Economy
The people will reject the globalist ‘climate’ agenda
From the Fraser Institute
” representatives of governments worldwide endorsed policies that will, if implemented, do extraordinary harm to their own people. Where governments have made even small attempts to take these radical steps, the public has revolted. This calls into question whom the COP28 delegates “represent.” “
It’s tempting to dismiss the outcome of COP28, the recent United Nations climate change conference in the United Arab Emirates, as mere verbiage, such as the “historic” UAE Consensus about transitioning away from fossil fuels. After all, this is the 28th such conference and the previous ones all pretty much came to nothing. On a chart showing the steady rise in global total CO2 emissions since 1950 you cannot spot when the 1997 Kyoto Protocol entered into force (2002), with its supposedly historic language binding developed countries to cap their CO2 emissions at five per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Likewise, the 2015 Paris Agreement contained historic language binding countries to further deep emission reductions, yet the COP28 declaration begins (paragraph I.2) with an admission that the parties are not complying.
Nonetheless we should not overlook the real meaning of the UAE Consensus. COP agreements used to focus on one thing—targets for reducing greenhouse gases. The UAE Consensus is very different. Across its 196 paragraphs and 10 supplementary declarations it’s a manifesto of global central planning. Some 90,000 government functionaries aspire, in their own words, to oversee and micromanage agriculture, finance, energy, manufacturing, gender relations, health care, air conditioning, building design, and countless other economic and social decisions. It’s supposedly in the name of fighting climate change, but that’s just the pretext. Take it away and they’d appeal to something else.
After all, the climate change issue doesn’t necessitate these plans. Economists have been studying climate change for many decades and have never considered it grounds to phase out fossil fuels, micromanage society, etc. Mainstream scientific findings, coupled with mainstream economic analysis, prescribes moderate emission-pricing policies that rely much more on adaptation than mitigation.
The fact that the UAE Consensus is currently non-binding is beside the point. What matters is what the COP28 delegates said they want to achieve. Two facts stand out—the final consensus document announced plans that would cause enormous economic harm if implemented, and it was unanimously approved by everyone in the room.
The first point is best illustrated by the language around eliminating fossil fuels. Climate policy is supposed to be about optimally reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As technology develops to decouple emissions from fuel use, there may eventually be no need to reduce the latter, but activist delegates insisted on the language anyway, making it an end in itself. Fossil fuels are essential for our economic standard of living, and 30 years of economic analysis has consistently shown that despite GHG emissions, phasing them out would do far more harm than good to humanity. Yet the Consensus statement ignored that, even while claiming to be guided by “the science.”
The second point refers to the fact that representatives of governments worldwide endorsed policies that will, if implemented, do extraordinary harm to their own people. Where governments have made even small attempts to take these radical steps, the public has revolted. This calls into question whom the COP28 delegates “represent.” Other than a few elected officials, we didn’t vote for any of them. And even if some heads of state go to a COP meeting intending to oppose the overall agenda, they would not be able to stop it and would be browbeaten into signing the final package.
The UAE Consensus is the latest signal that the real fault line in contemporary society is not right versus left, it’s the people versus (for lack of a better word) the globalists. A decade ago this term was only heard on the conspiracy fringe but has since migrated towards the mainstream as the most apt descriptor of an enormous and influential transnational permanent bureaucracy, which aspires to run everything, even to the public’s detriment, while insulating themselves from democratic limits.
A hallmark of globalists is the way they exempt themselves from rules they want to impose on everyone else. COP28 and Davos meetings perfectly illustrate this—thousands of delegates flying in, many on private jets, to be wined and dined while telling everyone else to learn to do without.
In the cases of both COVID-19 and climate change, the same elite has proven itself to be adept, not at using science to support good decision-making, but at invoking “the science” as a talisman to justify everything they do including censoring public debate. Complex and uncertain matters get reduced to dogmatic slogans by technocrats who ensure political leaders are force fed a narrow one-sided information stream. Experts outside the process are accorded standing based solely on their obeisance to the preferred narrative, not their knowledge or qualifications. Critics are attacked as purveyors of “misinformation” and “disinformation,” and so the existence of opposition to government plans becomes proof of the need to suppress free speech.
