National
Trudeau gov’t considered using term ‘heat-flation’ to link rising costs with ‘climate change’
From LifeSiteNews
Recently revealed documents show that members of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet were looking to associate rising inflation in Canada with “climate change” by using the term “heat-flation,” but abandoned the idea after negative feedback from polls.
The documents show that Trudeau’s own Privy Council Office in an April 24 report said it had commissioned its own “in-house” research on the “concepts of ‘climate-flation’ and ‘heat-flation’” to see Canadians take on the terms.
Predictably, the bid to try and convince Canadians that the rising costs of living was the result of so-called “climate change” did not go over well with those polled as nobody had even heard of the term “heat-flation.”
The information regarding the poll was gleaned from a report titled Continuous Qualitative Data Collection Of Canadians’ Views, as noted by Blacklock’s Reporter, and asked if Canadians had heard of these “terms before” with “none indicated they had.”
“Describing what they believed these terms referred to, many expected they were likely connected to the issue of climate change and rising economic costs of its effect as well as efforts to mitigate its impacts going forward,” noted the report.
“To clarify, participants were informed ‘heat-flation’ is when extreme heat caused by climate change makes food and other items more expensive, and that ‘climate-flation’ was a broader term that encompassed all of the ways in which climate change can cause prices to go up including but not limited to extreme heat.”
The report noted that while some of the people polled thought “climate change” might have had some effect on inflation, many other issues were seen as the cause.
The report noted that “All believed climate change was having at least some impact on the price of food” but not in the way the government narrative asserts.
The report found that some Canadians “felt that in addition to extreme heat and drought making it more difficult for farmers to protect their crops and livestock, extreme weather events could also cause damage to vital roadways and infrastructure making it more difficult to transport food products across the country. A few also expressed that in addition to impacting Canadian food production climate change could also make it more expensive to import food.”
Others, however, “expressed the opinion the federal government needed to reduce its spending, believing that growing deficits in recent years had contributed to rising inflation.”
Of note is that no Canadian government has balanced the budget since 2007, and many critics have pointed to this ever-increasing debt-load to the reason inflation has rocked the country.
When it came to the carbon tax, many expressed the view that the “carbon pricing system had served to further increase the rate of inflation.”
Whether its inflation, the carbon tax or other factors, it remains true that Canada’s poverty rate is on the rise.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, a July survey found that nearly half of Canadians are just $200 away from financial ruin as the costs of housing, food and other necessities has gone up massively since Trudeau took power in 2015.
Critics argue that instead of addressing these issues, the Trudeau government has instead used the “climate change” agenda to justify applying a punitive carbon tax on Canadians.
However, polls indicate that most Canadians are not as concerned with “climate change” as they are with other issues, and many do not buy into the alarmist government narrative. Many critics have also accused government officials of being hypocrites, as they punish Canadians via the carbon tax and other measures while themselves taking advantage of frequent flights at the expense of taxpayers.
Despite the rising unpopularity of such policies, the Trudeau government has continued to push a radical environmental agenda similar to those endorsed by globalist groups like the World Economic Forum and the United Nations.
National
Free Speech and Inflation top US Voter Concerns; Climate Change a Non-starter according to Polls
News release from the Friends of Science
A new poll from FIRE, championed on X by Elon Musk reports that free speech is a critical US voter issue on par with economic issues; climate change is a non-starter, far down the list, says Friends of Science Society. Climate change has lost steam among Canadian voters; a major push-back against the costly carbon tax is happening nation-wide. CALGARY, AB, Oct. 31, 2024 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ — On Oct. 24, 2024, Elon Musk on “X” wrote: “Major vibe shift” as FIRE, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression reported their recent poll results with free speech ranked higher than health care, crime and immigration; climate change was second from the last of twelve issues, says Friends of Science Society. The poll was conducted by the prestigious National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. Even a September 9, 2024 Pew Research Centre poll of the ‘most important’ voter issues had climate change last on the list of 10. It appears that one of the benefits of Elon Musk’s take-over of Twitter, now “X,” has led to an opening up of the debate on climate change and other topics, to the point where leaked documents show that the Centre for Countering Digital Hate out of the UK specifically targeted him and his platform to be shut down prior to the US election, as reported by the Express Tribune, Oct. 22, 2024. People are now asking “What if CO2 is Good For You?” Climate fearmongers on “X” are met with a barrage of scientific papers and biting memes pushing back, says Friends of Science. On November 11, 2024, just 6 days after the US election, the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29), countries signatory to the UNFCCC, begins in Baku, Azerbaijan, a petro-state. This year’s focus is on climate finance. S&P Global reports that the target for a climate fund for developing nations is $1 trillion dollars while imposing more stringent Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) emissions reductions, especially in Europe and other Western industrialized nations where that money is expected to come from. Robert Lyman is a former Canadian federal public servant of 27 years, diplomat of 10 years, and a retired energy economist, predicted in June of 2024 that COP29 will fail, as have all the previous COP conferences. Friends of Science Society issued a report by Robert Lyman titled “Europe on the Brink” which summarizes key points in Prof. Samuel Furfari’s analysis of Mario Draghi’s report on European Competitiveness. Both Europe and Canada seem to be on a climate-policy driven path toward economic destruction, thanks to their commitments to NetZero goals, says Friends of Science Society. Friends of Science Society’s analysis of “Getting to Net Zero” shows that poverty, degrowth and deprivation await citizens. Video explainer here. For most Canadians, the climate change