SHEILA GUNN REID ｜ Tom Harris on whether Conservatives are ceding too much to the environmentalist left
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
173.37427
Summary
In this episode, Sheila Gunn-Reed talks with Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition of Canada about whether the Conservative Party of Canada should talk more about climate change. She also talks about the lack of leadership from the party's leadership candidates on climate change, and why she thinks they should talk about it.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
How should the Conservative Party of Canada be talking about the issue or rather non-issue
00:00:05.000
of climate change depending on who you ask? I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
00:00:09.900
I think there is a stark disconnect between how politicians talk and seem to care about
00:00:34.000
climate change and how normal people talk and care about climate change. As in, I think normal people
00:00:39.560
actually don't care at all except insofar as we might ask, how much is this going to cost us?
00:00:46.100
For example, right now, the city of Calgary has committed to an $87 billion climate change scheme.
00:00:57.200
Now, did Mayor Gioti Gondek campaign on that? Nope. What say do the taxpayers of Calgary get in any of
00:01:06.120
this? Well, absolutely none. And this flows directly from the non-binding declaration of a climate
00:01:13.940
emergency the city of Calgary brought forward not all that long ago. You see these non-binding things
00:01:19.620
quickly become binding once they start writing policy around them. Now, my guest tonight is Tom
00:01:26.100
Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada and he recently wrote an op-ed
00:01:30.560
in the National Post about how he thinks the Conservative Party of Canada should start discussing
00:01:37.120
these issues. He says they should not be using the language of the left to talk about climate change.
00:01:44.680
That's just conceding too much ground to the enemy on this issue. And when I say the enemy,
00:01:51.740
I mean the people who want us to pay to change the weather. Now, I've got a long conversation
00:01:57.580
with Tom, so I'm just going to shut up right now and throw to the interview we recorded yesterday
00:02:11.120
So joining me now from his office in Ottawa is good friend of the show, Tom Harris from the
00:02:16.340
International Climate Science Coalition Canada. And last time I talked to Tom, it was way back
00:02:23.200
in May, and he was just headed into the Canada Strong and Free Conference. That's what they call
00:02:29.560
the Manning Centre Conference these days. And Tom sort of did a straw poll of the people who were in
00:02:37.560
attendance about what they thought the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada
00:02:42.100
should consider as their climate policy. And that led into an article that was, you know, to their
00:02:48.100
credit, published in the National Post. Tom, thanks for joining us. Tell us what you found out when you
00:02:53.260
were, you know, polling the attendees, and how that turned into an article.
00:02:58.140
Yeah, that's right. It turns out that the general rank and file of the Conservative Party,
00:03:03.500
the grassroots, were very, very supportive of our point of view on climate change. And I'll just get rid of
00:03:09.780
my virtual background for a second. Here is the actual banner that we had. There is no climate
00:03:15.840
emergency. And I went on to say, climate change is natural. Trying to stop it will only bankrupt our
00:03:20.900
society and put our most vulnerable people at risk. Now, it's interesting that we had literally hundreds
00:03:27.800
of people actually come up to us and say, yeah, we agree completely. And we wish to heaven that the actual
00:03:34.300
candidates for leadership would be saying this sort of thing. So they were very frustrated. We went
00:03:39.760
into the actual debate that they had there. Everyone was there except Patrick Brown. And
00:03:45.140
they actually indirectly supported the climate scare. They generally didn't say much about
00:03:50.400
climate change in that debate. But there's a huge disconnect between what the grassroots want. And
00:03:55.880
after all, they're the ones that are going to vote for leader and what the leadership candidates
00:04:00.140
are saying. You know, Pierre Polyev is a good example. And it seems likely that he's going to win.
00:04:05.360
I mean, my contacts within the party tell me it's almost certain he will. But while he doesn't
00:04:10.660
obvious, I mean, it's not 100% sure that whether he believes or doesn't believe the climate scare,
00:04:16.080
but I get the impression he very definitely doesn't. But what he's doing is he's promoting
00:04:21.000
the idea that we have to store carbon dioxide underground. He calls it carbon sequestration
00:04:26.740
and carbon emissions. You know, he's using the language of the enemy. In fact, Sheila, it's really sad
00:04:31.980
because, you know, my contacts in the party, they're actually saying that in some ways, Pierre
00:04:37.020
is he's campaigning for the liberals, because what he's doing is he's supporting the climate scare.
00:04:43.900
He's he's saying that, in fact, you know, carbon dioxide is this big problem. We have to
00:04:48.360
put it underground. I mean, that's what he's saying indirectly. He's also promoting electric vehicles.
