Connect with us

Economy

UN climate elites call for money from the West, issue warning about the ‘transition’

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By: Kenneth P. Green

” the Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.” This is a long-winded way of saying the West is going to pay for all this stuff, and transfer a lot of its wealth to the UN’s designated less-developed countries “

The world’s climate policy elites have wrapped up their Conference of the Parties (COP28) in the United Arab Emirates, hopped back onto their private jets and headed home (spewing carbon emissions all the way). But not before issuing their latest manifesto on global climate change policy for our holiday reading. What do the world’s climate elites have in store for us?

First and foremost, one needs to understand that the United Nations climate agenda is about global wealth redistribution, and the usual political agenda of the UN. The very first paragraph of the manifesto makes the social justice agenda explicit: “Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, the right to health, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.”

The second paragraph reaffirms that global wealth redistribution is at the heart of things. “Also recalling Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Paris Agreement, which provides that the Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.” This is a long-winded way of saying the West is going to pay for all this stuff, and transfer a lot of its wealth to the UN’s designated less-developed countries. Specifically, this year’s manifesto repeats the call for the world’s developed countries to pony up US$100 billion per year to fund various UN initiatives such as the “green climate fund,” the “adaptation fund,” the “special climate change fund” and the “least-developed countries” fund.

On the actual nuts and bolts of climate policy, they have stayed with their arbitrary target of limiting global average temperature change to 1.5 degrees Celsius from the pre-industrial average, and their overarching agenda of achieving “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. And they issued various specific steps toward these goals, such as tripling renewable energy globally by 2030, accelerating the use of “unabated” coal power, accelerating the transition to zero-emission (electric) vehicles, accelerating the deployment of low- and zero-greenhouse gas emitting forms of electrical generation (including, amazingly enough, nuclear power), and so on.

And for the first time, they explicitly called for, via the UN secretary general, the “transition away from fossil fuels—after many years in which the discussion of this issue was blocked.” And issued a warning. “To those who opposed a clear reference to a phase out of fossil fuels in the COP28 text, I want to say that a fossil fuel phase out is inevitable whether they like it or not. Let’s hope it doesn’t come too late,” adding that the “era of fossil fuels must end—and it must end with justice and equity.”

The UN’s latest climate manifesto is pretty much business as usual. Same arbitrary target of limiting warming to 1.5 °C, net-zero emissions by 2050, same boosting of a “renewables” transition, transport electrification, and so on. The new explicit call for moving away from fossil fuels will likely be the biggest theme in coming years, with increasing vilification and penalization of oil and gas producers (in the West) who have now been put on the species to become rendered extinct list. This will be happy holiday music to the ears of Prime Minister Trudeau and Environment Minister Guilbeault, but not likely a popular tune in the Prairies.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Economy

Young Canadians are putting off having a family due to rising cost of living, survey finds

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

An April study has found that 42% of Gen Z and 39% of Millennials are putting off starting families due to a lack of work-life balance spurred by an increase in the cost of living.

A survey has found that more Canadians are delaying starting a family due to a lack of work-life balance spurred by the rising cost of living.  

According to an April 24 Express Employment Professionals-Harris Poll survey, one-third of employed job seekers stated that they are putting off starting a family due to a lack of work-life balance, including 42% of Gen Z and 39% of Millennials.

“The most common thing I hear from candidates who are putting off starting a family is that the cost of living is too high,” Jessica Culo, an Express franchise owner in Edmonton, Alberta stated.  

“We definitely hear more and more that candidates are looking for flexibility, and I think employers understand family/work balance is important to employees,” she added.   

Two-thirds of respondents further stated that they believe it’s essential that the company they work for prioritizes giving its employees a good work-life balance as they look to start a family. This included 77% of Gen Z and 72% of Millennials.  

The survey comes as Canada’s fertility rate hit a record-low of 1.33 children per woman in 2022. According to the data collected by Statistics Canada, the number marks the lowest fertility rate in the past century of record keeping.  

Sadly, while 2022 experienced a record-breaking low fertility rate, the same year, 97,211 Canadian babies were killed by abortion.    

Canadians’ reluctance or delay to have children comes as young Canadians seem to be beginning to reap the effects of the policies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, which has been criticized for its overspending, onerous climate regulations, lax immigration policies, and “woke” politics.    

