Connect with us

Opinion

Wouldn’t we save money and have nicer lawns if we just did our business behind a bush?

Published

3 minute read

It costs $73/tonne to toss out my coffee cup. That is the cost of taking solid waste to the waste management site. It costs about $40 per month for my waste water to get treated and dumped into the river.
Would it not be cheaper to just burn my solid waste in the back yard or dump it over the fence or drop it along some dirt road, or in some farmer‘s field? It might be cheaper in the short term but if everyone did it, I can only imagine.
Speaking of farmers’ fields, you know they have manure spreaders for spreading manure on their fields. So manure is a good fertilizer, good for plants. Interesting because that is part of the reason why we pay $40 per month cleaning our wastewater.
Would it not be cheaper if we all just did our business in our gardens or dumped it in the streets and let the rain wash it away or let it fertilize the ground?
Can you imagine how much crop we could get if 7 billion people left their fertilizer on the ground? Now if only we had CO2 to help our crops grow?
You can see where I am going with this and how foolish it appears, but the argument against carbon pricing is very similar.
How many times have we heard that CO2 is not a pollutant but is a necessity for plant growth. Water is necessary too, but nobody wants a flood or a tsunami.
It took many generations, plagues and courage to get the sewage off the streets and solid waste into landfills. It took generations to get recycling into the mainstream, it will take longer to accept a price on carbon.
We have 3 levels of pollution solid, liquid and gas. We pay $73 per tonne to manage our solid waste and since carbon pricing is based on a solid’s scale why not charge $73 per tonne of carbon?
We all understand about our need for clean air just as we understand our need for clean water and removing our trash. We recycle while many third world nations may not, we treat our wastewater while many third world nations may not, so why don’t we clean our air or at least make those who pollute, pay?
My fire and flood insurance is going up due to increased fires and floods, due to climate change, due to CO2, and health care related costs are going up and the list goes on so I guess everyone is paying for our free air pollution.
Shouldn’t the polluters pay a little bit more?
Just asking.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Jordan Peterson reveals DEI ‘expert’ serving as his ‘re-education coach’ for opposing LGBT agenda

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Ontario College of Psychologists has selected Jordan Peterson’s “re-education coach” for having publicly opposed the LGBT agenda.

In a June 16 op-ed published by the National Post, Canadian psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson revealed that U.K. citizen Harry Cayton will guide him through the mandatory training.

“In the last week … the College has re-established contact, after months of unnecessary delay, which occurred in violation of their own order and guidelines. They have made me an entirely new offer, all the while insisting that this was their intent all along, which it most clearly was not,” Peterson said.

“All they really want, it turns out, is one two-hour session, which will not involve any ‘social media’ training,” he further explained. “This will be conducted by a man — one Harry Cayton — a citizen of the U.K., who is neither social media expert, according to the College and is definitely not a psychologist.”

Harry Cayton, a supposed expert on “professional regulation and governance,” is known professionally for promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

In 2021, he was appointed to conduct an independent review of the British Columbia Law Society’s governance structure, specifically examining how it supports DEI goals.

Additionally, in 2022, while appearing on Ascend Radio’s podcast, Cayton argued there should be more DEI regulations in professional associations.

Peterson has promised to make the details of his “re-education” public, questioning why the College wishes to hide what Cayton plans to discuss with him.

Peterson also explained that he will publicize the training “so that people who are interested can decide for themselves what is going on.”

In January 2024, Peterson lost his appeal of the board’s decision to compel him to undergo mandatory re-education, meaning that he must attend the training or risk losing his license to practice psychology in Ontario.

Peterson also revealed that his “legal options have” now “been exhausted” after Ontario’s highest court rejected his appeal of the College’s 2022 ruling that his public political statements ran afoul of the administrative board’s rules and that he must therefore submit to, and personally pay for, a “coaching program” on professionalism.

Peterson is a widely-known critic of Canada’s increasingly totalitarian government. He has also spoken frequently on the need for young men to accept and take on personal responsibility. While he has seemingly inspired others to explore Christianity, he has not yet espoused a personal belief in any religion, though he affirmed his wife Tammy in her decision to convert to Catholicism in 2024.

Continue Reading

Business

Rhetoric—not evidence—continues to dominate climate debate and policy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Myths, fallacies and ideological rhetoric continue to dominate the climate policy discussion, leading to costly and ineffective government policies,
according to a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“When considering climate policies, it’s important to understand what the science and analysis actually show instead of what the climate alarmists believe to be true,” said Kenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Four Climate Fallacies.

The study dispels several myths about climate change and popular—but ineffective—emission reduction policies, specifically:

• Capitalism causes climate change: In fact, according to several environment/climate indices and the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World Index, the more economically free a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.

• Even small-emitting countries can do their part to fight climate change: Even if Canada reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to zero, there would be
little to no measurable impact in global emissions, and it distracts people from the main drivers of emissions, which are China, India and the developing
world.

• Vehicle electrification will reduce climate risk and clean the air: Research has shown that while EVs can reduce GHG emissions when powered with
low-GHG energy, they often are not, and further, have offsetting environmental harms, reducing net environmental/climate benefits.

• Carbon capture and storage is a viable strategy to combat climate change: While effective at a small scale, the benefits of carbon capture and
storage to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions on a massive scale are limited and questionable.

“Citizens and their governments around the world need to be guided by scientific evidence when it comes to what climate policies make the most sense,” Green said.

“Unfortunately, the climate policy debate is too often dominated by myths, fallacies and false claims by activists and alarmists, with costly and ineffective results.”

Four Climate Fallacies

  • This study examines four climate narratives circulating in public discourse regarding climate change.
  • Fallacy 1: Climate Change Is Caused by Capitalism. As we will observe, this is backward: the more capitalist a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.
  • Fallacy 2: Even Small-Emitting Countries Can Do Their Part to Fight Climate Change. Again, in reality, even a casual inspection of the emission trends and projections of large-emitting countries such as China would reveal that for small-emitting countries like Canada, even driving their greenhouse gas emissions to zero would have no measurable impact in reducing climate risk.
  • Fallacy 3: Vehicle Electrification Will Reduce Climate Risk and Clean the Air. However, when looking beyond the hype, it becomes evident that vehicle electrification presents an array of climate and environmental benefits and harms that extend beyond climate change.
  • Fallacy 4: Carbon Capture and Storage Is a Viable Strategy to Combat Climate Change. This fallacy, most popular with those in the fossil fuel industry and those of a more market-oriented and politically conservative bent, is no more realistic than the previous three. An examination of the history, effectiveness, and efficiency of carbon capture and storage suggests that it is a far more limited approach to regulating greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere than proponents suggest.
Kenneth-Green-2017.jpg

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X