00:04:53.900
He's also saying that we should be encouraging developing countries to get off coal, which,
00:04:58.820
of course, is a major source of electricity in China and India, and switch over to clean Canadian
00:05:04.400
natural gas. The objective, of course, being to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So sadly,
00:05:10.220
Pierre is not doing what the base want. In fact, none of them are. I think some of them,
00:05:15.600
in particular, Jean Charest is probably pretty hopeless. I don't think you're ever going to see
00:05:19.820
him being a climate realist. And of course, the reason is that Jean Charest, as environment minister,
00:05:25.280
led the Canadian delegation to the Rio conference in 1992, that got Canada into this whole mess in the
00:05:32.900
first place. You know, that's where we signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which
00:05:37.240
underlies all the UN agreements. And that Framework Convention is a real problem, because it gives an
00:05:43.740
out clause, as we've talked before, to all developing nations. China was considered a developing nation in
00:05:50.040
1992. They had no billionaires. Now they have, I don't know, maybe 200. I mean, they've got lots and
00:05:56.420
lots of world's second largest economy, or first, depending on the day. And yet they're still
00:06:01.400
classified as a developing country under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. And you might remember
00:06:06.560
what the Chinese delegates said in Peru, when he was questioned about whether or not that China would
00:06:13.480
consider getting off that status. He said, no, he said, the purpose of the Paris Agreement is to
00:06:19.740
enforce the Climate Framework Convention on Climate Change, not to change it. So they've got a sweetheart
00:06:26.160
deal. So what Pierre should be saying, and this is the kind of messaging that, you know, is pretty
00:06:32.620
straightforward to give. And I think the major concern among all the candidates is if they say things
00:06:38.260
like we say, which I just said on the on the banner, that they'll be called climate change
00:06:43.420
deniers. They're really scared about that. So here's a three step approach that Pierre should
00:06:47.940
be taking. And in fact, they should all take. I'm hopeful that Roman Barber eventually will take this
00:06:52.980
approach. But so far, he's been noncommittal on on climate. He's apparently just, you know,
00:06:57.880
frightened of the topic because it's so politically incorrect. And I think he is not a climate alarmist.
00:07:04.460
In my discussions with him, it's pretty clear that he's quite realistic.
00:07:07.320
And I don't think Pierre is a climate alarmist either. The first thing he should stop doing
00:07:12.440
is stop campaigning for the liberals. In other words, stop promoting the climate scare. Stop
00:07:19.040
saying things like carbon sequestration. Do you know what carbon sequestration is to me? Grass.
00:07:25.480
Yeah, grass. Grass pulls it out of the atmosphere and uses it and grassland grazing cattle. That's
00:07:32.560
carbon sequestration if you care about those sorts of things. Yeah, completely. But you know what,
00:07:37.160
Pierre says, and I've had email exchanges with him, and he's actually answered personally to his
00:07:41.220
credit. I'll bring this point up. And he says, No, we're not going to have Trudeau's carbon tax.
00:07:46.280
And I say, Okay, great. What are you going to have?
00:07:48.820
We're going to have carbon dioxide sequestration. Although there's the other problem. He's got to
00:07:55.460
change his language. It's not carbon emissions. It's not carbon pollution. It's carbon dioxide.
00:08:02.520
Okay, that's the first thing all candidates should do right away. Stop calling it carbon emissions,
00:08:07.420
because carbon is soot or graphite. I mean, if you think of it, soot is real pollution.
00:08:13.280
Okay. Yeah. In fact, during the early days of the coal, use of coal, we, in fact, saw lots of
00:08:19.800
real pollution. So yes, we should reduce that. But carbon dioxide is plant food. And in fact,
00:08:25.880
most of the plants in our environment outside evolved at a time when carbon dioxide was much,
00:08:30.800
much higher than today. And in fact, if you doubled carbon dioxide from today's levels,
00:08:36.080
from 420 to 840, it would only be positive. That would be the only impact. We would have a lot more
00:08:43.080
plant growth. We'd have plants growing in areas that are currently too dry, because as CO2 increases,
00:08:48.920
you need less water. So we can actually have crops in areas, you know, that are actually currently too
00:08:54.640
dry. So first of all, stop using their language. And language is just so, so important. You remember
00:09:01.280
the appendix to 1984? It was all about new speak, how you change the thinking pattern of the population
00:09:07.940
by using language that triggers certain ideas and emotions and things like that. Well, carbon
00:09:14.180
emissions triggers a negative emotion, an image of, you know, black soot, that sort of thing. So first
00:09:20.300
of all, Pierre and all candidates, stop calling it carbon pollution, stop calling it carbon emissions,
00:09:26.120
carbon sequester. No, no, it's carbon dioxide. They could do that change tomorrow, and nobody would
00:09:32.860
really notice. And they would actually be stopping supporting the climate scare. They'd stop campaigning
00:09:38.260
for the liberals. The other thing, of course, is that Pierre has to stop giving these messages that
00:09:43.920
imply that he thinks we have this big emergency. Get rid of your sequestration. That's a very dangerous
00:09:49.620
thing, if you think about it. You know, there have been cases in history, in the Cameroons, for example,
00:09:54.960
in Africa, where there was a big emission of carbon dioxide. A big bubble came up through their lake.
