Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Climate Change?

Recommended Posts

Two great websites citing underwater vulcanism. The most significant statement common to both articles? "We don't really know..."

The lack of knowledge includes how many, how frequent, how large (volume of magma), how hot, how long the eruption...

Yet carbon taxes will stop all this release of GHG's largely produced by the Earth's oceans:

https://today.oregonstate.edu/news/researchers-discover-deepest-known-underwater-volcanic-eruption

https://ocean.si.edu/holding-tank/vents-volcanoes/mystery-underwater-volcano

Edited by Moon The Loon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire thing is fluff.

Until people are willing to turn their thermostats down to 10C in the winter, air conditioning up to 25 in the summer and pay $200 per ton in carbon tax they are simply not committed to the cause and I have no sympathy for their noise. The notion of changing light bulbs and saving the planet is the exclusive domain of the delusional.

When Liberals are willing to walk the walk, you can count me in. 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PGA golf match today in North Carolina has been delayed twice due to thunderstorms.

It must be Climate Change!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

The entire thing is fluff.

Until people are willing to turn their thermostats down to 10C in the winter, air conditioning up to 25 in the summer and pay $200 per ton in carbon tax they are simply not committed to the cause and I have no sympathy for their noise. The notion of changing light bulbs and saving the planet is the exclusive domain of the delusional.

When Liberals are willing to walk the walk, you can count me in. 

Reads much better now.  😀👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Marshall said:

Reads much better now.

Ya... I really need to stop watching the news, reading the paper and listening to the radio. I've cut back a lot in the last year or so because it just makes me crazy. Cable is going at the end of the month too.

This is the only forum I can even stand to monitor anymore as I consider it something of a dysfunctional family. Not quite at "a cave in the mountains" stage yet but I'm getting closer by the day. The computer will be the next thing to go and I suspect that will be sooner than later.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolfhunter said:

I consider it something of a dysfunctional family. Not quite at "a cave in the mountains" stage yet but I'm getting closer by the day.

Helluva week to lose Chewbacca...😩😩

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report swings and misses at carbon price 'myths'

Finally, myth 10, that “there is no need to reduce Canada’s emissions” is both true and false. It’s true there’s a need to reduce Canada’s emissions, but that need is essentially a political choice rather than an action that will reduce impacts on Canada from future climate change. The authors repeat boilerplate language about extreme weather without mentioning that the carbon tax will have no effect on extreme weather because minor changes in Canada’s emissions won’t change the global concentration of CO2. Canada’s contribution of greenhouse gases, as Ecofiscal itself acknowledges, is only 1.6 per cent of global emissions. Even if Canada cut that in half (a herculean task), any future reduction in warming would be virtually unmeasurable. And of course with massive growth in emissions in China and throughout Asia, Canada’s share will grow smaller over time. Tinkering with it would have even less effect on climate change in the year 2100.

Many economists do, indeed, champion the idea of using pricing to control greenhouse gas emissions, but governments are unwilling to adhere to the economic principles that makes such pricing efficient or economically benign. But the repeated failure of provinces to institute (or maintain) genuine revenue-neutrality and displace regulations, and the desire of governments to pick winning technologies, suggests that an economically rigorous carbon tax seems more mythical than probable.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/report-swings-and-misses-at-carbon-price-myths

 

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Greenland's biggest glacier suddenly slows down and thickens, baffling scientists

Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier gaining thickness of 20 metres a year

Greenland’s largest glacier has not only slowed its retreat, but has also thickened in recent years, surprising scientists studying the impacts of global warming on ice in the northern hemisphere. 

The island is home to the second-largest ice sheet in the world after Antarctica and rapid warming in the northern hemisphere has major implications for continuing global sea-level rise.

The Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier on Greenland’s west coast used to lose more ice from this than anywhere else in the country. 

It is known for the huge blocks of ice it calves into Disko Bay, which then drift south into the Atlantic OceanIt is believed to have calved the iceberg which sank the Titanic.

 

Between 2000 and 2010, Jakobshavn Isbrae contributed the largest solid ice discharge in all of Greenland’s ice sheet and is estimated to have contributed to nearly 1mm of global sea rise.

