Opinion
Red Deer gets $49.2 million to design and expand wastewater treatment plant for 2026. Could we look at options?

The province of Alberta is giving the city of Red Deer $49.2 million to upgrade their wastewater treatment plant. To handle the wastewater created throughout the region.
This is a multi-year multi-faceted project that will culminate in treating 72,000 cubic metres of waste daily in 2026. That is a lot of water being pumped into the river in one spot.
There will be years in the planning and designing stage before construction begins. Is there any room in that schedule to contemplate a small turbine or two to produce electricity? Is it at all possible to ask experts if it is possible to divert some of that water to run a hydro-electric turbine to produce electricity to some extent, possibly enough to run a pump or a few lights?
Turbines are about 8 times more efficient now than they were a few years ago, how efficient could they be in 7 years?
Portland installed turbines in their water pipes to produce electricity, so I am sure they asked the experts, got a feasibility study, studied the cost/benefit analysis before proceeding.
Will Red Deer even consider asking the experts? No, they asked once, years ago, it wasn’t feasible then so it is not feasible now, no matter how far they have come in efficiencies and costs. End of story. How sad.
I just thought the city could look at future cost savings, perhaps reduce their reliance on non-renewable resources, and look at possible options to get the greatest return on this generous gift from the province. That may be too much to ask.
But I am asking. What do you say?
conflict
Victor Davis Hanson Makes a Disturbing Prediction About What Happens If Iran Survives

Amidst rough seas, you need a steady sailor.
Not just what’s happening, but what’s coming next.
“I think we’re going to see things that we haven’t seen in our lifetime in the Middle East,” he said.
This could go one of two ways, neither is small.
Victor Davis Hanson isn’t known for hyperbole. So when he opens with a warning like this, people pay attention:
“We are at an historic time in the Middle East,” he said.
“Never in our lifetimes have we been closer to a complete revolutionary fervor that gives promise of normalcy for the Middle East. And never have we been in more danger of seeing the entire region blow up.”
The paradox is striking.
Peace may be closer than ever, but so is total collapse.
And at the center of it all is the unfolding conflict between Iran and Israel, which Hanson called “surreal.”
Reflecting on the rapid collapse of Iran’s regional dominance, Hanson admitted that even a few years ago, this moment would have been unthinkable.
“If we had this conversation five years ago,” he said, “and I said to you, the Iranian nation that is huge compared to Israel, ten times the population, the Iranian nation has lost all control of the Houthi terrorists, and they are themselves neutered…”
He pointed to a chain reaction across the region: Iran’s proxy forces in Gaza and the West Bank have been neutralized. Hezbollah, once a feared military force, is now dormant.
“They’re gone as a Hamas, as a fighting force. The formidable, the terrifying Hezbollah cadres, they’re inert.”
The chaos in Syria, once a stronghold of Iranian influence, now seems to be working against Tehran.
“There is no more Syria, the Assad dynasty, the pro-Iranian, the Syria. It’s in chaos. But whatever the chaos is, seems to be anti-Iranian.”
The collapse is strategic, not just symbolic. Hanson noted that the so-called “Shia crescent” connecting Tehran to the Mediterranean is no longer intact.
“Lebanon is free of Iranian influence. So is Syria. Gaza, a de facto, will be.”
Even Russia, once a key ally, is no longer a player in the region.
“It’s tied down in Ukraine,” he said.
“Iran itself, the formidable powerhouse of the Middle East that evoked terror all over, has no defenses.”
Over the course of just five days, Israel has launched a targeted military campaign to dismantle Iran’s strategic infrastructure.
According to Hanson, the damage has been sweeping.
“They have dismantled all of the Iranian missile defenses. They have dismantled the terrorist hierarchy. They have dismantled the people who are responsible for the nuclear program.”
And yet, there’s risk.
“The Iranians have sent over 400 ballistic missiles and drones into Israel,” he said, “and 90 percent are stop. But that 10 percent gets through.”
Which brings us to the turning point.
All of this only matters if it ends with Iran’s theocracy on the brink of collapse.
If it doesn’t, everything that’s been gained could be erased.
“All of this chaos and all of this war will be for not if Iran’s theocracy emerges intact from this war.”
Even more dangerous, he added, would be a scenario in which the country’s nuclear infrastructure survives or can be quickly rebuilt.
That possibility has triggered one of the most urgent strategic questions on the table: Can Israel finish the job?
Or will it need help from the United States to strike Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities?
This is where things get complicated.
Under the “America First” foreign policy doctrine, Trump has been clear: no more forever wars, no more ground troops in the Middle East.
But Hanson argued that Trump’s actions tell a deeper story.
“I’m not an isolationist, I’m a Jacksonian,” he said, echoing what Trump might say.
“You should have known that when I took out Soleimani… when I took out Baghdadi… when I took out the Wagner Group.”
The message? Trump doesn’t go looking for wars. But when deterrence is at stake, he’s not afraid to act decisively.
Still, Hanson posed a chilling question: what if the Iranian regime survives?
“If this war should end with the Iranian regime intact and the elements of its nuclear program recoverable,” he warned, “then in some ways it will be all for naught.”
Despite Iran’s military losses, its media destruction and its isolated position, surviving such a coordinated strike could give it something even more powerful than weapons: perceived invincibility.
“It will be more like, oh my gosh, Iran survived everything that Israel, and by association the United States, threw at it.”
“It’s indestructible.”
And that, Hanson suggested, would be the real danger.
Not just a return to the status quo, but a shift in perception that emboldens the regime and reshapes the balance of power across the region.
Now the question hanging over the entire conflict is this: does the world play it safe and allow remnants of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure to survive?
Or risk a final strike that could eliminate the threat for good, but possibly trigger even greater instability?
“Do you risk more danger by taking out and eliminating the nuclear threat for good,” Hanson asked, “and by association, you humiliate the theocracy to the point it can be overthrown?”
That’s the gamble.
He didn’t shy away from his own discomfort with war.
“I don’t like forever wars,” he added.
“I don’t like preemptive wars. I do not like the United States intervening anywhere in that godforsaken area. But if the war ends with the regime intact and a recoverable nuclear program, it won’t just be back to square one. It will be a disaster.”
That’s when he dropped a bombshell prediction of the future in the area after the dust settles in the desert.
Whether this ends in collapse or resurgence, Hanson believes the next phase of the war could reshape the entire region and the world’s understanding of power in the Middle East.
“So we’ll see what happens,” he said.
“And hold on, everybody. I think we’re going to see things that we haven’t seen in our lifetime in the Middle East. And it could turn out very bad.”
“But it could also turn out to be quite revolutionary and remake the map of the entire region.”
This story was made possible with the help of Overton —I couldn’t have done it without him.
If you’d like to support his growing network, consider subscribing for the month or the year. Your support helps him expand his team and cover more stories like this one.
We both truly appreciate your support!
Subscribe to The Vigilant Fox
Automotive
Supreme Court Delivers Blow To California EV Mandates