00:10:00.980
I think it was Lake Lagos. I'm not sure. But what happened is this massive bubble of carbon dioxide
00:10:06.900
escaped, and it was natural. And it rolled down the valley through the Cameroons, killing livestock and
00:10:15.000
people and everything. And there's an interesting story about a man who saw all these things dying
00:10:19.920
around him. But of course, it's invisible. He didn't know what was causing it. So he jumped on his
00:10:24.700
motorcycle and he just went zooming off as fast as he could. And by very good coincidence, he zoomed in
00:10:30.180
the right direction. So he got out of the bubble, although he couldn't have seen it, and he survived
00:10:35.960
to tell the story. And that led to massive death in the Cameroons, especially of livestock, because
00:10:42.340
carbon dioxide escaped naturally and it's heavier than air. So it displaces there and basically you
00:10:48.560
suffocate. So you don't want to have a carbon sequestration, carbon dioxide sequestration
00:10:53.720
station anywhere near your home. Can I tell you that I do? I do.
00:11:02.040
Because I'm near the refineries. And so this is something that refineries usually just sign on to.
00:11:08.100
They get grants from the government to do it. And the reason the refineries are near here is because
00:11:13.160
there are salt caverns below. And so then they eject their CO2 down there and they say, look at us.
00:11:20.460
Well, at least you know where it would be coming from. So you'd know what direction to zoom off in.
00:11:25.060
You start noticing everything falling dead. So yeah, this CO2 sequestration is a huge mistake. And
00:11:31.800
Pierce should not be saying that. It's going to massively increase the cost of electricity. I mean,
00:11:36.560
perhaps even double it. And of course, it's dangerous in the long run. If you start putting it all over
00:11:42.340
the place, eventually one of them is probably going to leak. The other thing is EVs. Why is he
00:11:47.160
promoting EVs? Well, of course, the whole concept behind that is that it's supposedly going to reduce
00:11:52.580
carbon dioxide. But you know, we interviewed an engineer, Ronald Stein from California, who's done
00:11:59.060
the full lifecycle analysis on electric vehicles. And he finds that when you count the actual mining and
00:12:05.820
the manufacturing and refining of all the materials to make EVs and to make their batteries, you end up
00:12:11.680
within the complete lifecycle, you end up with more carbon dioxide emitted than if you just use a
00:12:17.740
gasoline powered car. So if you're really concerned about CO2, and of course, I don't think people
00:12:22.780
should be. But if you are, then don't buy an EV because it's actually more carbon dioxide. So Pierre,
00:12:29.500
stop promoting EVs. That's dumb, especially in Canada. You'd laugh, Sheila, here in Ottawa, we're going
00:12:34.820
to have all electric buses. And the Auditor General just said recently, Auditor General of Ottawa,
00:12:39.860
that it might be a good idea if the city were to actually test them in the winter.
00:12:47.600
The city of how to pilot bus project, and they tested it in the spring, summer and fall,
00:12:52.140
but they never tested it in the winter. You know, and of course, in Germany, we have buses
00:12:57.580
in their winter, which is much more mild than ours. And, you know, they broke down halfway around
00:13:02.940
their routes and had the people had to be rescued by internal combustion driven buses. And of course,
00:13:08.840
the last thing is, don't push developing countries to get off of coal for the sake of climate. I mean,
00:13:14.960
first of all, coal is a wonderful energy source. It's very dense. It saved our forests. Okay,
00:13:21.400
if you go back in time to before we had our forests, they were completely denuding England
00:13:26.040
to get wood. Okay, so coal was a was a great discovery. And it was something that we were able
00:13:32.840
to then help save the environment. If anything, we should be encouraging developing countries to use
00:13:39.040
the cleanest coal technology. Okay, to use the best scrubbers and the best pollution control. But
00:13:45.560
trying to get them off coal, that's really criminal, because that's going to massively increase their
00:13:50.660
cost of electricity. And that's the last thing they need. So, so Pierre has to basically stop those
00:13:55.920
two things. Then the question is, what should he say about climate change? Well, of course,
00:14:01.180
two things. One is he should say, considering the fact that Canada has so little influence on world
00:14:07.360
emissions, at the very least, we should be focusing more on adaptation. And concerning the idea that we
00:14:14.780
are causing dangerous climate change, what Pierre should say is, look, I really care about the environment.