[SEE MORE AT

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/greenland-ice-sheet-jakobshavn-isbrae-glacier-slows-thickens-climate-change-esa-a8913791.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2-Y9dQbj2dKKdcXh4WmVDF6mZWaVHVRmEMDB9DXeELkFOfTUJXcKZjMhs#Echobox=1557859658 ]

 

Edited by Moon The Loon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Climate Barbie ever does  any research herself or just babbles what she’s fed by Trudeau?

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jaydee said:

I wonder if Climate Barbie ever does  any research herself or just babbles what she’s fed by Trudeau?

 

I thought that she just followed directions from her personal photographer.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FINALLY! Proof Positive We're Doomed:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/opinions/one-year-to-tackle-climate-change-opinion-mountford/index.html

We have less time than you think to jump-start climate action

By Helen Mountford

If political leaders finally respond to the climate crisis, we may well have these youthful advocates to thank. But there is a problem with this timeline: We don't have 12 years to jump-start action on climate change -- we have just one.
 
According to an article in the journal Nature, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak no later than next year and rapidly decline thereafter for us to have a good chance of preventing increasingly severe consequences from the climate crisis -- everything from imperiled croplands, flooded communities and widespread disease. Delaying any longer will push us toward an ecological tipping point, with no way for humanity to claw its way back out.

...

Edited by Moon The Loon
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No amount of taxing Canadians will fix the real problem!!   

“ Scientists discover China has been secretly emitting banned ozone-depleting gas “

Scientists found that between 40 and 60 per cent of the total global CFC-11 emissions originated from eastern China

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/scientists-discover-china-has-been-secretly-emitting-banned-ozone-depleting-gas

34525AD8-1A81-4217-8A45-3473F03BE184.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth May parades in a gas-guzzling 1994 Dodge Viper but wants Canadians to switch to electric vehicles

During the 121st Island Farms parade in Victoria, British Columbia, Green Party leader and MP Elizabeth May was seen riding in on a 1994 Dodge Viper.

Currently, the Green Party’s platform advocates for Canadians to switch their vehicles for more environmentally friendly electric options.

One of the party’s policies is to reward Canadians who opt for electric vehicles, and punish those who purchase cars that are not fuel-efficient. 

“[The Green Party will] offer scale-based rebates of up to $5,000 for the purchase of the most efficient vehicles, including electric vehicles, and scale-based fees on the purchase of inefficient vehicles,” claims the party’s website.

When critics pointed out the evident hypocrisy behind the decision to parade in a gasoline vehicle, May seemingly brushed it off.

“It was a rainy ride for sure, and not a Green vehicle. Local #yyj volunteer Pat Peron owns this 1994 Viper. I rode where parade organizers asked me to. :)” replied May to critics on Twitter

Recently, the Green Party announced its climate plan which aims to replace all vehicles with an internal combustion system in Canada with electric engines by 2040.

5BBB1AC4-1F50-4560-BFC9-F3451E3E2317.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon tax smackdown: Terence Corcoran says higher prices at the pump don’t mean fewer emissions

Newsflash: People do not change their behaviour in the face of rising prices when the product is essential to their economic success

“Be it resolved that a carbon tax is the policy Canada needs to fight climate change.”

Terence Corcoran and Andrew Coyne go head-to-head on whether a carbon tax is the proper tool to fight climate change.

According to the oracles of carbon economics, a carbon tax must be applauded because it is a “market-based” tax that acts just like a “market price” which, under the infallible economic laws of supply and demand, will automatically produce reductions in carbon dioxide emissions more efficiently than regulations and other big-government measures.

As the current $20-a-tonne federal carbon tax — about 4.4 cents per litre of gasoline at the pump — rises to $50 or $100 or even $200 in years to come, fossil fuel consumption will fall, an outcome allegedly guaranteed by economic theory.

None of this carbon tax dogma stands up well in the real world, as I will demonstrate shortly.

Nor should Canadians fall for the new-found carbon tax miracle revealed by the Parliamentary Budget Office and embraced by such carbon tax enthusiasts as Calgary’s Pembina Institute and Toronto’s Globe and Mail, which recently said that “more taxpayers will get back more in carbon tax rebates than they’ll pay in carbon tax.”