But eventually the people get the last word. I am struck, in this context, that despite nonstop fearmongering about an alleged climate crisis, the public tolerates climate policy only insofar as it doesn’t cost anything.
The climate movement might think that by embedding itself in the globalist elite it can accelerate policy adoption without needing to win elections. I think the opposite is happening. The globalists have coopted the climate issue to sell a grotesque central planning agenda that the public has repeatedly rejected. If the UAE Consensus is the future of climate policy, its failure is guaranteed.
Author:
It’s tempting to dismiss the outcome of COP28, the recent United Nations climate change conference in the United Arab Emirates, as mere verbiage, such as the “historic” UAE Consensus about transitioning away from fossil fuels. After all, this is the 28th such conference and the previous ones all pretty much came to nothing. On a chart showing the steady rise in global total CO2 emissions since 1950 you cannot spot when the 1997 Kyoto Protocol entered into force (2002), with its supposedly historic language binding developed countries to cap their CO2 emissions at five per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Likewise, the 2015 Paris Agreement contained historic language binding countries to further deep emission reductions, yet the COP28 declaration begins (paragraph I.2) with an admission that the parties are not complying.
Nonetheless we should not overlook the real meaning of the UAE Consensus. COP agreements used to focus on one thing—targets for reducing greenhouse gases. The UAE Consensus is very different. Across its 196 paragraphs and 10 supplementary declarations it’s a manifesto of global central planning. Some 90,000 government functionaries aspire, in their own words, to oversee and micromanage agriculture, finance, energy, manufacturing, gender relations, health care, air conditioning, building design, and countless other economic and social decisions. It’s supposedly in the name of fighting climate change, but that’s just the pretext. Take it away and they’d appeal to something else.
After all, the climate change issue doesn’t necessitate these plans. Economists have been studying climate change for many decades and have never considered it grounds to phase out fossil fuels, micromanage society, etc. Mainstream scientific findings, coupled with mainstream economic analysis, prescribes moderate emission-pricing policies that rely much more on adaptation than mitigation.
The fact that the UAE Consensus is currently non-binding is beside the point. What matters is what the COP28 delegates said they want to achieve. Two facts stand out—the final consensus document announced plans that would cause enormous economic harm if implemented, and it was unanimously approved by everyone in the room.
The first point is best illustrated by the language around eliminating fossil fuels. Climate policy is supposed to be about optimally reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As technology develops to decouple emissions from fuel use, there may eventually be no need to reduce the latter, but activist delegates insisted on the language anyway, making it an end in itself. Fossil fuels are essential for our economic standard of living, and 30 years of economic analysis has consistently shown that despite GHG emissions, phasing them out would do far more harm than good to humanity. Yet the Consensus statement ignored that, even while claiming to be guided by “the science.”
The second point refers to the fact that representatives of governments worldwide endorsed policies that will, if implemented, do extraordinary harm to their own people. Where governments have made even small attempts to take these radical steps, the public has revolted. This calls into question whom the COP28 delegates “represent.” Other than a few elected officials, we didn’t vote for any of them. And even if some heads of state go to a COP meeting intending to oppose the overall agenda, they would not be able to stop it and would be browbeaten into signing the final package.
The UAE Consensus is the latest signal that the real fault line in contemporary society is not right versus left, it’s the people versus (for lack of a better word) the globalists. A decade ago this term was only heard on the conspiracy fringe but has since migrated towards the mainstream as the most apt descriptor of an enormous and influential transnational permanent bureaucracy, which aspires to run everything, even to the public’s detriment, while insulating themselves from democratic limits.
A hallmark of globalists is the way they exempt themselves from rules they want to impose on everyone else. COP28 and Davos meetings perfectly illustrate this—thousands of delegates flying in, many on private jets, to be wined and dined while telling everyone else to learn to do without.