has fallen from public interest with a September 2023 poll showing a 93% concern for economic issues, only a 7% concern for climate change. A more recent poll using different metrics showed 70% of Canadians are focussed on immediate concerns like housing and the cost of living. Provinces are pushing back on the burdensome carbon tax. As reported in the Western Standard of Oct. 30, 2024, David Suzuki and 4 other broadcast colleagues want CBC, the national broadcaster, to make climate emergency a daily news issue. Author Seth Klein proposes a War Measures Act style economy; much like that outlined in the US House Judiciary’s report on the “Climate Cartel” which is reviewing Mark Carney’s “GFANZ.” Friends of Science Society rejects their climate catastrophe activism and rebuts their claims in this video. Canada’s Climate Action Network (CAN-RAC) in “Paving the Way” is pushing for an emissions cap in Alberta, and for COP29 a phase-out of fossil fuels, an increase in foreign spending on climate finance and a tripling of renewables. The manufacturing of renewables requires vast quantities of oil, natural gas and coal, as explained in IEEE Spectrum’s publication of Vaclav Smil’s “To Get Wind Power You Need Oil,” thus these groups are asking the impossible, says Friends of Science Society. Regarding Canada’s proposed emissions cap, Robert Lyman summarizes a Deloitte report in “A Dire Assessment,” showing that “If production is curtailed as Deloitte projects, GDP in Alberta’s oil and gas sector would be $16.2 billion (20%) lower compared to the baseline in 2040. In the rest of Canada, GDP in the sector is projected to be $2.7 billion lower by 2040 compared to the baseline.” |
|
About:Friends of Science Society is an independent group of earth, atmospheric and solar scientists, engineers, and citizens who are celebrating its 22nd year of offering climate science insights. After a thorough review of a broad spectrum of literature on climate change, Friends of Science Society has concluded that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). |
Economy
Ottawa’s new ‘climate disclosures’ another investment killer
From the Fraser Institute
By Matthew Lau
The Trudeau government has demonstrated consistently that its policies—including higher capital gains taxes and a hostile regulatory environment—are entirely at odds with what investors want to see. Corporate head offices are fleeing Canada and business investment has declined significantly since the Trudeau Liberals came to power.
According to the Trudeau government’s emissions reduction plan, “putting a price on pollution is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Fair enough, but a reasonable person might wonder why the same politicians who insist a price mechanism (i.e. carbon tax) is the most efficient policy recently announced relatively inefficient measures such “sustainable investment guidelines” and “mandatory climate disclosures” for large private companies.
The government claims that imposing mandatory climate disclosures will “attract more private capital into Canada’s largest corporations and ensure Canadian businesses can continue to effectively compete as the world races towards net-zero.” That is nonsense. How would politicians Ottawa know better than business owners about how their businesses should attract capital? If making climate disclosures were a good way to help businesses attract capital, the businesses that want to attract capital would make such disclosures voluntarily. There would be no need for a government mandate.
The government has not yet launched the regulatory process for the climate disclosures, so we don’t know exactly how onerous it will be, but one thing is for sure—the disclosures will be expensive and unnecessary, imposing useless costs onto businesses and investors without any measurable benefit, further discouraging investment in Canada. Again, if the disclosures were useful and worthwhile to investors, businesses seeking to attract investment would make them voluntarily.
Even the government’s own announcement casts doubt that increasing business investment is the likely outcome of mandatory climate disclosures. While the government says it’s “sending a clear signal to corporate boards and shareholders, at home and around the world, that Canada is their trusted partner for putting private capital to work in the race to net-zero,” most investors are not looking to put private capital to work to combat climate change. Most investors want to put their capital to work to earn a good financial return, after adjusting for the risk of the investment.
This latest announcement should come as no surprise. The Trudeau government has demonstrated consistently that its policies—including higher capital gains taxes and a hostile regulatory environment—are entirely at odds with what investors want to see. Corporate head offices are fleeing Canada and business investment has declined significantly since the Trudeau Liberals came to power. Capital per worker in Canada is declining due to weak business investment since 2015, and new capital per-Canadian worker in 2024 is barely half of what it is in the United States.
It’s also fair to ask, in the face of these onerous polices—where are the environmental benefits? The government says its climate disclosures are needed for Canada to progress to net-zero emissions and “uphold the Paris climate target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels,” but its net-zero targets are neither feasible nor realistic and the economics literature does not support the 1.5 degrees target.
Finally, when announcing the new climate disclosures, Trudeau Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said they are an important stepping stone to a cleaner economy, which is a “major economic opportunity.” Yet even the Canada Energy Regulator (a federal agency) projects net-zero policies would reduce real GDP per capita, increase inflation of consumer prices and reduce residential space (in other words, reduce living standards).
A major economic opportunity that will increase business investment? Surely not—mandatory climate disclosures will only further reduce our standard of living and impose useless costs onto business and investors, with the sure effect of reducing investment.
Author:
-
International2 days ago
IRS whistleblowers confirm agencies knew the truth about Hunter Biden’s laptop
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
They Are Scrubbing the Internet Right Now
-
Addictions2 days ago
New documentary exposes safer supply as gateway to teen drug use
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Australian local council calls for ‘immediate suspension’ of mRNA COVID vaccines
-
Energy2 days ago
Ottawa’s plan to decarbonize Canada’s electricity by 2035 not feasible and would require equivalent of 23 Site C hydroelectric dams
-
National1 day ago
Committee Hearing Exposes Trudeau’s Political Spin on Foreign Interference
-
John Stossel2 days ago
The Crisis Industry: How Activists Profit from Panic
-
Sports2 days ago
Priming The NHL Coaching Carousel For Another Spin