Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

“Ownership is Reconciliation” Indigenous Resource Network rebrands to emphasize shift in focus

Published

7 minute read

News release submitted by the Indigenous Resource Network

Indigenous Resource Network Launches Ownership is Reconciliation

The Indigenous Resource Network (IRN) is proud to unveil its latest “Ownership is Reconciliation” Campaign, marking a transformative shift in focus and rebrand from its original “Ownership Changes Everything” campaign.

This new initiative aims to convey the compelling story of Indigenous ownership in resource projects, resonating with a diverse audience including social media, supporters, and fellow Indigenous organizations. “We initiated the ‘Ownership Changes Everything’ campaign to showcase the positive impact of Indigenous ownership in resource projects. The response has been overwhelming, with strong resonance among policy makers, industry, and Indigenous communities” shared John Desjarlais, Executive Director of IRN.

Central to the campaign’s mission is enlightening Canadians about the pivotal role Indigenous ownership plays in advancing the path to reconciliation. As part of this campaign, IRN advocates for the formation of a National Indigenous Guaranteed Loan program, empowering Indigenous communities with crucial access to capital required for equitable participation in major projects nationwide. Desjarlais elaborated, stating, “While it may not be a cure for all of the issues we see in our communities, it is an essential step in revitalizing funding opportunities for Indigenous development. We are heartened by the industry’s resounding support for a national program, as it de-risks projects and facilitates the vital capital Indigenous communities need to pursue ownership.”

IRN invites all stakeholders, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, to join forces in promoting a future where reconciliation and resource development harmoniously converge, generating sustainable employment opportunities and fostering shared prosperity for all.


Most Indigenous people support resource development: poll

In the polarized “environment versus economy” debate we’re having, there’s often an assumption, or an assertion, that Indigenous peoples are mostly against resource development. This is manifested in blockades, protests at legislatures and university campuses, and cries from activists that they stand in solidarity with Indigenous people when they stand against mining, oil and gas,

commercial fishing, hydro, and forestry projects.

For those familiar with the matter, this has always been a bit puzzling. Resource development is often the biggest economic driver of Indigenous communities, since it provides revenues for nations and well-paying jobs closer to home. Indigenous businesses are 40 times more likely to be involved in the extractive industry than Canadian ones.

There are absolutely cases where Indigenous nations have had disputes with resource companies, and when their rights have been disrespected. But this is not the same as being against resource development in principle. The public discussion of the issue has failed to grasp that key distinction: Indigenous peoples are not generally opposed to development; they are opposed to not being included, and they are against assuming risks without reaping any of the rewards.

To test that assumption, the Indigenous Resource Network, a platform for Indigenous workers and business owners involved in resource development, commissioned a poll by Environics Research. A total of 549 self-identified First Nations, Metis, and Inuit people living in rural areas or on reserves across Canada were interviewed by telephone between March 25 and April 16.

The poll found that a majority, 65 per cent, said they supported natural-resource development, while only 23 per cent were opposed. When asked how they’d feel if a new project were proposed near their own community, supporters outweighed opponents 2 to 1 (54 to 26 per cent). Not surprisingly, support was higher among working-age (35- to 54-year-old) respondents (70 per cent) than younger ones (18- to 34-year-olds, at 56 per cent), while Indigenous men were more likely to oppose resource development (28 per cent) than Indigenous women (19 per cent).

When asked more specifically about types of resource development, most supported both mining (59 per cent in favour versus 32 per cent opposed) and oil and gas development (53 per cent for, versus 41 per cent against). The main reason they cited was the “urgent priority” of access to health care that comes with economic development and jobs. They said other issues, such as governance, education, traditional activities, and federal transfers, were less important.

All this indicates a path toward greater social licence by Indigenous peoples to develop resources. For many respondents, their support hinges on the likely costs and benefits to them and their communities, as it does for most people. Respondents were more likely to support a project if it used best practices to: protect the environment (79 per cent), ensure safety (77 per cent), and benefit the community economically, such as by providing jobs and business opportunities (77 per cent). Interestingly, community consultation (69 per cent) and consent (62 per cent) were not as important, even though the public discourse tends to emphasize them.