In the cases of both COVID-19 and climate change, the same elite has proven itself to be adept, not at using science to support good decision-making, but at invoking “the science” as a talisman to justify everything they do including censoring public debate. Complex and uncertain matters get reduced to dogmatic slogans by technocrats who ensure political leaders are force fed a narrow one-sided information stream. Experts outside the process are accorded standing based solely on their obeisance to the preferred narrative, not their knowledge or qualifications. Critics are attacked as purveyors of “misinformation” and “disinformation,” and so the existence of opposition to government plans becomes proof of the need to suppress free speech.
But eventually the people get the last word. I am struck, in this context, that despite nonstop fearmongering about an alleged climate crisis, the public tolerates climate policy only insofar as it doesn’t cost anything.
The climate movement might think that by embedding itself in the globalist elite it can accelerate policy adoption without needing to win elections. I think the opposite is happening. The globalists have coopted the climate issue to sell a grotesque central planning agenda that the public has repeatedly rejected. If the UAE Consensus is the future of climate policy, its failure is guaranteed.
Author:
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Ottawa’s Major Projects Office is a fix for a mess the Liberals created—where approval now hinges on politics, not merit.
They are repeating their same old tricks, dressing up political favouritism as progress instead of cutting barriers for everyone
On Sept. 11, the Prime Minister’s Office announced five projects being examined by its Major Projects Office, all with the potential to be fast-tracked for approval and to get financial help. However, no one should get too excited. This is only a bad effort at fixing what government wrecked.
During the Trudeau years, and since, the Liberals have created a regulatory environment so daunting that companies need a trump card to get anything done. That’s why the Major Projects Office (MPO) exists.
“The MPO will work to fast-track nation-building projects by streamlining regulatory assessment and approvals and helping to structure financing, in close partnership with provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples and private investors,” explains a government press release.
Canadians must not be fooled. A better solution would be to create a regulatory and tax environment where these projects can meet market demand through private investment. We don’t have that in Canada, which is why money has fled the country and our GDP growth per capita is near zero.
Instead of this less politicized and more even-handed approach, the Liberals have found a way to make their cabinet the only gatekeepers able to usher someone past the impossible process they created. Then, having done so, they can brag about what “they” got done.
The Fraser Institute has called out this system for its potential to incentivize bribes and kickbacks. The Liberals have such a track record of handing out projects and even judicial positions to their friends that such scenarios become easier to believe. Innumerable business groups will be kissing up to the Liberals just to get anything major done.
The government has created the need for more of itself, and it is following up in every way it can. Already, the federal government has set up offices across Canada for people to apply for such projects. Really? Anyone with enough dollars to pursue a major project can fly to Ottawa to make their pitch.
No, this is as much about the show as it is about results—and probably much more. It is all too reminiscent of another big-sounding, mostly ineffective program the Liberal government rolled out in 2017. They announced a $950-million Innovation Superclusters Initiative “designed to help strengthen Canada’s most promising clusters … while positioning Canadian firms for global leadership.”
That program allowed any company in the world to participate, with winners getting matching dollars from taxpayers for their proposals. (But all for the good of Canada, we were told.) More than 50 applications were made for these sweepstakes, which included more than 1,000 businesses and 350 other participants. In Trudeau Liberal fashion, every applicant had to articulate how their proposal would increase female jobs and leadership and encourage diversity in the long term.
The entire process was like one big Dragon’s Den series. The Liberals trotted out a list of contestants full of nice-sounding possibilities, with maximum hype and minimal reality. Late in the process, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry Navdeep Bains picked the nine finalists himself (all based in cities with a Liberal MP), from which five would be chosen.
The alleged premise was to leverage local and regional commercial clusters, but that soon proved ridiculous. The “Clean, Low-energy, Effective and Remediated Supercluster” purported to power clean growth in mining in Ontario, Quebec and Vancouver. Not to be outdone, the “Mobility Systems and Technologies for the 21st Century Supercluster” included all three of these locations, plus Atlantic Canada. They were only clustered by their tendency to vote Liberal.
