Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

The two biggest emitters of all – the United States and China – churned out more than enough extra greenhouse gas to erase all the reductions made by other countries during the Kyoto period


A rapid transition from fossil fuels? No way — here's why
Throughout history, new energy sources have largely been added to traditional supplies rather than replacing them entirely
Peter Shawn Taylor ~~ National Post ~~June 28, 2019

Here’s a story popular with anyone claiming we have just 11 years to phase out fossil fuels or face the end of our world. (Or 31 years if 2050, rather than 2030, is your preferred doomsday.)

England once found itself in an energy crisis back in the mid-1500s. Rising demand for wood for home heating and industrial use was stripping forests bare. Plus, the Royal Navy was having a hard time sourcing mighty oak trees for its ships. So, Queen Elizabeth I passed a decree. “The monarchy declared that coal shall be burned, and the kingdom made it so ... there were fears and protests and new challenges … but people adapted, even flourished.”

Sound familiar?

People are reluctant to abandon familiar energy sources. So political leaders, we are told, must take decisive action to change the world for the better. Rule by decree is thus essential to ushering in new eras of energy — whether it’s replacing wood with coal or mandating electric cars, wind turbines, solar panels and various other clean-tech innovations to replace “dirty” fossil fuels.

CLICK HERE to read the full story


Enviro Minister Catherine McKenna
As we get new missives from our Minister of the Environment insisting, we face dire consequences if we do not drive ourselves into poverty by reducing carbon emissions, someone with common sense and the ability to reason and punches holes in her dirigible (an airship, especially one with a rigid structure)

Environment Minister McKenna is full of hot air and frighteningly rigid in her approach to climate change. The possibility that her government is impoverishing Canadians to comply with an imaginary climate change plan that has consistently failed to meet any of its objectives since it was conceived at the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ never occurs to her. The Kyoto protocol was created in 1997 but did not come into force until 2005.

Some countries and regions, including the European Union, were on track by 2011 to meet or exceed their Kyoto goals, but other large nations were falling woefully short. And the two biggest emitters of all – the United States and China – churned out more than enough extra greenhouse gas to erase all the reductions made by other countries during the Kyoto period. Worldwide, emissions soared by nearly 40% from 1990 to 2009, according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Undeterred by the Kyoto failure, UNFCCC nations met in Paris, France in December 2015 and created new, more stringent targets for carbon emission reductions. The USA and China are still not aboard, and the hysteria continues.

In 2013, the UN Environment Programme said that even if nations meet their current emissions reduction pledges, carbon emissions in 2020 will be eight to 12 gigatonnes above the level required to avoid a costly nosedive in greenhouse gas output.

As Minister of the Environment, Ms McKenna has obligations to us to:

  • Prove beyond reasonable doubt that airborne carbon dioxide drives global warming and that no other substance, occurrences or factors are involved;

  • Prove that the loss of income and investments from resource development is justified and will not result in fewer services or increased taxation during the next two decades; and

  • Prove that it is possible to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy within the next two decades without reducing our overall energy supplies or our standard of living.


This work was needed before we rushed off to Paris to partake in the climate change conference or considered signing on to any new agreement. Failure to do so is the equivalent of purchasing a full gunny sack without any knowledge of its contents. 

 
John Feldsted
Political Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg, Manitoba

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FORSETH -- Given the noted infractions of this agreement with OneBC leader Dallas Brodie, I request the Party immediate suspend the leadership campaign of Yuri Fulmer

I have personally emailed the following to the Board and Administration of the Conservative Party of BC:   TODAY (03/30) Yuri Fulmer, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of BC, made a pact with ONEBC leader Dallas Broldie, that if he is elected will commit the Conservative Party to the following. Specifically, the pact states : This Memorandum of Understanding outlines the definitive electoral and governing alliance that will be executed upon Yuri Fulmer’s election as Leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia OneBC Party commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in 88 of British Columbia’s 93 electoral districts. In exchange, the Conservative Party of BC, under the leadership of Yuri Fulmer, commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in five (5) specific electoral districts . OneBC will be the sole standard-bearer for the right in those five districts. The specific ridings will be determined through mutual negotiation and fin...

Delays to the replacement of the Red Bridge? Kamloops North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer says they are, “Totally Unacceptable.”

I think it’s totally unacceptable that on one hand the Ministry of Transportation and Transit (MoTT) is saying they’re going to be responsible for putting together multiple replacement options with public engagement, and then in the same breath they're saying, ‘Oh, and by the way, we're going to start our geotechnical environmental and archaeological site assessments on both sides of the river, possibly beginning this summer.’ According to Stamer, that should already have been done. “Obviously, we're pretty sure it will be in the same location because there's really no other place to put it. So, if you're going to put in a bridge, you think that at least you'd be doing the archaeological assessments first off”, stated Stamer.   “If it's determined it has to be a free-span bridge, and it can't have anything or very minimal impact in the riverbed, they should already be determining that. It would help in the design, wouldn't it?” Stamer indicated...

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...

Labels

Show more