Sounds amazing: You pay a tax and the government gives you back more than you pay. Fantastic. Let’s have a bigger carbon tax! Imagine: If a $20 carbon tax produces a refund of $307, then a $200 carbon tax will mean an annual tax refund of more than $3,000.

This is known as the carbon-tax-and-dividend plan, advocated by coalitions of activists and corporations, including big U.S. oil firms and other businesses that recently agreed to give millions of dollars to promote the concept in the United States.

When big business conspires to raise taxes on all consumers, consumers and voters should start to think twice before joining the campaign. British Columbia once promised a carbon tax dividend on its carbon tax, but now keeps all the money.

“ In Canada, gasoline consumption has grown steadily over the past 40 years despite bouts of severe price increases that were equivalent to carbon taxes of up to $500 a tonne “

 

Of all the myths surrounding a carbon tax, the greatest is the foundational claim that an increase in the price of fossil fuels will lead to major reductions in carbon emissions, thereby saving the world from the perils of climate change. Yale University’s William Nordhaus, a 2018 Nobel Prize winner, argues in The Climate Casino that a “sharp price rise” is needed to “choke off” growing carbon emissions.

Gasoline price history in North America suggests the choke-off theory is at least debatable and more likely unsupportable.

In the United States, the price of gasoline soared more than 60 per cent to US$3 a gallon during the 1970s and went through another price burst to almost $4 a gallon in the early part of the 21st century. Increases of that magnitude — up to $2 a gallon — are equivalent to imposing a carbon tax of $160 a tonne. But U.S. consumption of gasoline declined only slightly, and for other reasons (see graphic).

In Canada, gasoline consumption has grown steadily over the past 40 years despite bouts of severe price increases that were equivalent to carbon taxes of up to $500 a tonne (see graph).

The reason high prices/taxes don’t produce dramatic cuts in demand is well-known. Study after study has concluded that gasoline is dominated by what economists call “price inelasticity.” People do not change their behaviour in the face of rising prices when the product is essential to their economic success. There are some recent counter-studies, but it is clear that the market-price theory is still highly theoretical.

inelast.jpg?quality=60&strip=all&w=414&h=915

Numerous factors other than price are the real drivers of fossil fuel demand, including economic recessions, demographics, driver behaviour, vehicle fuel efficiencies, better roads, changing lifestyles, living standards and technological change.

Why do most economists tend to play down or even ignore price inelasticity? Nobel-winner Nordhaus argues for a global carbon tax but does not mention “elasticity” or “inelasticity” once in the 300-page text of The Climate Casino.

Price can have an impact, but nothing on the scale suggested by carbon tax theorists, who cite British Columbia as a demonstration case of the effectiveness of carbon taxes. Again, the evidence is murky at best, even murkier today as the price of gasoline in Vancouver hovers around $1.70 a litre, up from $1 in 2015. That’s equivalent to adding a $320 carbon tax. Gasoline consumption in B.C. has been declining, but the $30 carbon tax impact — equal to 8.9 cents at the pump today — is at best a marginal factor compared with the pile of other taxes and costs built into the price of gasoline (see graph).

vangas-1.jpg?quality=60&strip=all&w=325&h=949

Another folly: For Canada to impose a carbon tax independently is a form of economic suicide. If other trading partners — in North America, Europe, Asia, South America — do not adopt similar carbon taxation, the Canadian economy will become increasingly uncompetitive.

So far, no other country is joining the national carbon tax crusade. Australia just said no to one. Elsewhere, carbon tax schemes are either weak or marginal.

Even Nordhaus, the leading guru of carbon taxation, was categorical that a carbon price will succeed only if most major countries sign an international carbon tax treaty. Under such a treaty member nations would impose tariffs on the goods of non-members and use various “enforcement mechanisms” to promote compliance.

Now there’s a promising idea for a world already twisted into trade wars: Let’s bring in new tariffs to raise the costs of products — cars, steel, shoes, cellphones, fruits, vegetables, clothing, petroleum products — imported from non-carbon-tax countries.

An alternative trade proposal is to find a way to exempt certain Canadian industries from the carbon tax so they would remain internationally competitive.