Today, the MPO repeats this virtue-signalling, politicking, drawn-out, tax-dollar-spending drama. The Red Chris Mine expansion in northwest British Columbia is one of the proposals under consideration. It would be done in conjunction with the Indigenous Tahltan Nation and is supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 per cent. That’s right up the Liberal alley.
Meanwhile, the project is somehow part of a proposed Northwest Critical Conservation Corridor that would cordon off an area the size of Greece from development. Is this economic growth or economic prohibition? This approach is more like the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 than it is nation-building. And it is more like the World Economic Forum’s “stakeholder capitalism” approach than it is free enterprise.
At least there are two gems among the five proposals. One is to expand capacity at the Port of Montreal, and another is to expand the Canada LNG facility in Kitimat, B.C. Both have a market case and clear economic benefits.
Even here, Canadians must ask themselves, why must the government use a bulldozer to get past the red tape it created? Why not cut the tape for everyone? The Liberals deserve little credit for knocking down a door they barred themselves.
Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Ottawa held a full-blown press conference to announce they unclogged a pipe in Toronto and called it a generational housing strategy.
You probably didn’t hear much about it unless you were watching Canadian state media but this morning, the Liberal government held a press conference in Toronto. It was billed as a “generational investment” in housing. That’s the phrase they used. In reality, it was a sewer project.
Gregor Robertson, the former mayor of Vancouver and now the federal minister of housing and infrastructure, stood beside Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow and a cluster of Liberal MPs to announce that Ottawa is spending $283 million to upgrade the Black Creek trunk sewer line. That’s a pipe. A very old pipe. And according to Robertson, that investment will “unlock” the construction of up to 63,000 new homes in the Downsview area.
If that sounds suspiciously like taking credit for doing your job, maintaining the basic infrastructure cities rely on, that’s because it is. No one has ever accused the Liberals of missing an opportunity to repackage civic maintenance as a national moral crusade. The sewer line is 65 years old. It overflows during storms. It’s been a known problem for decades. Fixing it is not bold housing policy. It’s plumbing.
But the political optics are irresistible. The Trudeau Liberals, now under the leadership of Mark Carney are desperate for a win on housing. Their record is catastrophic. Home prices have doubled. Rents have soared. Entire generations of Canadians have been priced out of ownership and locked into permanent renter status. And the architects of that disaster are now flying around the country handing out ribbon-cutting ceremonies and calling it reform.
Today’s announcement also included the unveiling of the first project under a brand-new federal housing agency, Build Canada Homes. Never heard of it? That’s because it didn’t exist until a few weeks ago. And who’s running it? None other than Ana Bailão a Liberal operative and former Toronto city councillor who spent years helping make the city unaffordable in the first place. Now she’s being rewarded with a cushy federal appointment, tasked with building modular housing and handing out contracts on public land.
And what exactly is Build Canada Homes building? Today, they’re launching 540 homes. Not 63,000… 540. Factory-built units that will be delivered at some undefined point in the future. That’s the big federal breakthrough. A housing crisis affecting millions of Canadians, and Ottawa’s answer is five hundred and forty modular homes in Downsview.
This is the pattern every time. The government breaks something, calls it a crisis, and then demands credit for fixing a fraction of it with your money. The numbers are staggering. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, Canada needs 3.1 million more homes by 2030 to restore affordability. That means building over 430,000 units per year. Right now, we’re building maybe half that. The backlog gets worse every year. But today, we’re supposed to celebrate because they’re unclogging a sewer and firing up a couple prefab builds on federal land.
No one in the press asked the obvious question: why aren’t private builders constructing the 300,000 units that Toronto has already zoned and approved? Because they can’t. The financing doesn’t work. The cost of materials is too high. Interest rates have crippled developers. And cities like Toronto still impose hundreds of millions of dollars in fees, development charges, and bureaucratic red tape. That’s the real bottleneck. Not the sewer. And here’s what they definitely won’t say out loud: Canada’s housing disaster is not just about supply. It’s about demand, turbocharged by one of the fastest immigration intakes in the Western world. The Bank of Canada has warned repeatedly that immigration targets, set without any link to housing capacity — have blown demand wide open and put relentless upward pressure on rents and home prices.
