Connect with us

Alberta

Planet Of The Humans: A Scathing Exposé On The Sacred Renewables Sector

Published

4 minute read

To celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Earth Day, the Michael Moore-backed environmental documentary Planet of the Humans was released for free on YouTube. 

I’ve been waiting for months to see this film, although I wasn’t overly optimistic that I would get the opportunity because it seemed to have difficulty getting mainstream distribution. A few minutes in and I could understand why – it was damaging to the once-untouchable renewables sector. I’m still in disbelief that the powerful leaders of the climate alarmism movement were not able to stop its release, but that’s the power of the internet. In one day it has over 500,000 views on YouTube.  

Even though Moore and Director Jeff Gibbs have reversed their position on renewable sources of energy and call into question the integrity of the climate change movement, the film is in no way pro-fossil fuels. Quite the opposite. They include footage of a Syncrude oil sands mine and periodically mention the “tar sands” with utter disdain. There’s no love for natural gas either.

I’m not opposed to renewables under certain circumstances, but my heart hurt when I saw footage of the destruction caused by mining the base materials for solar panels and wind turbines and the deforestation for biomass. It hurt even more when I saw how easily the projects were discarded after gobbling up millions of dollars of government subsidies, vast tracts of land, and precious natural resources. Because few jurisdictions have strong abandonment regulations, the equipment is often left to rust once it reaches end-of-life in a few short years or is replaced by newer technology. 

I learned a lot about the makeup of the renewables sector. I had no idea there were so many biomass power plants in operation in the United States. I also didn’t appreciate what is considered ‘biomass’ or ‘biofuel’. I still can’t clear the image out of my head of the dead animals being pulverized for animal fat-based biofuel. 

What I found most confounding was the lack of energy literacy by many of the interviewees, including representatives of green initiatives and leaders of protest movements. There’s one segment where a representative from GM excitedly showcases the release of a new Chevy Volt electric car. When asked for the source of electricity charging it, the women confidently says, “The building” (that the car is plugged into). Pressed further, she admits she doesn’t know, and it’s clear she hasn’t considered, the source. Spoiler alert: it’s about 95% coal. Perhaps this is why there is so much inconsistency and backpedaling by environmental groups. 

Although this documentary is grim, and it doesn’t offer any solutions, I give Michael Moore credit for standing behind it because he’s sure to face backlash from people who were once his peers. His courage to put his name behind it and expose another side of the issue will help create better dialogue and stronger public policy. 

I encourage everyone to watch it. Seeing the greed of Bill McKibben and the “prophet” Al Gore, it’s time for real environmentalists to lead the environmental movement.

For more stories, visit Todayville Calgary

Alberta

Alberta’s move to ‘activity-based funding’ will improve health care despite naysayer claims

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail

After the Smith government recently announced its shift to a new approach for funding hospitals, known as “activity-based funding” (ABF), defenders of the status quo in Alberta were quick to argue ABF will not improve health care in the province. Their claims are simply incorrect. In reality, based on the experiences of other better-performing universal health-care systems, ABF will help reduce wait times for Alberta patients and provide better value-for-money for taxpayers.

First, it’s important to understand Alberta is not breaking new ground with this approach. Other developed countries shifted to the ABF model starting in the early 1990s.

Indeed, after years of paying their hospitals a lump-sum annual budget for surgical care (like Alberta currently), other countries with universal health care recognized this form of payment encouraged hospitals to deliver fewer services by turning each patient into a cost to be minimized. The shift to ABF, which compensates hospitals for the actual services they provide, flips the script—hospitals in these countries now see patients as a source of revenue.

In fact, in many universal health-care countries, these reforms began so long ago that some are now on their second or even third generation of ABF, incorporating further innovations to encourage an even greater focus on quality.

For example, in Sweden in the early 1990s, counties that embraced ABF enjoyed a potential cost savings of 13 per cent over non-reforming counties that stuck with budgets. In Stockholm, one study measured an 11 per cent increase in hospital activity overall alongside a 1 per cent decrease in costs following the introduction of ABF. Moreover, according to the study, ABF did not reduce access for older patients or patients with more complex conditions. In England, the shift to ABF in the early to mid-2000s helped increase hospital activity and reduce the cost of care per patient, also without negatively affecting quality of care.

Multi-national studies on the shift to ABF have repeatedly shown increases in the volume of care provided, reduced costs per admission, and (perhaps most importantly for Albertans) shorter wait times. Studies have also shown ABF may lead to improved quality and access to advanced medical technology for patients.

Clearly, the naysayers who claim that ABF is some sort of new or untested reform, or that Albertans are heading down an unknown path with unmanageable and unexpected risks, are at the very least uninformed.

And what of those theoretical drawbacks?

Some critics claim that ABF may encourage faster discharges of patients to reduce costs. But they fail to note this theoretical drawback also exists under the current system where discharging higher-cost patients earlier can reduce the drain on hospital budgets. And crucially, other countries have implemented policies to prevent these types of theoretical drawbacks under ABF, which can inform Alberta’s approach from the start.

Critics also argue that competition between private clinics, or even between clinics and hospitals, is somehow a bad thing. But all of the developed world’s top performing universal health-care systems, with the best outcomes and shortest wait times, include a blend of both public and private care. No one has done it with the naysayers’ fixation on government provision.

And finally, some critics claim that, under ABF, private clinics will simply focus on less-complex procedures for less-complex patients to achieve greater profit, leaving public hospitals to perform more complex and thus costly surgeries. But in fact, private clinics alleviate pressure on the public system, allowing hospitals to dedicate their sophisticated resources to complex cases. To be sure, the government must ensure that complex procedures—no matter where they are performed—must always receive appropriate levels of funding and similarly that less-complex procedures are also appropriately funded. But again, the vast and lengthy experience with ABF in other universal health-care countries can help inform Alberta’s approach, which could then serve as an example for other provinces.

Alberta’s health-care system simply does not deliver for patients, with its painfully long wait times and poor access to physicians and services—despite its massive price tag. With its planned shift to activity-based funding, the province has embarked on a path to better health care, despite any false claims from the naysayers. Now it’s crucial for the Smith government to learn from the experiences of others and get this critical reform right.

Nadeem Esmail

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Group that added dozens of names to ballot in Poilievre’s riding plans to do it again

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The ‘Longest Ballot Committee’ is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta.

A group called the “Longest Ballot Committee” is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta Battle River–Crowfoot riding, just like they did in his former Ottawa-area Carelton riding in last week’s election.

The Longest Ballot Committee is a grassroots group that packs ridings with protest candidates and is looking to place 200 names in the Battle River–Crowfoot riding. The riding was won by Conservative-elect MP Damien Kurek who garnered over 80 percent of the vote, but has since said he is going to vacate his seat to allow Poilievre to run a by-election and reclaim his seat in Parliament in a Conservative-safe area.

In an email to its followers, the committee said “dozens and dozens” of volunteers are ready to sign up as candidates for the yet-to-be-called by-election. The initiative follows after the group did the same thing in Poilievre’s former Carelton riding which he lost last Monday, and which saw voters being given an extremely long ballot with 90 candidates.

The group asked people who want to run to send them their legal name and information by May 12, adding that if about 200 people sign up they will “make a long ballot happen.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X