Perhaps the most important finding was that the more a respondent thought he or she knew about the issue, the more he or she was likely to support resource development. Those who work in the industry or who discuss it beyond social media have a much better understanding of what’s needed for a project to get approved, the standards that must be adhered to, and the reclamation that must occur when a project is complete or decommissioned. For them, it’s more than saying yes or not to resource development; it’s about ensuring projects meet the highest possible standards.

The relationship between the resource sector and Indigenous communities isn’t perfect. But it’s economically important, and we would be well served by improving, not severing it. It’s high time we pushed the discussion about Indigenous peoples and resource development past polarizing and simplistic slogans. We hope this poll does just that. Most Indigenous peoples support resource development when high environmental standards are applied and good jobs and economic benefits follow. Let’s ensure that’s the case with every project.

Business

ESG Puppeteers

Published on

From Heartland Daily News

By Paul Mueller

The Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework allows a small group of corporate executives, financiers, government officials, and other elites, the ESG “puppeteers,” to force everyone to serve their interests. The policies they want to impose on society — renewable energy mandates, DEI programs, restricting emissions, or costly regulatory and compliance disclosures — increase everyone’s cost of living. But the puppeteers do not worry about that since they stand to gain financially from the “climate transition.”

Consider Mark Carney. After a successful career on Wall Street, he was a governor at two different central banks. Now he serves as the UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance for the United Nations, which means it is his job to persuade, cajole, or bully large financial institutions to sign onto the net-zero agenda.

But Carney also has a position at one of the biggest investment firms pushing the energy transition agenda: Brookfield Asset Management. He has little reason to be concerned about the unintended consequences of his climate agenda, such as higher energy and food prices. Nor will he feel the burden his agenda imposes on hundreds of millions of people around the world.

And he is certainly not the only one. Al Gore, John Kerry, Klaus Schwab, Larry Fink, and thousands of other leaders on ESG and climate activism will weather higher prices just fine. There would be little to object to if these folks merely invested their own resources, and the resources of voluntary investors, in their climate agenda projects. But instead, they use other people’s resources, usually without their knowledge or consent, to advance their personal goals.

Even worse, they regularly use government coercion to push their agenda, which — incidentally? — redounds to their economic benefit. Brookfield Asset Management, where Mark Carney runs his own $5 billion climate fund, invests in renewable energy and climate transition projects, the demand for which is largely driven by government mandates.

For example, the National Conference of State Legislatures has long advocated “Renewable Portfolio Standards” that require state utilities to generate a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources. The Clean Energy States Alliance tracks which states have committed to moving to 100 percent renewable energy, currently 23 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. And then there are thousands of “State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency.

Behemoth hedge fund and asset manager BlackRock announced that it is acquiring a large infrastructure company, as a chance to participate in climate transition and benefit its clients financially. BlackRock leadership expects government-fueled demand for their projects, and billions of taxpayer dollars to fund the infrastructure necessary for the “climate transition.”

CEO Larry Fink has admitted, “We believe the expansion of both physical and digital infrastructure will continue to accelerate, as governments prioritize self-sufficiency and security through increased domestic industrial capacity, energy independence, and onshoring or near-shoring of critical sectors. Policymakers are only just beginning to implement once-in-a-generation financial incentives for new infrastructure technologies and projects.” [Emphasis added.]

Carney, Fink, and other climate financiers are not capitalists. They are corporatists who think the government should direct private industry. They want to work with government officials to benefit themselves and hamstring their competition. Capitalists engage in private voluntary association and exchange. They compete with other capitalists in the marketplace for consumer dollars. Success or failure falls squarely on their shoulders and the shoulders of their investors. They are subject to the desires of consumers and are rewarded for making their customers’ lives better.

