Energy
Canada’s Climate Fetish Could Decimate Key Industry For First Nations

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Obsessed with the faux climate crisis, the Canadian government in Ottawa seemingly discounts altogether the social and economic benefits of natural gas to First Nations communities of the country’s western region.
Approximately 5% of the world’s gas comes from Canada, mainly from the vast Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin underlying several provinces, including British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. In 2023, the country ranked fifth in global production behind the U.S., Russia, Iran and China.
Some First Nations communities — a designation that takes in indigenous people living south of the Arctic Circlehave — historically faced challenges in terms of economic development and social well-being. Limited access to education, healthcare and infrastructure has resulted in lower living standards compared to the national averagea — fact that I observed firsthand as a researcher in British Columbia. Unemployment rates are often higher in First Nations communities, and poverty remains a persistent issue.
However, oil and gas development has provided a pathway to prosperity for many of these communities. Liquified natural gas (LNG) projects, for example, require a significant workforce in both construction and operational phases. This translates into direct employment opportunities and much needed income for First Nations people otherwise lacking financial security.
The development of natural gas resources also necessitates infrastructure upgrades in nearby communities. These can include the construction or enhancements of roads, bridges and communication networks. Such improvements benefit the entire community by providing access to markets, educational opportunities and other essential services.
“For far too long, First Nations could only watch as others built generational wealth from the resources of our traditional lands” says Eva Clayton, president of the Nisga’a Lisims government. “But times are changing.”
First Nations participation in natural gas development goes beyond economic benefits. It represents an opportunity for communities to assert their self-determination and participate in shaping their own future. Communities can participate in natural gas projects through equity ownership and various arrangements, including Impact Benefit Agreements. According to the Canada Energy Centre, more than 75 First Nations and Métis communities in Alberta and British Columbia have agreed to ownership stakes in energy projects, including the Coastal GasLink pipeline and major transportation networks for oil sands production.
One such example is the recent Musqueam Partnership agreement by FortisBC, which will share the benefits of the Tilbury LNG facility’s expansion phase to begin in 2025. First Nations beneficiaries will include communities of the Snuneymuxw, T’Sou-ke, Esquimalt, Scia’new, Pacheedaht, Pauquachin, Huu-ay-aht, Kyuquot/Checleseht, Toquaht, Uchucklesaht and Ucluelet. Similarly, the Woodfibre LNG project to begin production in 2027 will directly benefit the Squamish community.
DemandObsessed with the faux climate crisis, the Canadian government in Ottawa seemingly discounts altogether the social and economic benefits of natural gas to First Nations communities for natural gas in North America and across the world should ensure increasing prosperity into the future, unless the federal government’s climate fetish undermines the industry.
Just such a possibility has prompted an alarm to be sounded by the First Nations LNG Alliance—a collective of communities supportive of LNG development in British Columbia.
“First Nations have made their choice about the LNG opportunity, informed by research and consultation,” says Karen Ogen, CEO of the LNG Alliance.
“However, when 88 environmental groups and other organizations recently demanded an end to LNG, no one bothered to talk to us,” she said. “I view that as a ‘re-colonization’ of energy by environmentalists. It’s a type of eco-colonialism that First Nations people like me are all-too familiar with, particularly as we seek to diversify our economies and provide opportunities for young people and future generations.”
Ms. Ogen’s complaint of “eco-colonialism” is not unlike the charge of “climate imperialism” that has been leveled against Western elites by leaders of the Global South who bristle at being pressured to adopt “green” agendas at the expense of actual economic development supported gas and other fossil fuels.
Indeed, the sentiments of Ms. Ogen almost certainly resonate with those who favor common sense over ideology. “Canadian LNG is Indigenous LNG, and that is good for the world and good for all of us here,” she says.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.
Energy
New paper shows clouds are more important than CO2