00:14:20.540
I also care about our economy, I care about, you know, Canadians futures. So if we're going to spend
00:14:26.880
hundreds of billions, and remember, what was it, the environment minister said, since Trudeau came in,
00:14:33.300
they spent 110 billion on the transition to supposedly to transition to new energy sources to supposedly stop
00:14:40.640
climate change, 110 billion. So I mean, that gives Pierre a great opportunity to say, look, if we're going
00:14:46.360
to spend that amount of money, we're going to have to have a good solid look at the science. And we'll
00:14:52.300
bring in scientists on both sides of the climate debate, and we'll have open hearings, so the public
00:14:58.100
can hear what's really going on. And then we'll make decisions based on the best available science,
00:15:04.460
it's time to cancel, cancel culture, we'll get rid of that, we'll bring in scientists who actually study
00:15:11.540
the field, and let the public actually hear. And then we'll decide what we should do with respect
00:15:17.520
to emissions reduction. Now, in that case, you know, he'll still be criticized as a denier. And so
00:15:23.720
the answer to that... He is anyway, who cares? Yeah, yeah. So the answer to that as well is your case
00:15:29.300
so weak, it cannot withstand rational debate. Right. Okay, if you're so confident that the science
00:15:35.920
supports your plan, Mr. Judeau, or Mr. Charest, then why are you afraid of hearing both sides of
00:15:43.480
the argument? And, you know, it actually reminds me of a scene in Star Trek, The Next Generation. And,
00:15:48.980
you know, I've always been a Star Trek fan. Data, the robot was sent to evacuate a colony because these
00:15:54.400
nasty aliens were coming to reoccupy their own, their own colony, because they actually had it
00:15:59.140
originally. And the colonists didn't want to hear anything. And so Data said, is your point of view so
00:16:05.320
weak, it cannot withstand rational debate, at which point they zapped him and they turned him off.
00:16:10.840
That's what they do to us now. Yeah, exactly. So, so I mean, Pierre has to recognize a couple
00:16:16.760
things. First of all, he's currently, as I say, campaigning for the liberals, because he's promoting
00:16:21.920
the climate scare. And people who really care about, care about climate change are going to vote
00:16:27.300
liberal. They're not going to vote for the conservatives, weaker climate change approach. I mean,
00:16:32.840
he's not going to get any new supporters by being a climate alarmist, because they're just going to go
00:16:37.700
to what they consider the people who have the most extreme plan, which is the liberals or the NDP.
00:16:42.780
So and also at this point, he's supposed to be appealing to the grassroots, the base. And the
00:16:49.920
base has made it very, very clear with O'Toole, with Andrew Scheer, that they are very much against
00:16:55.780
this sort of pandering to woke political correctness on climate change. They're sick of it.
00:17:01.220
Okay. And at the conferences, I say, we had hundreds of people say, damn, you're you guys
00:17:06.360
are right. You know, like, why are you? Why are our leaders supporting the climate scare? This is
00:17:12.040
terrible. And it brings up the article that I had published on June 1, in the National Post,
00:17:17.740
the Financial Post section. It's interesting, Sheila, in the United States, a few years ago,
00:17:22.580
they actually were trying to determine what is it that most causes public opinion on climate change?
00:17:28.840
What is the big driver of public opinion? Now, the people doing the poll thought that we had a
00:17:33.940
climate emergency. So they were trying to figure out how can we get people more enthusiastic?
00:17:38.440
Yeah, right. So they looked at things like, is it the science? Is it the statement of the media?
00:17:43.980
Is it the statement of pressure groups? Is it the actual weather around them? Or is it the elites in
00:17:50.800
society, in particular, the politicians? And it was that last group that was by far the biggest
00:17:57.040
driver. And they gave good examples. For example, when the Republicans supported the climate scare,
00:18:02.600
like with John McCain, and, you know, both sides of the aisle were supporting the climate scare,
00:18:07.940
the support for strong action to stop climate change, that was quite high in the United States.
00:18:13.840
But when the Republicans were saying, yeah, well, you know, we think we should have adaptation,
00:18:19.200
you know, we should study the issue more or whatever, when they were actually not promoting the
00:18:23.960
climate scare, support in the public dropped off, not a little, but considerably. And so these
00:18:29.800
researchers from McGill University, Ohio State and Drexel University, they concluded that the major
00:18:36.180
driver of public opinion on climate change is the opinions of the elites, and in particular,
00:18:42.560
the opinions of politicians. So, you know, I hear from the Conservative Party quite a lot that
00:18:47.860
they will be climate realists, they will actually promote what's true, when public opinion supports
00:18:54.660
it. They're going to wait for a very long time, because what they don't understand is their own
00:18:59.840
power to influence public opinion. And I don't mean it doing it out of the blue, just a sudden pop,
00:19:06.700
because, you know, Danielle Smith did that in a CBC sponsored event, where she just suddenly expressed
00:19:12.800
some climate realist type points of view, and she didn't do it strategically intelligently.
