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:
Alberta
COWBOY UP! Pierre Poilievre Promises to Fight for Oil and Gas, a Stronger Military and the Interests of Western Canada
Fr0m Energy Now
As Calgarians take a break from the incessant news of tariff threat deadlines and global economic challenges to celebrate the annual Stampede, Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre gave them even more to celebrate.
Poilievre returned to Calgary, his hometown, to outline his plan to amplify the legitimate demands of Western Canada and not only fight for oil and gas, but also fight for the interests of farmers, for low taxes, for decentralization, a stronger military and a smaller federal government.
Speaking at the annual Conservative party BBQ at Heritage Park in Calgary (a place Poilievre often visited on school trips growing up), he was reminded of the challenges his family experienced during the years when Trudeau senior was Prime Minister and the disastrous effect of his economic policies.
“I was born in ’79,” Poilievre said. “and only a few years later, Pierre Elliott Trudeau would attack our province with the National Energy Program. There are still a few that remember it. At the same time, he hammered the entire country with money printing deficits that gave us the worst inflation and interest rates in our history. Our family actually lost our home, and we had to scrimp and save and get help from extended family in order to get our little place in Shaughnessy, which my mother still lives in.”
This very personal story resonated with many in the crowd who are now experiencing an affordability crisis that leaves families struggling and young adults unable to afford their first house or condo. Poilievre said that the experience was a powerful motivator for his entry into politics. He wasted no time in proposing a solution – build alliances with other provinces with mutual interests, and he emphasized the importance of advocating for provincial needs.
“Let’s build an alliance with British Columbians who want to ship liquefied natural gas out of the Pacific Coast to Asia, and with Saskatchewanians, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who want to develop their oil and gas and aren’t interested in having anyone in Ottawa cap how much they can produce. Let’s build alliances with Manitobans who want to ship oil in the port of Churchill… with Quebec and other provinces that want to decentralize our country and get Ottawa out of our business so that provinces and people can make their own decisions.”
Poilievre heavily criticized the federal government’s spending and policies of the last decade, including the increase in government costs, and he highlighted the negative impact of those policies on economic stability and warned of the dangers of high inflation and debt. He advocated strongly for a free-market economy, advocating for less government intervention, where businesses compete to impress customers rather than impress politicians. He also addressed the decade-long practice of blocking and then subsidizing certain industries. Poilievre referred to a famous quote from Ronald Reagan as the modus operandi of the current federal regime.
“The Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If anything moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
The practice of blocking and then subsidizing is merely a ploy to grab power, according to Poilievre, making industry far too reliant on government control.
“By blocking you from doing something and then making you ask the government to help you do it, it makes you reliant. It puts them at the center of all power, and that is their mission…a full government takeover of our economy. There’s a core difference between an economy controlled by the government and one controlled by the free market. Businesses have to clamour to please politicians and bureaucrats. In a free market (which we favour), businesses clamour to impress customers. The idea is to put people in charge of their economic lives by letting them have free exchange of work for wages, product for payment and investment for interest.”
Poilievre also said he plans to oppose any ban on gas-powered vehicles, saying, “You should be in the driver’s seat and have the freedom to decide.” This is in reference to the Trudeau-era plan to ban the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035, which the Carney government has said they have no intention to change, even though automakers are indicating that the targets cannot be met. He also intends to oppose the Industrial Carbon tax, Bill C-69 the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-48 the Oil tanker ban, the proposed emissions cap which will cap energy production, as well as the single-use plastics ban and Bill C-11, also known as the Online Streaming Act and the proposed “Online Harms Act,” also known as Bill C-63. Poilievre closed with rallying thoughts that had a distinctive Western flavour.
“Fighting for these values is never easy. Change, as we’ve seen, is not easy. Nothing worth doing is easy… Making Alberta was hard. Making Canada, the country we love, was even harder. But we don’t back down, and we don’t run away. When things get hard, we dust ourselves off, we get back in the saddle, and we gallop forward to the fight.”
Cowboy up, Mr. Poilievre.
Maureen McCall is an energy professional who writes on issues affecting the energy industry.
Alberta
Alberta and Ontario sign agreements to drive oil and gas pipelines, energy corridors, and repeal investment blocking federal policies
Alberta-Ontario MOUs fuel more pipelines and trade
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Ontario Premier Doug Ford have signed two memorandums of understanding (MOUs) during Premier Ford’s visit to the Calgary Stampede, outlining their commitment to strengthen interprovincial trade, drive major infrastructure development, and grow Canada’s global competitiveness by building new pipelines, rail lines and other energy and trade infrastructure.