“ Even Nordhaus, the leading guru of carbon taxation, was categorical that a carbon price will succeed only if most major countries sign an international carbon tax treaty “

 

Which leads us to another delusion. A carbon tax is said to be a beautiful free market substitute for costly and inefficient regulation. Some economists used to say that carbon taxes were preferable because they left “no room for planners.”

On the contrary, carbon control and pricing have become a bureaucratic paradise for central planners and economic control freaks.

In Canada, governments still plan to regulate coal out of existence. Electric vehicle mandates and quotas will be issued; fuel consumption standards will be imposed on non-electric vehicles. Carbon sequestration will be required for major industries. Alternative energy forms must be subsidized. Industrial emission standards will be regulated into existence by state planners, although scores of exemptions will be needed.

The astute reader will by now perceive that the hard-core case for carbon pricing as a “market-based” regime that will let the “market mechanism” of the “carbon price” do the work has been thrown overboard.

Economists who favour carbon taxes now simultaneously advocate complementary “flex-regs,” to be administered by a wise politburo of central planners. Economist Mark Jaccard at Simon Fraser University, a longtime carbon tax backer, wrote last year that Ottawa should now also “heed the evidence on the effective and relatively efficient role that well-crafted regulations can play in driving the major technological and energy transition we so desperately need.”

The alleged reason for abandoning the stand-alone carbon tax is that high prices for fossil fuels are unpopular and therefore difficult for politicians to impose. Canadians, like Australians, are not falling for the carbon dividend ruse.

But there’s another good reason to abandon carbon taxes, which is that the whole “market mechanism” theory does not hold up. Carbon taxation, in practice, requires massive government intervention.

Nationally and globally, state planners must calculate and predict future climate scenarios under different carbon conditions, then determine the acceptable volume of carbon emissions to be produced by industry and by product. Each country must be assigned national targets. With that mostly speculative knowledge in hand, planners must then determine which price of carbon will be effective in reducing emissions using models that pile more speculation on speculation.

What’s the right price — $50 a tonne? $100? $250? Nobody has a clue, because there is no way to calculate the effective price, a standard central planning problem.

Anybody who doubts the coming planning risk should read the Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices, a seminal World Bank paper that portrays a world tied up for the rest of the century in a bureaucratic carbon-price nightmare. “The uncertainties around the carbon-price trajectories that are consistent with a 2oC target imply that policies will have to involve experimentation, be closely monitored over time, and revised when they seem to fail (that is, do not reduce emissions enough) or impose unacceptable costs (e.g., threaten food security).”

Carbon tax schemes are not market based. They are tax-and-control regimes, unprecedented exercises in central planning that Canada does not need and should not adopt until the rest of the world is on side.

Carbon tax policy also rests on the dubious assumption that fossil fuels can be priced and regulated out of existence to make way for alternatives, an assumption U.S. energy expert Mark Mills describes as “An Exercise in Magical Thinking.”  But that’s a whole other story.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/carbon-tax-smackdown-terence-corcoran-says-higher-prices-at-the-pump-dont-mean-fewer-emissions

 
 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/green-energy-economy-1.5143757

As Alberta's new government considers how to boost its traditional fossil fuel economy, research released today claims politicians and other Canadians have a blind spot when it comes to the job-creating power of green business.

The report declares that while Canadians obsess about pipelines and shrinking employment in coal, oil and gas, they and their leaders have been ignoring a sector that is outgrowing the rest of the economy, attracting billions of dollars in investment and creating more jobs than either the fossil fuel or mining sectors.

This isn't the effects of some fancy Green New Deal. Instead, the report, called Missing the Bigger Picture consists of a relatively prosaic tabulation of the growing contribution of clean energy to the existing Canadian economy.

It estimates the clean energy industry accounts for about three per cent of Canada's GDP, more than agriculture and forestry or the hotel and restaurant industry, and employed 298,000 people in 2017.

"It's the most comprehensive look at Canada's clean energy sector that's been done to date, so it looks at the number of Canadians that are employed in this sector and the economic contribution the sector provides," said Joanna Kyriazis, with Clean Energy Canada, a non-profit think-tank based at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver.