00:19:17.540
So she got booed, and she was just criticized like crazy. But of course, that's what's going to
00:19:22.660
happen if you're dumb about it. I mean, if you don't, if you don't present it in such a way,
00:19:28.220
gradually over time, stop calling it carbon, stop promoting the climate scare, and then eventually start
00:19:34.900
promoting something that makes sense. If you actually have a proper strategy, yes, you can do that. And you
00:19:40.580
can also then lead public opinion to go in that direction. You know, your public opinion polling
00:19:46.720
data about when, you know, the parties are in conformity, and when they have divergent viewpoints,
00:19:53.820
it reminds me of this thing that Ezra always talks about. And then he'll also sometimes when he's
00:19:58.880
really enthusiastic, he'll make us watch a video from 1951 on his cell phone, and he makes us all
00:20:04.140
gather around. But it's the Solomon Asch conformity experiment. And so in 1951, they, it was an
00:20:12.640
experiment to see if you would deny what you know to be true, to go along with the group, because you
00:20:19.360
don't want to be the one sticking out. And it was they would show lines. And the other people were
00:20:26.420
told which, what thing they should answer versus what was reality. And then the test subject would,
00:20:33.940
they would look at the lines and say, which one is the tallest, there were three lines.
00:20:37.140
And the other people would say, Oh, it was line three, even though it was line one. And they found
00:20:42.880
that the subjects would go along with the group, even though they obviously knew what the right
00:20:48.620
answer was. But they would say, you know what, maybe, yeah, maybe it is line three that is the
00:20:52.160
tallest, even though line three is like this and line one is like that. I know they're wrong,
00:20:56.360
but why should I make waves? Two. In this case, the subject knows he is right, but goes along to avoid
00:21:02.480
the discomfort of disagreeing with the group. Until such time as somebody in the other group
00:21:08.180
broke ranks and said, actually, I think it's one. And then the test subject would be more likely to
00:21:14.800
say, you know what, it's one also. With a partner yielding drops to only 5% of the critical trials
00:21:20.260
compared to 37% without a partner. And I think that's that sort of plays out across everything that
00:21:27.620
we talk about, whether it's about climate change, where there's complete ideological
00:21:31.300
homogeneity, lockdown restrictions. Once one person stands up, everybody else says,
00:21:37.540
you know what, me too. But it just takes that one person. So who's it going to be from the
00:21:43.580
conservative side of the debate? Well, that's right. And the party whip,
00:21:47.320
from what I've been told from inside, has told MPs, you cannot speak out against the climate scare.
00:21:53.220
So you have people, you know, like Brad Trost, who used to be an MP, and there's comments from
00:21:57.600
Humboldt, Saskatchewan. Very smart guy. Very smart guy.
00:22:01.100
I mean, he was a geologist, and he actually knew that the climate scare was completely bogus.
00:22:06.240
But if I understand rightly, he was forbidden from actually saying anything like that.
00:22:11.200
And probably the only person in the party actually qualified to talk about it.
00:22:15.240
Yeah, exactly. Exactly. And of course, then the party sabotaged him, and he's no longer an MP.
00:22:20.100
But, you know, just as another example of what you're saying, Sheila, whenever I go to a public
00:22:25.380
hearing, and there's a question period afterwards, I get to the mic as soon as possible,
00:22:30.320
right away. If I can be first, I am. You know, a lot of people will say, oh, wait and see how it
00:22:35.640
goes. You know, I don't want to be first. No, I want to be first, because you set the tone for other
00:22:40.540
people to then come to the microphone and also say, yeah, you know, I have a doubt about this climate
00:22:45.520
scare issue. I remember back in the 30s, you know, my grandfather telling me about the Dust Bowl,
00:22:50.580
and they had far more extreme weather than we do today, which is actually true. And so what I do
00:22:56.640
is I get to the mic right away, or if you're calling into a radio talk show, do it early on,
00:23:01.800
because then other people hear it, and they're more likely to say, yeah, he's reflecting my point
00:23:06.700
of view, and they call in or they go to the microphone. So the conservatives have got to realize
00:23:10.960
they are the major driver, along with the rest of the politicians, for public opinion. So stop
00:23:17.780
waiting for public opinion, because you're never going to have it. And why does Pierre
00:23:22.540
Polyev want to preside over a failed country? I mean, that's essentially what will happen if
00:23:29.380
the climate scare continues, because, and you know, this is where the Canadian Energy Centre
00:23:33.560
are completely out to lunch. I had a letter to the editor published in the Calgary Herald just a few
00:23:39.580
days ago, in which I said, look, stop promoting the climate scare, because they talk about, oh,
00:23:45.000
our oil and gas doesn't produce as much greenhouse gases. So buy our oil and gas. No,
00:23:50.460
who cares? Carbon dioxide, our carbon dioxide is a great thing. In fact, it's interesting,
00:23:56.700
Patrick Moore, who used to be, of course, one of the founders of Greenpeace, he was one of the
00:24:01.000
founders. He's now actually joined our board of directors. Oh, great. Yeah, he's wonderful.