Mayor Chow admitted it herself, sort of. She said the city has thousands of units ready to build but no takers. And instead of confronting the root causes, monetary policy, taxes, regulatory insanity, the government announces a pilot project and tells you to be grateful. That’s how disconnected they are from reality. They’ve regulated housing out of reach and now they’re posing for photos on a construction site, pretending to be the solution.
And just in case there was any lingering doubt about how deep this failure runs, Statistics Canada released its latest building permit numbers this morning and the trend is exactly what you’d expect in a country where the government makes building homes all but impossible.
The total value of building permits dropped again in August down $139 million to $11.6 billion. Residential permits alone fell 2.4%, driven by steep declines in Ontario and Alberta, the very provinces with the most acute housing needs. Single-family permits fell off a cliff — down more than 10% year-over-year. That’s not a slowdown. That’s a stall.
Meanwhile, British Columbia and Quebec where government intervention is particularly heavy barely managed to offset the damage. The number of new dwellings authorized actually shrank month over month. And this is happening in the middle of a so-called national housing push.
StatsCan didn’t sugarcoat it. They didn’t blame foreign investors or greedy landlords or some phantom market force. They just showed the raw data: Permits are falling. Housing starts are lagging. Builders are retreating.
So let’s just pause here and appreciate the sheer absurdity of what we witnessed. A parade of officials, flanked by branded podiums and tax-funded media handlers, standing in front of a construction site to announce, with straight faces, that they are upgrading a sewer line. And for this, we are told we are “building Canada strong.” Really? That’s the pitch? Fixing basic municipal plumbing is now a nation-building moment?
No! Let’s be clear, you’re not building Canada strong. You’re doing your job. A sewer upgrade in Toronto is not some heroic act of visionary leadership. It’s literally maintenance. It’s what functioning governments are supposed to do, quietly, competently, without a six-camera press choreography and a round of applause from party MPs.
But in Liberal Carney Canada the bar has been lowered so dramatically that simply clearing a permit backlog and patching old infrastructure is treated like a moon landing. They break the system, congratulate themselves for patching one pipe, and expect gratitude.
If you want praise for fixing aging civic infrastructure, something cities used to handle without a national press event, then that tells us everything. It tells us the Liberal government has become so hollow, so addicted to performance politics, that maintenance is now treated as achievement. That’s how far we’ve fallen in just ten years.
They didn’t rebuild a nation. They didn’t launch a housing renaissance. They unclogged a sewer, and are now demanded a standing ovation. And that, in a single image, is modern Liberal Canada: the total collapse of standards, repackaged as progress and sold back to you at full price.
Canadians don’t need more press conferences. They need homes, dignity, and a government that works without constant applause. And if unclogging a pipe is what passes for leadership now — then God help the country.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Utah Republican Senator Planning To Attend Big Globalist Climate Shindig Despite Trump’s Energy Policies
Number of young people identifying as ‘transgender’ declines sharply: report
Local, Online, and Booming: The Business Shift Happening Across Alberta
UN, Gates Foundation push for digital ID across 50 nations by 2028
-
International2 days ago
Number of young people identifying as ‘transgender’ declines sharply: report
-
Alberta23 hours agoClick here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design
-
Business2 days ago
“Nation Building,” Liberal Style: We’re Fixing a Sewer, You’re Welcome, Canada
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoLong-Distance Field Goals Have Flipped The Field. Will The NFL Panic?
-
Alberta2 days agoThe Technical Pitfalls and Political Perils of “Decarbonized” Oil
-
International23 hours agoDaughter convinces healthy father to die in double assisted suicide with mother
-
Business14 hours ago‘Taxation Without Representation’: Trump Admin Battles UN Over Global Carbon Tax
-
Alberta2 days agoEnbridge CEO says ‘there’s a good reason’ for Alberta to champion new oil pipeline