What it finds is revealing. As well as being big and growing, attracting more than $35 billion in investment in 2017, the clean energy business sector is invisible to most Canadians and not even classified in most statistics as a sector at all.

Today's report is compiled from data assembled by Navius Research, a Vancouver-based business that has a reputation for collecting reliable data to guide companies exploring developments in the green sector. In any business, fudged data is a recipe for ruin, and the environmental sector is no exception.

 
electric-tram-arrives-in-toronto-from-th
An electric tram arrives in Toronto by rail from Thunder Bay, a component of the job-creating clean energy sector that many might overlook. (Don Pittis/CBC)

Part of what Navius has done is to try to create strict rational criteria for what to include in its assessment of the clean energy economy, exclusively targeting firms where the primary business was clean energy, whether in energy production or in improving energy efficiency.  

As the executive director of Clean Energy Canada, Merran Smith says in her introduction to the report, "Put simply, it's made up of companies and jobs that help to reduce carbon pollution — whether by creating clean energy, helping move it, reducing energy consumption, or making low-carbon technologies."

Whereas fossil fuel energy data has been accumulated for more than a century, and is clearly identified in government and market statistics, companies contributing to the green energy economy have never been classified as a group. As such, what's in the category, such as traditional hydroelectric production or power storage or public transit alternatives to cars, or what's out, may yet be disputed.

Blinkered view

That will work itself out over time, but the concern of Smith and her group, and the reason for assembling today's report, is the blinkered view of many Canadians that the energy industry and the economy are somehow in conflict with green principles.

Instead, as long predicted by advocates of the green economy, businesses that may initially have been motivated by regulation have begun to find new market-based incentives as the world seeks low-carbon alternatives.

"Instead of being in the compliance part of a company's brain, all of a sudden it becomes part of the profit part of a company's brain," Stewart Elgie, professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa, told me in a 2015 interview on the future of the business-led green economy.

This has certainly happened as demand in the global green power sector, from components of electric cars to tools and techniques for energy efficiency, reach critical mass. 

Economic research has shown that making the world more energy efficient is exactly what successful businesses have done throughout history, because energy is a cost, and cutting costs is what thriving businesses do.

 
autoshow-canada.jpg
An electric vehicle charging station at the Canadian International Auto Show. As the green energy sector grows it reaches a critical mass of economic activity. (Chris Helgren/Reuters)

"The clean energy sector isn't just about fighting climate change — it's also about using Canadian innovation to create better and cheaper solutions for everyday life," said Smith.

If current trends continue, the Navius research says that the effect of the green energy sector will become harder to miss in the economy. Studying the period from 2010 to 2017, not only did the sector outgrow the entire economy by more than one full percentage point, but jobs in that component of the economy increased by 2.2 per cent a year, compared to an annual increase of 1.4 per cent in jobs overall.

Part of the reason why the clean energy sector is not visible is because we think of it under different categories such as public transit or hydroelectric generation. But a second reason is that as a sector, clean energy is fractured into smaller players. It is unlike the fossil fuel industry, which is backed by decades of lobbying success and established connections to political elites.

The clean energy category has no giant business voice or industry group to represent it. Even the firms defined in this report as being clean energy businesses may not see themselves as part of this sector. Perhaps the report will help change that, and will help them get the economic respect they deserve.

Kyriazis says she hopes today's report will make people more optimistic. Usually when we hear about energy in the media, it is bad news such as a lack of pipelines, falling prices, shrinking jobs or gloom over the effects of climate change, she says.  

"The clean energy sector, here, it's obviously a big success story that is not making the headlines," she said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then, there's the other side of the "coyne":

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/carbon-tax-smackdown-andrew-coyne-asks-what-is-this-argument-really-about

Terence Corcoran and Andrew Coyne go head-to-head on whether a carbon tax is the proper tool to fight climate change.

Edited by Moon The Loon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tweet has already deleted by the looks of it. 😤

 

“ Looking  into the camera, a boisterous McKenna, using emphatic hand gestures and raising her voice on key words for emphasis, declares: “But you know, I actually gave them some real advice. I said that if you actually say it louder, we’ve learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it.”