From Clintel.org
By Vijay Jayaraj
Underestimating Clouds: A Climate Mistake We Cannot Afford
A new paper by physicists W. A. van Wijngaarden and William Happer, Radiation Transport in Clouds, suggests that clouds affect atmospheric temperature more than CO2, says Vijay Jayaray of the CO2 Coalition.
Carbon dioxide (CO₂) has been predominantly portrayed as the chief culprit driving global warming. For decades, this misconception has guided international policies, prompted ambitious targets for reducing CO2 emissions and driven a shift from reliable and affordable energy resources like coal, oil, and natural gas toward problematic wind and solar sources.
However, this theory overlooks important factors that influence Earth’s climate system, including a critical variable in the climate system – the role of clouds, which remains woefully underestimated.
Recent work by physicists W. A. van Wijngaarden and William Happer challenges this prevailing paradigm: Their new paper, Radiation Transport in Clouds, suggest clouds affect atmospheric temperature more than CO2 because they have a greater impact on the comparative amounts of solar energy entering Earth’s atmosphere and escaping to outer space.
The Overshadowed Influence of Clouds
Clouds simultaneously reflect incoming sunlight back to space (cooling the Earth) and trap outgoing heat (warming the Earth). This dual nature makes clouds both powerful and perplexing players in our climate system. The net effect of clouds on climate is a balance between these opposing influences, thus a central component of the Earth’s energy budget.
A recent study by van Wijngaarden and Happer, titled “Radiation Transport in Clouds,” delves into this complexity. The 2025 paper says the radiation effects of clouds can easily negate or amplify the impact of CO2. The researchers highlight that clouds have a more pronounced effect on Earth’s radiation budget than greenhouse gases like CO₂.
For instance, their research reveals that a modest decrease in low cloud cover could significantly increase solar heating of the Earth’s surface. In comparison, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations reduces radiation to space by a mere 1%: “Instantaneously doubling CO₂ concentrations, a 100% increase, only decreases radiation to space by about 1%. To increase solar heating of the Earth by a few percent, low cloud cover only needs to decrease by a few percent.”
This stark contrast highlights the disproportionate influence of cloud dynamics compared to CO2 fluctuations. Most state-of-art climate models are still in their infancy. We need more accurate measurements of clouds’ properties and their influence on the electromagnetic components of solar radiation if they are to be useful inputs for climate models.
Implications for Energy Policy and Reliability
Current strategies assume a direct and dominant link between CO2 emissions and global temperatures to justify aggressive “decarbonization” efforts and an increase in the use of solar and wind energy.
However, solar and wind are inherently intermittent, rendering them unreliable and very expensive as components of a power grid. The infrastructure required to support these technologies entails substantial upfront investments, higher operating costs and increasing utility bills for consumers.
Blackouts, energy shortages and price spikes are becoming increasingly common in regions that have prematurely decommissioned fossil fuel plants without adequate backup solutions. This trend disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, exacerbating energy poverty and hindering economic development.
The major justification for using solar and wind has been that they counter global warming by reducing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. If small variations in cloud cover actually overwhelm the effects of CO2, then the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is being significantly overestimated. This has profound implications for policy.
Attributing global warming predominantly to CO₂ emissions from the use of fossil fuels is a gross oversimplification. While CO2 undoubtedly has a warming effect, it is relatively modest and beneficial, mainly moderating the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. On the other hand, clouds, with their multifaceted interactions and feedbacks, represent a critical and underappreciated component of this puzzle.
The findings of van Wijngaarden and Happer highlight a broader issue within climate science: the tendency to oversimplify complex systems for the sake of political expediency. As the global energy landscape continues to evolve, it is imperative that decisions be based on sound science rather than political dogma.
The time has come to reassess our approach to both climate science and energy policy. The stakes are too high to continue down a path of destructive policies based on erroneous analyses. We must prioritize reliable, affordable energy sources and grid stability over useless reductions in emissions of a harmless gas.
Click here to access the entire Radiation Transport in Clouds paper.
This commentary was first published at BizPac Review on February 10, 2025
Energy
Quebecers starting to understand the need for Canadian pipelines

From the Canadian Energy Centre
Q&A with Gabriel Giguère, senior policy analyst with the Montreal Economic Institute
A new poll from Angus Reid shows significant support from people in Quebec for Canada to build sea-to-sea oil and gas pipelines.
Gabriel Giguère, a senior policy analyst with the Montreal Economic Institute, says it’s support like he has never seen before.
Here’s what he had to say.
CEC: Where does Quebec get its energy from?
Giguère: Quebec’s electricity comes from local hydroelectric power, while oil and gas primarily come from Canada and the United States. This is a major shift from 2005, when oil was sourced from Algeria, the UK, Norway, Mexico and Venezuela and only a small amount from Canada. Today, it’s almost entirely from Canada and the United States.
CEC: How would an oil pipeline from Alberta benefit the people of Quebec?
Giguère: It’s clear it will help Canadians diversify their trading partners. A pipeline will also create jobs, benefiting Quebec workers.
Quebec is a part of Canada, and unity is essential. The good news is we all seem to agree on that. According to the latest poll from Angus Reid, it’s unanimous. There is broad support for new pipelines to expand our trade relationships.
The United States has been a strong trading partner, but there is ongoing uncertainty that has made diversification essential. We all know that investors don’t like uncertainty. To achieve certainty, we need the right infrastructure to be able to diversify.
In Quebec, twice as many people support a new pipeline than oppose it. I don’t remember having data like that before.
This is a clear and significant shift, especially for the oil and gas sector, which is one of Canada’s most vital economic sectors. This is very good news.
CEC: What has changed that is making Quebecers more supportive of a project like this?
Giguère: I believe the tariff threat was the spark. People are now starting to understand that our trade relationship with the United States isn’t what it once was. It’s as simple as that.
We need to diversify our trading partners. The million-dollar question is: how? I don’t think It’s possible without a pipeline. I believe Quebecers are starting to understand that.
There is the pipeline, but I strongly believe that GNL Quebec [proposed LNG project in the Saguenay Region to transport Alberta natural gas to Europe] could have even stronger public support, as it offers a direct way to diversify our trading partners. This wouldn’t only benefit our European allies but would open doors to other countries also.
CEC: What do you see happening next?
Giguère: It will depend on political leadership in Quebec. When we are talking about pipelines here, the discussion always circles back to Energy East, which was scrapped because there was “no social acceptability.” Nobody can say that today.
It’s not possible to tell me there’s no social acceptability when you have twice as many people who want a pipeline than those who don’t. There is clearly social acceptability.
The real issue is heavy regulation, such as the Impact Assessment Act. To be clear, I’m not saying we should not have any environmental impact assessment, but we need to make sure that the current regulatory framework allows the construction of big energy infrastructure projects.
Political leaders need to recognize that diversifying our trading partners is their responsibility and requires facilitating the projects to make that possible.
-
Opinion2 days ago
Two New Studies Find Fewer Clouds Cause Warmer Temps
-
David Clinton1 day ago
Are We Winning the Patient-to-Doctor Ratio War?
-
National1 day ago
Poilievre can pack a Rally—but can he take on the establishment, China’s influence, and the globalist elite?
-
Energy1 day ago
Quebecers starting to understand the need for Canadian pipelines
-
Crime1 day ago
“Fake Chinese income” mortgages fuel Toronto Real Estate Bubble: Canadian Bank Leaks
-
Courageous Discourse24 hours ago
U.S. Conditionally Approves Avian Flu Vaccine for Poultry
-
Business2 days ago
Trump gains ground in war against DEI
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Is Our Five-Year Nightmare Finally Over?