00:24:06.420
Anyway, he shows a graph of decreasing carbon dioxide over millions of years before humans started
00:24:12.800
burning fossil fuels. And what he shows is that if we had not started to release carbon dioxide,
00:24:19.360
you know, as a result of burning fossil fuels, we were actually headed naturally to one of the lowest
00:24:25.000
levels to a dangerously low level. You see, if you get down to 150 parts per million, we're currently
00:24:30.640
420, then what happens is plants start to die. And that has happened actually in the not too distant
00:24:37.240
past where we got close to that. During the last glacial period, we got down to about 180 parts
00:24:42.700
per million. So we were actually approaching the point at which life on Earth would begin to end.
00:24:49.140
And Patrick says, well, thank God we came along and started to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.
00:24:56.500
You know, and also we do have to remember, Sheila, we're at one of the lowest levels of CO2
00:25:00.960
in Earth's history. I mean, we've had CO2 levels as high as 20 times today's level. I don't mean the
00:25:07.360
doubling that I'm talking about, which would be beneficial, by the way. I'm talking about 20 times,
00:25:12.000
thousands of parts per million, instead of 420. So you know what Patrick does is he actually shows
00:25:19.180
that carbon dioxide is wonderful. It's the gas of life. And we should want it to increase. Because
00:25:26.140
otherwise, nature was pulling us down to a dangerously low level. So yeah, the conservatives
00:25:31.560
have got to look themselves in the mirror and say, ah, we help drive public opinion. So we're going to
00:25:36.860
start giving the right messages, but in particular, stop giving the wrong messages.
00:25:43.460
Now, I want to talk to you. We'll just touch briefly on it. One of the subjects that you and I talk
00:25:50.500
about quite frequently is the climate strategy of Ottawa. And I thought it was enormous and crazy at,
00:25:58.040
I think, in excess of $60 billion. And Calgary said, hold our beer, because they brought in one
00:26:06.120
that's $87 billion. Yeah. And they want to go to net zero and all electric vehicles. Again,
00:26:14.780
this is the electric vehicles thing, by the way, Michelle Sterling has done a really good analysis
00:26:19.260
of this, where she said, our grid doesn't support these wild and crazy ideas. We don't have the energy
00:26:25.140
infrastructure to get to net zero vehicles the way these people want from us. But if you're talking
00:26:31.400
about a winter city, Calgary's it. And yet their mayor, brand new mayor, did not campaign on an $87
00:26:39.200
billion carbon tax bill, because that's what really this is. And yet they've imposed it. And nobody,
00:26:46.660
everybody always says, oh, these climate emergency declarations, they're simply symbolic.
00:26:51.200
Yeah. Until such time as they say, oh, that climate emergency thing that we just announced,
00:26:57.200
well, here's what we're going to, here's, that's the basis for this now.
00:27:00.840
Yes. Yeah, exactly. And in fact, as you might have heard, Ottawa just signed the fossil fuel
00:27:08.500
So what we've got is a sequence of events. You've got the declaration.
00:27:11.640
Sorry, they're treating it like a bioweapon or like a nuclear weapon?
00:27:16.120
I should just read to you the purpose of the thing. It says the campaign for a fossil fuel
00:27:22.020
non-proliferation treaty was inspired by treaties that addresses the threat of nuclear weapons,
00:27:28.040
landmines, and other dangerous substances. Over the past year, the campaign has been supported by
00:27:33.360
101 Nobel laureates, 2,600 academics, 231 parliamentarians, hundreds of youth leaders,
00:27:41.400
and a growing group of faith leaders in more than 1,300 civil societies.
00:27:44.720
I'm not, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care what a bunch of teenagers think,
00:27:48.000
but they always say youth leaders. I'm like, uh, annoying teenagers. I've got some of those.