In fact, many have pointed out that considering the rising housing prices, most Canadians under 30 will not be able to purchase a home.     

Similarly, while Trudeau sends Canadians’ tax dollars oversees and further taxes their fuel and heating, Canadians are struggling to pay for basic necessities including food, rent, and heating.  

A September report by Statistics Canada revealed that food prices are rising faster than the headline inflation rate – the overall inflation rate in the country – as staple food items are increasing at a rate of 10 to 18 percent year-over-year.    

While the cost of living has increased the financial burden of Canadians looking to rear children, the nation’s child benefit program does provide some relief for those who have kids.

Under the Canadian Revenue Agency’s benefit, Canadians families are given a monthly stipend depending on their family income and situation. Each province also has a program to help families support their children.  

Young Canadians looking to start a family can use the child and family benefits calculator to estimate the benefits which they would receive.    

Regardless of the cost of raising children, the Catholic Church unchangeably teaches that it is a grave sin for married couples to frustrate the natural ends of the procreative act through contraceptives, abortion or other means.

Continue Reading

Economy

Today’s federal government—massive spending growth and epic betting

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

One can legitimately ask whether the federal government has simply grown too big, complex and unwieldy to be managed at all

The Trudeau government’s 2024 budget landed with a thud, evoking little enthusiasm and drawing spirited criticism from business leaders, investors, provincial premiers and (of course) the opposition parties. Several elements of the budget have garnered outsized attention, notably the pledge to run endless deficits, the imposition of higher capital gains taxes, and various new programs and policy initiatives intended to address Canada’s housing crisis.

But the budget includes a few eye-catching data points that have been downplayed in the subsequent political and media commentary.

One is the sheer size of the government. The just-completed fiscal year marked a milestone, as Ottawa’s total spending reached half a trillion dollars ($498 billion, to be exact, excluding “actuarial losses”). According to the budget, the government will spend $95 billion more in 2024-25 than it planned only three years ago, underscoring the torrid pace of spending growth under Prime Minister Trudeau.

One can legitimately ask whether the federal government has simply grown too big, complex and unwieldy to be managed at all, even if we assume the politicians in charge truly care about sound management. How many parliamentarians—or even cabinet ministers—have a sufficient understanding of the sprawling federal apparatus to provide meaningful oversight of the vast sums Ottawa is now spending?

The ArriveCAN scandal and chronic problems with defence procurement are well-known, but how good a job is the government doing with routine expenditure programs and the delivery of services to Canadians? The auditor general and the Parliamentary Budget Officer provide useful insights on these questions, but only in a selective way. Parliament itself tends to focus on things other than financial oversight, such as the daily theatre of Question Period and other topics conducive to quick hits on social media. Parliament isn’t particularly effective at holding the government to account for its overall expenditures, even though that ranks among its most important responsibilities.

A second data point from the budget concerns the fast-rising price tag for what the federal government classifies as “elderly benefits.” Consisting mainly of Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, these programs are set to absorb $81 billion of federal tax dollars this year and $90 billion by 2026-27, compared to $69 billion just two years ago. Ottawa now spends substantially more on income transfers to seniors than it collects in GST revenues. At some point, a future government may find it necessary to reform elderly benefit programs to slow the relentless cost escalation.

Finally, the budget provides additional details on the Trudeau government’s epic bet that massive taxpayer-financed subsidies will kickstart the establishment of a major, commercially successful battery and electric vehicle manufacturing “supply chain” in Canada. The government pledges to allocate “over $160 billion” to pay for its net-zero economic plan, including $93 billion in subsidies and incentives for battery, EV and other “clean” industries through 2034-35. This spending, the government insists, will “crowd in more private investment, securing Canada’s leadership” in the clean economy.

To say this is a high-risk industrial development strategy is an understatement. Canada is grappling with an economy-wide crisis of lagging business investment and stagnant productivity. Faced with this, the government has chosen to direct hitherto unimaginable sums to support industries that make up a relatively small slice of the economy. Even if the plan succeeds, it won’t do much to address the bigger problems of weak private-sector investment and slumping productivity growth.

Continue Reading

Trending

X