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-screeched-in-mckenna-commits-a-classic-political-gaffe

CA9FCBE1-BAAA-4761-AF66-0B5505C36FFE.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additional humour......the alleged author is Scott Gilmore (who often writes for McLeans)...husband of Catherine McKenna.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, st27 said:

Additional humour......the alleged author is Scott Gilmore....husband of Catherine McKenna.

Makes it even more believable 🤪🤪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I wonder if Climate Barbie ever does  any research herself or just babbles what she’s fed by Trudeau?

 

Well, apparently CB had a few too many shots in a bar in St. John’s and let everybody in on her and the Libs little secret. This will be election gold for the cons. Basically affirming what we see in QP.....if you say something loud enough and long enough....people will believe it! Forget if it’s true or not.

https://mobile.twitter.com/stephen_taylor/status/1132881898915737602?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1133049799132028929|twgr^393039363b74776565745f6d65646961&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftorontosun.com%2Fopinion%2Fcolumnists%2Fgoldstein-screeched-in-mckenna-commits-a-classic-political-gaffe

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, st27 said:

Well, apparently CB had a few too many shots in a bar in St. John’s and let everybody in on her and the Libs little secret. This will be election gold for the cons. Basically affirming what we see in QP.....if you say something loud enough and long enough....people will believe it! Forget if it’s true or not.

 

50E63498-331F-4EB8-ADCE-755401EBCA3E.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops..didn’t read all of Jaydee post re deleting CBs tweet.....I got it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted for info only....

 

People’s Party of Canada

2019 ELECTORAL PLATFORM

Global Warming and Environment: Rejecting Alarmism and Focusing on Concrete Improvements

 

Issue

The Liberal government is spending billions of dollars at home and abroad to fight global warming—or “climate change” as it is now called to account for every natural weather event and its opposite. 

In order to lower greenhouse gas emissions, it has imposed taxes and countless regulations, it subsidizes inefficient and costly “green technology,” and it is blocking the development of oil resources crucial to our prosperity. 

It is an undisputed fact that the world’s climate has always changed and will continue to change. Until twelve thousand years ago, much of Canada was under ice, and it is thanks to natural climate change that we can live here today. 

There is however no scientific consensus on the theory that CO2 produced by human activity is causing dangerous global warming today or will in the future, and that the world is facing environmental catastrophes unless these emissions are drastically reduced. Many renowned scientists continue to challenge this theory. 

The policy debate about global warming is not grounded on science anymore. It has been hijacked by proponents of big government who are using crude propaganda techniques to impose their views. They publicly ridicule and harass anyone who expresses doubt. They make exaggerated claims to scare people. They even manipulate school children, getting them to pressure their parents and to demonstrate in the streets. 

Facts

Climate change alarmism is based on flawed models that have consistently failed at correctly predicting the future. None of the cataclysmic predictions that have been made about the climate since the 1970s have come true. No new ice age. No steady warming in direct relation with increases in CO2 levels. No disappearance of polar ice caps. No exceptional rise in ocean levels. No abnormal increase in catastrophic weather events. No widespread crop failure and famine. 

In fact, CO2 is beneficial for agriculture and there has recently been a measurable “greening” of the world in part thanks to higher levels. Despite what global warming propaganda claims, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential ingredient for life on Earth and needed for plant growth.

Our Plan

Given the uncertainties over the scientific basis of global warming, and the certainties about the huge costs of measures designed to fight it, there is no compelling reason to jeopardize our prosperity with more government interventions.  

A People’s Party government will: 

  • Withdraw from the Paris Accord and abandon unrealistic greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
  • Stop sending billions of dollars to developing countries to help them reduce their emissions.
  • Abolish the Liberal government’s carbon tax and leave it to provincial governments to adopt programs to reduce emissions if they want to.
  • Abolish subsidies for green technology and let private players develop profitable and efficient alternatives.
  • Invest in mitigation strategies if problems arise as a result of any natural climate change.
  • Prioritize implementing practical solutions to make Canada’s air, water and soil cleaner, including bringing clean drinking water to remote First Nations communities.

https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/global_warming_and_environment_rejecting_alarmism_and_focusing_on_concrete_improvements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this