00:27:54.920
And you know, here's what, um, what's, how do you pronounce her name? Zipporah Berman?
00:28:02.340
Yeah. She's the chair for the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty out of.
00:28:06.260
She says by endorsing the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, the city of Ottawa is
00:28:11.760
taking responsibility for moving beyond fossil fuels and prior to prioritizing the protection
00:28:18.000
of people and the planet. Now, of course that is complete newspeak. I mean, that is completely
00:28:22.860
the opposite of what's happening. If we get rid of fossil fuels, and this is a very important point,
00:28:27.860
people should stop pulling their punches on. They should say it point blank. It's not protecting
00:28:32.700
people and it's not protecting the planet by getting away from fossil fuels. I mean, fossil fuels
00:28:37.700
are arguably the greatest invention of mankind. I mean, perhaps the development of writing was also
00:28:44.260
pretty darn important, but the fact is carbon dioxide. And here's something that people should
00:28:50.560
be quoting. Okay. I'll hold this up. This is a climate change reconsidered. I'll hold it in the right
00:28:56.120
spot here. There we go. Well, anyway, people can check it out at climate change reconsidered dot
00:29:02.080
org. And what it shows is that fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions is not a problem. They've done
00:29:09.120
other reports too. The most recent one is on fossil fuels and they show how it is a great generator of
00:29:15.440
wealth, of security, of solid energy. You know, so, I mean, the whole idea that they're prioritizing the
00:29:21.380
protection of people on the planet. No, you need to prioritize people by actually having the best
00:29:27.380
energy sources, by allowing people to have air conditioning and heating and things like that.
00:29:32.680
So, they have it exactly backwards. And I'll just read a couple other things. This treaty,
00:29:38.760
this nonproliferation treaty, actually started in the UK and was launched at Climate Week New York City,
00:29:46.440
September 25th, 2020. Okay. That's where it came from. And it's interesting. When they first started
00:29:53.260
talking about it, they were citing the Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere, which is in
00:29:58.460
1988, where the threat of climate upheaval, which is the term they used, was compared second only to
00:30:05.440
nuclear war. Okay. And so, here's what Ottawa's resolution was. And I don't know what the fraction of
00:30:13.920
the councillors voting for it. It's interesting, because when you actually look at the webpage,
00:30:17.500
trying to figure out, well, who the heck voted for this insane thing?
00:30:21.280
No, they say that the vote breakdown is not available. So, they say, this is, what's her name?
00:30:29.820
Catherine McKinney. She's the actual sponsor of it. She says, whereas the city of Ottawa declared a
00:30:36.500
climate emergency on April 24th, 2019. And that's key, eh? That, as you said earlier,
00:30:42.100
is the beginning of the chain of events that happens that leads to things that are really
00:30:48.860
Yeah. So, you know, Calgary declared the climate emergency. What happened? Well, we were saying
00:30:53.300
this last time we spoke. They're going to soon have, and they now do have, an insane $87 billion
00:30:59.260
climate change master plan. Well, you can be sure they're going to next sign this fossil fuel
00:31:04.000
non-proliferation treaty. And so, Catherine McKinney says this, whereas the construction of new fossil
00:31:10.340
fuel infrastructure and expanded reliance on fossil fuels, it poses communities to untenable risks to
00:31:17.600
public health and safety. Now, that is weird. I mean, you get untenable risks to public health and
00:31:23.420
safety if you stop using fossil fuel. Right. Because, indeed, you don't have the energy you need to
00:31:29.400
actually survive extreme weather. She says, whereas a new global initiative is underway calling
00:31:35.500
for fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, that would, and this is the important point, this is
00:31:40.180
what it's supposed to do, end new fossil fuel exploration and expansion and phase out existing
00:31:47.460
production. And be it further resolved, and here's the next step, that the mayor, on behalf of the
00:31:54.280
council in the city of Ottawa, send a letter from the mayor to the Prime Minister of Canada, Premier of
00:31:59.760
Ontario, urging the Canadian and Ontario governments to support the global initiative for a fossil fuel
00:32:05.940
non-proliferation treaty. So, they want the whole country to sign it. And yet, you know, the thing is,
00:32:10.740
I mean, fossil fuels are, if not the major resource importance for all of Canada, it's a major driver
00:32:18.160
of our economy. Now, another topic is that today is the 53rd anniversary of the first landing on the moon.
00:32:25.360
And I, of course, as a space nut, I actually, you know, I'll just get rid of my background here.
