Environment
Activist shares how Canadians can fight globalism through local action
From LifeSiteNews
Maggie Braun, the founder of Kicking International Council out of Local Environmental Initiatives, told LifeSiteNews that there are ‘small wins happening every day’ against globalism by pro-local Canadians.
A pro-freedom advocate told LifeSiteNews that many Canadians have already successfully stood up to the meddling of the United Nations’ globalist agenda, encouraging all citizens to know their rights under the law to protect their local communities.
During a November 20 discussion at the Rankin Culture and Recreation Centre in Pembroke, Ontario, about the ways in which the United Nations are breaking municipal laws and violating property rights in an effort to achieve their globalist goals, Maggie Braun, the founder of Kicking International Council out of Local Environmental Initiatives (KICLEI), shared just what Canadians have been doing to successfully stand up for their local communities.
“There’s small wins happening every day,” Braun told LifeSiteNews in an interview before the discussion.
“Counselors opening up and communicating with the community and our concerns and just bridging that gap and sharing and exchanging information with them and slowly watching them start to make moves to withdraw from the programs or shut down renewable energy projects that don’t make sense in their area,” she shared as an example of successful pushback.
KICLEI is an organization dedicated to empowering local governments to address the needs in their community, and not to blindly follow the direction of groups like the UN.
The group also works to ensure “every Canadian enjoys the right to privacy, property, and self-determination, while fostering respect for our cultural and regional diversity.”
According to Braun, her goal is to “advocate for local environmental stewardship programs over globally mandated climate action plans” by informing Canadians of their property rights, particularly with respect to the attempted implementation of the UN’s climate policies.
“We’ve discovered that these programs are coming in through an organization called ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, who have brought certain programs down to the municipal level to drive climate action plans,” Braun explained.
Following this discovery, Braun has been working to bring awareness to the issue and persuade city and town councils to vote against UN recommendations which would undermine their citizens’ sovereignty. She revealed that her first victory was in Thorold, Ontario.
Braun explained that a group of four “saw that the environmental committee had openings,” and decided to send delegations to the meeting, start petitions and pack the council with support.
“We did four delegations in a row and by the end of it the staff recommended that they withdraw from the program,” Braun stated. “We just had to show up and do the basic work and it worked.”
“That was our first big win and now we’ve taken those strategies, developed tools that we can bring across the country” to help citizens “push back on the climate action plan.”
Earlier in November, Maggie Hope Braun told LifeSiteNews via email that the meeting will address how global agendas, “particularly UN climate initiatives,” are reshaping municipal priorities and policies across Canada.
Braun voiced concerned over local governments feeling pressured to adopt policies set by international organizations rather than responding to local priorities.
“Programs aligned with UN climate goals often come with strings attached, especially regarding federal funding, which can compel municipalities to follow UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to access resources,” she wrote. “This reliance can dilute local autonomy, making it difficult for municipalities to allocate budgets according to their own needs, as funding is often tied to specific climate-related expenditures—like electric fleets—that may not suit every community’s practical or economic realities.”
She added that these programs often introduce costly mandates, increase taxes, and, in some cases, affect privacy through the use of data-monitoring smart technologies, all of which can strain communities financially and socially.
“Canadians are beginning to feel these pressures, and many are questioning the long-term impacts on their rights, privacy, and economic well-being,” Braun stated.
Braun’s concerns are hardly unfounded as in March, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued an “urgent” call for countries around the world to sign on to their sovereignty-undermining “Pandemic Accord” by May. However, as May came around, countries were still unable to agree on the treaty, with many refusing to sign away their sovereign rights.
As a result, the treaty was not signed into law, but critics have warned that the WHO will likely continues its efforts to coerce countries to sign the document.
Similarly, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “pandemic prevention and preparedness” bill is set to become law despite concerns raised by Conservative senators that it gives sweeping powers to government, particularly over agriculture.
From Resource Works
A major shift is underway in Europe — and it’s a warning Canada would do well to heed.
Last week, the European Commission confirmed it plans to scrap its so-called “Green Claims Directive.” The proposal was designed to crack down on corporate greenwashing — companies making vague or misleading claims about how environmentally friendly their products are.
At first glance, that might sound like a worthy goal. Who wants false advertising? But the plan quickly ran into trouble, especially from smaller businesses who warned it would add layers of red tape, compliance costs, and legal risk.
In fact, the Commission itself admitted that as many as 30 million micro-enterprises could end up having to comply with the rules. Even with exemptions written in, the direction of negotiations pointed to increased burdens, not clarity. The result? A lot of businesses — even the well-intentioned ones — would stop talking about their environmental practices altogether, just to stay out of legal trouble.
Czech economist and tax expert Danuše Nerudová, a member of the European Parliament and a lead negotiator on the file, put it plainly: “I welcome the fact that the Commission has listened … and hope this opens the door to a more balanced and effective approach.” The proposal, she said, was “overly complex.”
If that sounds familiar, it should.
Canada’s own Bill C-59, which came into force this month, is already having a similar effect. The bill, which changes the Competition Act to target “greenwashing,” makes it legally risky for companies to say anything about their climate efforts unless they have airtight, independently verified proof — the kind often only available to large companies with big legal budgets.
At Resource Works, we’ve heard from organizations who’ve made the decision to stop communicating about environmental performance entirely. Not because they’ve done something wrong — but because the rules are vague, expensive to follow, and expose them to complaints even when acting in good faith.
That’s a loss. For consumers, for environmental progress, and for transparency.
Canada should be encouraging companies to communicate openly and credibly about their sustainability performance — not shutting down those conversations with threats of litigation. The European Commission has now acknowledged that its own approach, despite good intentions, risks backfiring. It’s time for Ottawa to take a similar step back.
With Prime Minister Mark Carney under pressure to unleash Canadian potential in the resource sector, revisiting Bill C-59 would be a sign of both good faith and practicality. Canada needs more innovation, more investment, and more real progress — not more reasons to say nothing.
It’s time to recycle Bill C-59 into something that actually supports good environmental practice instead of stifling it.
From the Fraser Institute
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.”
Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
What Connor Should Say To Oilers: It’s Not You. It’s Me.
Ontario man launches new challenge against province’s latest attempt to ban free expression on roadside billboards
Federal fiscal anchor gives appearance of prudence, fails to back it up
The Passage of Bill C-5 Leaves the Conventional Energy Sector With as Many Questions as Answers
-
Business2 days agoOttawa Funded the China Ferry Deal—Then Pretended to Oppose It
-
COVID-192 days agoNew Peer-Reviewed Study Affirms COVID Vaccines Reduce Fertility
-
MAiD2 days agoCanada’s euthanasia regime is not health care, but a death machine for the unwanted
-
Business1 day agoWorld Economic Forum Aims to Repair Relations with Schwab
-
Alberta2 days agoThe permanent CO2 storage site at the end of the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line is just getting started
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta’s government is investing $5 million to help launch the world’s first direct air capture centre at Innisfail
-
Business2 days agoMunicipal government per-person spending in Canada hit near record levels
-
Business1 day agoA new federal bureaucracy will not deliver the affordable housing Canadians need