid-19 pandemic arrived! After conducting the survey SC analyses them and presents their “Perspective” such as the following on “Climate Change Plans”.

SC’s Perspective: “In terms of the details of the Climate Change Plans, CAOs highlighted that a practical approach must be taken because of the operational and funding parameters and limitations. A focus on improving existing infrastructure is one of the highest priorities.

SC also obtain CAO comments and those on “climate change” vary widely as the following two denote:

We hired a climate change coordinator two years ago. Plan is being coordinated with key stakeholder groups” and a conflicting one stating;

We don’t have any plan, and it has not been a discussion point or a priority.”

In terms of ranking the concerns of CAOs, SC asked the question: “What are the top three things keeping you up at night?”.  The response from 100% was “Fiscal Sustainability”. Less than a quarter of the CAO participants ticked the box for “Environment/Climate Change”.  What that suggests is the municipal bureaucrats are not sold on the panic outcries of their superiors; those elected municipal leaders!

The question is; who should taxpayers support and the answer should be obvious!

NB: Please note the survey was only conducted in Ontario and focused on CAOs from “upper” tier and “lower” tier (Northern Ontario) municipalities so relates to those selected municipalities and one province, however, this writer is reasonably certain surveying CAOs from other provinces, etc. would produce similar outcomes.

The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices should “fact check”

Back in 1989 (thirty-one years ago) Noel Brown, a senior UN environmental official told the Associated Pressentire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” Brown noted the Maldives would be under water as the oceans would rise by three feet. While the Maldives weren’t mentioned in the recent report from the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC), “rising sea levels” were; as one of, “the main hazards and conditions on the way to 2050.”

The year 2000 has come and gone but to the best of my knowledge no nations have disappeared due to rising sea levels. The Maldives recently announced they are opening four new airports in the current year.  The lack of them being under water however, hasn’t deterred the numerous “experts” involved with the CICC.  Higher sea level concerns for Atlantic Canada and BC were also included in the report by the Canadian Council of Academies (CCA) in their July 2019 report; the forerunner of the CICC’s report.  As pointed out in an earlier article CCA’s disclaimer under “Conclusions” saw them opting out of everything forecast in their report.  Despite the opt out position taken by the CCA the media only focused on the disastrous message.  Reuters noted the CCA report was a follow up to one from Minister McKenna’s ministry and reported:  “Canada’s unique geographic, environmental, and social identity shapes the hazards that it faces and its exposure to climate-related risks,” Eric M. Meslin, president and CEO of the CCA, said in the press release.”

Returning to the issue of “flooding” the CICC’s report on page 19 touts the Netherlands for their leading-edge ability to control flooding “even though a quarter of the country is below sea level.”  What those “experts” failed to note is “The low-lying Netherlands has been fighting back water for more than 1,000 years, when farmers built the first dykes.“  A search turned up an article confirming “flooding” in the Netherlands is not a recent event caused by the effects C0 2 on the atmosphere or melting artic ice!

The CICC’s report also highlighted severe flooding in Thailand in 2011 as if it was a one-off event.They ignored the probable cause which had nothing to do with “climate change”!  Had they looked back to 1942 they would have discovered a more severe flood and a YouTube video  highlighting the damage before “global warming”, the “climate crisis” or “increased emissions” was even a concept. Again, a simple search on the web by the CICC “experts” would have generated information as to why the 2011 flood occurred. One they may have found was a report by Richard Meehan, a civil engineer and adjunct faculty at Stanford University.  Mr. Meehan’s biography notes he “began his career designing and building irrigation and flood control works in Thailand in the 1960s”.

Mr. Meehan’s report notes: “Though monetary damages in the 2011 flood were unprecedented, the flood itself was not an extreme natural event, hydrological statistics variously suggesting a 30 to 75 year return period for a similar flood.”  The report states the reason for the monetary damages was essentially because “of poorly drained swampy lands on the lower Chao Phraya floodplain, including vast tracts of former swamps and riceland now occupied by very large industrial “estates” (or industrial parks in western terms), each the size of a city and home to hundreds of modern manufacturing plants developed in the 1970s and after.”  The message is clear: don’t build homes or industries in flood prone areas or at some point in the future the damages from a flood will be costly to you and/or your insurer!