Corporatists, on the other hand, are like puppeteers. Their donations influence government officials, and, in return, their funding comes out of coerced tax dollars, not voluntary exchange. Their success arises not from improving customers’ lives, but from manipulating the system. They put on a show of creating value rather than really creating value for people. In corporatism, the “public” goals of corporations matter more than the wellbeing of citizens.

But the corporatist ESG advocates are facing serious backlash too. The Texas Permanent School Fund withdrew $8.5 billion from Blackrock last week. They join almost a dozen state pensions that have withdrawn money from Blackrock management over the past few years. And last week Alabama passed legislation defunding public DEI programs. They follow in the footsteps of Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Utah, Tennessee, and others.

State attorneys general have been applying significant pressure on companies that signed on to the “net zero” pledges championed by Carney, Fink, and other ESG advocates. JPMorgan and State Street both withdrew from Climate Action 100+ in February. Major insurance companies started withdrawing from the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance in 2023.

Still, most Americans either don’t know much about ESG and its potential negative consequences on their lives or, worse, actually favour letting ESG distort the market. This must change. It’s time the ESG puppeteers found out that the “puppets” have ideas, goals, and plans of their own. Investors, taxpayers, and voters should not be manipulated and used to climate activists’ ends.

They must keep pulling back on the strings or, better yet, cut them altogether.

Paul Mueller is a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research. He received his PhD in economics from George Mason University. Previously, Dr. Mueller taught at The King’s College in New York City.

Originally posted at the American Institute for Economic Research, reposted with permission.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Governments in Canada accelerate EV ‘investments’ as automakers reverse course

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Evidence continues to accrue that many of these “investments,” which are ultimately of course taxpayer funded, are risky ventures indeed.

Even as the much-vaunted electric vehicle (EV) transition slams into stiff headwinds, the Trudeau government and Ontario’s Ford government will pour another $5 billion in subsidies into Honda, which plans to build an EV battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario.

This comes on top of a long list of other such “investments” including $15 billion for Stellantis and LG Energy Solution, $13 billion for Volkswagen (with a real cost to Ottawa of $16.3 billion, per the Parliamentary Budget Officer), a combined $4.24 billion (federal/Quebec split) to Northvolt, a Swedish battery maker, and a combined $644 million (federal/Quebec split) to Ford Motor Company to build a cathode manufacturing plant in Quebec.

All this government subsidizing is of course meant to help remake the automobile, with the Trudeau government mandating that 100 per cent of new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in Canada be zero-emission by 2035. But evidence continues to accrue that many of these “investments,” which are ultimately of course taxpayer funded, are risky ventures indeed.

As the Wall Street Journal notes, Tesla, the biggest EV maker in the United States, has seen its share prices plummet (down 41 per cent this year) as the company struggles to sell its vehicles at the pace of previous years when first-adopters jumped into the EV market. Some would-be EV makers or users are postponing their own EV investments. Ford has killed it’s electric F-150 pickup truck, Hertz is dumping one-third of its fleet of EV rental vehicles, and Swedish EV company Polestar dropped 15 per cent of its global work force while Tesla is cutting 10 per cent of its global staff.

And in the U.S., a much larger potential market for EVs, a recent Gallup poll shows a market turning frosty. The percentage of Americans polled by Gallup who said they’re seriously considering buying an EV has been declining from 12 per cent in 2023 to 9 per cent in 2024. Even more troubling for would-be EV sellers is that only 35 per cent of poll respondents in 2024 said they “might consider” buying an EV in the future. That number is down from 43 per cent in 2023.

Overall, according to Gallup, “less than half of adults, 44 per cent, now say they are either seriously considering or might consider buying an EV in the future, down from 55 per cent in 2023, while the proportion not intending to buy one has increased from 41 per cent to 48 per cent.” In other words, in a future where government wants sellers to only sell EVs, almost half the U.S. public doesn’t want to buy one.

And yet, Canada’s governments are hitting the gas pedal on EVs, putting the hard-earned capital of Canadian taxpayers at significant risk. A smart government would have its finger in the wind and would slow down when faced with road bumps. It might even reset its GPS and change the course of its 2035 EV mandate for vehicles few motorists want to buy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X