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
“The Supreme Court put to rest any question about whether fuel manufacturers have a right to challenge unlawful electric vehicle mandates”
The Supreme Court sided Friday with oil companies seeking to challenge California’s electric vehicle regulations.
In a 7-2 ruling, the court allowed energy producers to continue their lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to approve California regulations that require manufacturing more electric vehicles.
“The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. “In light of this Court’s precedents and the evidence before the Court of Appeals, the fuel producers established Article III standing to challenge EPA’s approval of the California regulations.”
Kavanaugh noted that “EPA has repeatedly altered its legal position on whether the Clean Air Act authorizes California regulations targeting greenhouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles” between Presidential administrations.
“This case involves California’s 2012 request for EPA approval of new California regulations,” he wrote. “As relevant here, those regulations generally require automakers (i) to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their fleets of new motor vehicles sold in the State and (ii) to manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles as part of their vehicle fleets.”
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals previously rejected the challenge, finding the producers lacked standing to sue.
“The Supreme Court put to rest any question about whether fuel manufacturers have a right to challenge unlawful electric vehicle mandates,” American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) President and CEO Chet Thompson said in a statement.
“California’s EV mandates are unlawful and bad for our country,” he said. “Congress did not give California special authority to regulate greenhouse gases, mandate electric vehicles or ban new gas car sales—all of which the state has attempted to do through its intentional misreading of statute.”
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Jordan Peterson reveals DEI ‘expert’ serving as his ‘re-education coach’ for opposing LGBT agenda
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Hope For Future Energy Project Permitting
-
espionage1 day ago
From Sidewinder to P.E.I.: Are Canada’s Political Elites Benefiting from Beijing’s Real Estate Reach?
-
Agriculture23 hours ago
Unstung Heroes: Canada’s Honey Bees are not Disappearing – They’re Thriving
-
International2 days ago
Trump puts new price tag on Canada joining “Golden Dome”
-
conflict2 days ago
Trump dismisses US intelligence that Iran wasn’t pursuing nuclear bomb before Israeli attack
-
Economy2 days ago
Ottawa’s muddy energy policy leaves more questions than answers
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta’s carbon diet – how to lose megatonnes in just three short decades