Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Carney government plans to spend millions convincing young Canadians about ‘climate emergency’

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

$396,213 will go towards an organization that will create “Indigenous-led environmental literacy material to support kindergarten to Grade 12 teachers in Six Nations and Hamilton schools to ground youth environmental literacy in Haudenosaunee cultural perspectives.” According to that organization’s blog, “climate resilience” demands that we should be “rejecting capitalism and heteronormativity” and “environmental racism.”

In a recent announcement, the Carney government detailed more than $14.4 million in new spending for 17 projects to “empower young Canadians to address climate change.” The $14.4 million is just the latest round of funding out of a planned $206 million over five years. The purpose of the “Climate Action and Awareness Fund,” as the government calls it, is essentially to increase public concern about climate change.

To justify this $14.4 million in spending, Liberal MP Taleeb Noormohamed said “At this critical juncture, when our planet is facing a climate emergency, environmental literacy for young people is essential.”

Ironically, if the goal is to improve environmental literacy, one of the first things the government should do is stop saying “climate emergency”—a wholly inaccurate phrase meant to increase alarm. The evidence simply does not support claims of a climate emergency. Indeed, relative to a hypothetical planet without climate change, even worst-case scenarios suggest climate change would likely only reduce global per-person GDP (an indicator of living standards) by something like 16.5 per cent by 2200.

To be sure, 16.5 per cent of GDP is significant. But just a 16.5 per cent cut to incomes today would still leave us far better off than people who lived 175 years ago. A 16.5 per cent cut to the incomes of people living 175 years from now would almost certainly still leave them considerably better off than we are today. That’s no emergency.

Descriptions of the 17 projects further erode claims about an emergency. One project set to receive $939,592 in taxpayer money “will provide environmental knowledge, service-learning, and leadership opportunities for young Canadians, particularly Indigenous, BPOC, 2SLGBTQ+ youth and other underserved communities. This project will engage youth in community-based actions linked to the major environmental crises and provide training for educators to best integrate environmental education into their teaching.”

Imagine a real emergency for which you dial 9-1-1—say, an apartment building consumed in fire. You simply want the firetruck to arrive and firefighters to extinguish the fire as quickly as possible. You do not care if the firefighters are Indigenous, Black or from a sexual minority. Similarly, if climate change was really an emergency, government would direct all the resources towards whoever and whatever could mitigate it most effectively, as opposed to distributing resources according to racial or other diversity targets.

Other taxpayer-funded projects include $782,922 to help children and youth in northwestern Ontario and eastern Manitoba “become climate leaders in their communities.” And $342,524 to give young people, particularly in Alberta, “perspectives to help them overcome current environmental challenges and participate in eco-advocacy.”

Another $396,213 will go towards an organization that will create “Indigenous-led environmental literacy material to support kindergarten to Grade 12 teachers in Six Nations and Hamilton schools to ground youth environmental literacy in Haudenosaunee cultural perspectives.” According to that organization’s blog, “climate resilience” demands that we should be “rejecting capitalism and heteronormativity” and “environmental racism.”

Based on the project descriptions and organizations receiving the taxpayer money, a reasonable person might deduce that at least a significant chunk of the $14.4 million in the latest funding round—and the total $206 million over five years—will pay for politically charged activism targeting young people, not actual educational initiatives. This spending should be cancelled. The last thing taxpayers need is more Greta Thunbergs and higher taxes.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

The EU Insists Its X Fine Isn’t About Censorship. Here’s Why It Is.

Published on

logo

By

Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.

When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”
They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.
The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.
It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.
The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.
None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.
Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.
The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.
The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.
Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.
Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.
Become a supporter here.
However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.
The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.
Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.
Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.
Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.
The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.
The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.
They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.
Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.
The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.
The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.
The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.
That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.
The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”
That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.
Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.
TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.
The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.
It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.
In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.
And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.
Reclaim The Net Needs Your Help
With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.
If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.
You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
Continue Reading

Business

Loblaws Owes Canadians Up to $500 Million in “Secret” Bread Cash

Published on

Continue Reading

Trending

X