The two provinces agree on the need for the federal government to address the underlying conditions that have harmed the energy industry in Canada. This includes significantly amending or repealing the Impact Assessment Act, as well as repealing the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, Clean Electricity Regulations, the Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap, and all other federal initiatives that discriminately impact the energy sector, as well as sectors such as mining and manufacturing. Taking action will ensure Alberta and Ontario can attract the investment and project partners needed to get shovels in the ground, grow industries and create jobs.
The first MOU focuses on developing strategic trade corridors and energy infrastructure to connect Alberta and Ontario’s oil, gas and critical minerals to global markets. This includes support for new oil and gas pipeline projects, enhanced rail and port infrastructure at sites in James Bay and southern Ontario, as well as end-to-end supply chain development for refining and processing of Alberta’s energy exports. The two provinces will also collaborate on nuclear energy development to help meet growing electricity demands while ensuring reliable and affordable power.
The second MOU outlines Alberta’s commitment to explore prioritizing made-in-Canada vehicle purchases for its government fleet. It also includes a joint commitment to reduce barriers and improve the interprovincial trade of liquor products.
“Alberta and Ontario are joining forces to get shovels in the ground and resources to market. These MOUs are about building pipelines and boosting trade that connects Canadian energy and products to the world, while advocating for the right conditions to get it done. Government must get out of the way, partner with industry and support the projects this country needs to grow. I look forward to working with Premier Doug Ford to unleash the full potential of our economy and build the future that people across Alberta and across the country have been waiting far too long for.”
“In the face of President Trump’s tariffs and ongoing economic uncertainty, Canadians need to work together to build the infrastructure that will diversify our trading partners and end our dependence on the United States. By building pipelines, rail lines and the energy and trade infrastructure that connects our country, we will build a more competitive, more resilient and more self-reliant economy and country. Together, we are building the infrastructure we need to protect Canada, our workers, businesses and communities. Let’s build Canada.”
These agreements build on Alberta and Ontario’s shared commitment to free enterprise, economic growth and nation-building. The provinces will continue engaging with Indigenous partners, industry and other governments to move key projects forward.
“Never before has it been more important for Canada to unite on developing energy infrastructure. Alberta’s oil, natural gas, and know-how will allow Canada to be an energy superpower and that will make all Canadians more prosperous. To do so, we need to continue these important energy infrastructure discussions and have more agreements like this one with Ontario.”
“These MOUs with Ontario build on the work Alberta has already done with Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Northwest Territories and the Port of Prince Rupert. We’re proving that by working together, we can get pipelines built, open new rail and port routes, and break down the barriers that hold back opportunities in Canada.”
“Canada’s economy has an opportunity to become stronger thanks to leadership and steps taken by provincial governments like Alberta and Ontario. Removing interprovincial trade barriers, increasing labour mobility and attracting investment are absolutely crucial to Canada’s future economic prosperity.”
Together, Alberta and Ontario are demonstrating the shared benefits and opportunities that result from collaborative partnerships, and what it takes to keep Canada competitive in a changing world.
Quick facts
- Steering committees with Alberta and Ontario government officials will be struck to facilitate work and cooperation under the agreements.
- Alberta and Ontario will work collaboratively to launch a preliminary joint feasibility study in 2025 to help move private sector led investments in rail, pipeline(s) and port(s) projects forward.
- These latest agreements follow an earlier MOU Premiers Danielle Smith and Doug Ford signed on June 1, 2025, to open up trade between the provinces and advance shared priorities within the Canadian federation.
Related information
RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate
Alberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
RFK Jr. Unloads Disturbing Vaccine Secrets on Tucker—And Surprises Everyone on Trump
National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta Provincial Police – New chief of Independent Agency Police Service
-
International2 days agoCBS settles with Trump over doctored 60 Minutes Harris interview
-
Business2 days agoWhy it’s time to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast
-
Energy2 days agoIf Canada Wants to be the World’s Energy Partner, We Need to Act Like It
-
Alberta2 days agoPierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days agoHow Vimy Ridge Shaped Canada
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta uncorks new rules for liquor and cannabis
-
Canadian Energy Centre1 day agoAlberta oil sands legacy tailings down 40 per cent since 2015