The Charting our Course report does sprinkle in some benefits to “global warming” such as: “parts of Canada could benefit from warmer temperatures. Warmer winters could, for example, result in fewer cold-related deaths and illnesses and lower heating costs for households and businesses. Warmer temperatures in spring, summer, and fall could also open new tourism opportunities that previously did not exist.”

The following paragraph in the report however dispels those benefits by stating: “any benefits in a high-emissions scenario are likely temporary and short-lived. Benefits diminish as extreme climate events become more common and intense. Fewer deaths due to extreme cold are offset by more deaths from extreme heat*. Savings in heating bills are offset by increased use of air-conditioners in the summer.

It is interesting the word “likely” is used as it signals the 79 “experts” spending $20 million of our tax dollars are not really convinced those “high-emissions” will actually cause the damages they profess!

Despite the foregoing our senses should tell us the “experts” will ultimately recommend we need much higher carbon taxes to save the world from the likely “climate crisis”.

They might change their mind if they actually did proper research and “fact checked” their conclusions!

*Debunked in:  The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices is “Charting our Course”

The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices says it louder

Should one read a report titled; “Canada’s Top Climate Change Risks” issued July 2019 by the “Expert Panel” on “Climate Change Risks and Adaptation Potential” you would probably think the “Charting our Course” report recently issued by the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC) was an update but it wasn’t!  What a comparison of the two reports highlight is words spoken by the former Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna, who said: “if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it,”.  The latest CICC report exemplifies her quote and us taxpayers have provided the CICC with $20 million to ensure we “totally believe it”!

How many times can you flog a dead horse?

The first report’s “Expert Panel” are part of the “Canadian Council of Academies”. The council, launched in 2002, has managed to survive on $45 million of our tax dollars for the past 18 years. They are required to produce five reports annually when directed by the Federal Government.  Their report on Canada’s climate change risks came about as a result of a direction from the Treasury Board of Canada.  Seven (7) individuals on CCA’s “expert panel” and “workshop participants” are a part of CICC’s “expert” group and another eight (8) of those experts at the CICC were also cited as references in the CCA’s report.  One of those was Blair Feltmate, Chair of the Intact Centre at Waterloo University. Needless to say, both reports lean heavily on the insurance industries information about how “climate change” has increased insurance claims.  Catastrophes are forecast in both reports and similar comparisons are made to past events blaming them on “climate change”. The latter includes the Fort McMurray wildfires with estimated insurance claims of $1.4 billion. The CBC reported on the fire stating: “Provincial wildfire investigators have established that the fire was most likely the result of “human activity.”

On page 2 of the CCA’s report they have a map of Canada and have highlighted 10 of “Canada’s Top Climate Change Risks” and one of them is: “Lower Great Lakes water levels, affecting shipping, hydropower production, and recreation”.  As noted above the CCA report was published in July 2019 two years after Ontarians were told Lake Ontario had just experienced a “100-year flood”. Even worse flooding occurred in 2019 setting new records.  Apparently the “experts” involved in preparing the report failed to absorb the well-publicized news at that time and said nothing about “Plan 2014”!

Akin to the foregoing, CCA’s report contained statements such as: “Houses located in a floodplain, for instance, face greater risk due to their heightened exposure.”  Hardly enlightening news!

As if to excuse the diatribe spewed by the CCA expert’s report, their “Conclusions” had this to say:

Assessments of the risks posed by climate change are subject to many sources of uncertainty. Climate projections and modelling results provide an envelope of possible futures associated with different GHG emissions trajectories, but the exact path of global emissions and the full implications for the climate, combined with other natural and anthropogenic processes, remain unknown.

The CCA report therefore concludes with total disclosure they have no faith in anything contained in the prior 59 pages of their report.  Perhaps this is why former Minister McKenna took the next step to create the Canadian Institute for Climate Change and handed them $20 million of our tax dollars for a report supporting her views.

She obviously wanted her minions to “say it louder”!

Stay tuned for more.