00:32:35.980
Yeah, this is the Montreal Gazette. The whole front page was a picture of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin
00:32:41.940
on the moon, okay? And then that was the Montreal Gazette. Here's the Montreal Star, which was a more
00:32:47.400
major newspaper at the time. I was actually a delivery boy. Gate to the universe opens, you know,
00:32:54.120
and they had the whole thing. And they had a 20-page section. And this just shows how, why, you know,
00:33:00.960
people like me became aerospace engineers. I mean, this was a very, very exciting time. I mean, look at the
00:33:06.340
back. They had literally 20 pages of moon stuff. I mean, I was in seventh heaven, quite literally.
00:33:13.980
Now, the reason I bring that up, tomorrow is the 53rd anniversary of the first moonwalk, okay, is because
00:33:20.960
guess who are climate realists? Guess who actually are? It's the Apollo astronauts. In 2012, 49 former
00:33:30.480
NASA scientists and astronauts signed an open letter to NASA to say, stop promoting the climate scare.
00:33:37.560
Rely on real data to tell us what's really happening. You know, one of their mantras, this group, was,
00:33:43.540
in God we trust, everyone else bring data. I thought that was kind of cute. But here are the
00:33:52.360
Apollo astronauts. By the way, Buzz Aldrin is a climate realist. He said point blank, and it's
00:33:58.840
been reported in various media sources, and he was the second man on the moon tomorrow, the 53rd
00:34:03.520
anniversary. He thinks the climate scare isn't founded. But in addition to that, we have Walter
00:34:08.500
Cunningham from Apollo 7. I've met him many times. Charles Duke, 16. Richard Gordon from Apollo 12.
00:34:16.780
And here's a fellow, Dr. Harrison Schmidt, Jack Schmidt. He actually was the only scientist to
00:34:22.920
walk on the moon from Apollo 17. And I had the privilege of introducing him a couple of times at
00:34:27.760
conferences. Very, very nice man. Al Worden from Apollo 15. These are all the Apollo astronauts that
00:34:34.200
signed this open letter to NASA saying, stop promoting this nonsense. You know, we also had
00:34:40.760
the flight director, Chris Kraft, from the Apollo mission. And it goes on and on. So, I mean, the idea
00:34:46.880
that we are causing dangerous climate change, there are many, many world leaders in science, the
00:34:52.800
astronauts, all sorts of people who are saying this, this is nonsense. So, at the very least, Pierre and
00:34:58.960
company should stop promoting it. Yeah, it's so bizarre because you have these scientists who
00:35:06.620
achieved this great feat, despite the technology in front of them, also brought to you by our old
00:35:14.620
friend Fossil Fuels. Yeah. And they are being told to shut up by teenage girls like Greta Tenberg. And it
00:35:22.140
just, it's fascinating to me that that's where we've gone as a society. But these guys who achieved this,
00:35:28.960
great thing through science and grit and innovation and being able to think about solutions outside of
00:35:37.540
the box, which we are not allowed to do anymore. We're only allowed to be ideological conformists
00:35:42.460
and scientific conformists. We aren't allowed to innovate. These guys achieved this thing because
00:35:47.840
they were allowed to think differently. And now they're being told to shut up and called
00:35:53.720
unscientific science deniers. Yeah. And you know, the astronauts, generally speaking,
00:35:59.100
are committed environmentalists. I mean, like Buzz Aldrin when he walked on the moon. And remember,
00:36:04.640
Buzz Aldrin has a PhD from MIT in astronautics. Okay. This is a very, very bright man. A very brave man
00:36:12.660
too. I mean, they had no backup. If they couldn't launch, they were stuck on the moon. You might remember
00:36:17.400
that Richard Nixon actually had a backup speech to give. They came in peace for all mankind and they
00:36:24.020
will rest in peace for all mankind. He had the speech prepared for them unable to leave the moon
00:36:30.040
because they had one engine, one engine. That was it. They had no backup. Nobody can rescue them.
00:36:35.220
They didn't have enough air to last for more than three days. So they were dead if their rocket didn't
00:36:40.120
work. So extremely brave men. But you know, the interesting thing is Buzz Aldrin said that the thing that
00:36:46.080
astounded him is that when he reached up with arm's length, he could cover the earth with his thumb.
00:36:52.220
Yeah. Everything on humanity, everything on the planet was everything he ever knew was covered by his
00:36:58.300
thumb. So you know, the astronauts are very strong, committed environmentalists. So people might say, oh,
00:37:03.060
they're climate change. No, no, these are top scientists. They may have been astronauts too. But they're
00:37:08.760
also very well qualified scientists as well. And also committed environmentalists. So I mean, if they can tell us
00:37:15.360
this sort of thing, that the climate scare is ridiculous and dangerous, actually, because it's
00:37:19.860
getting us off of our most valuable source of energy, which is fossil fuels, then yeah, everybody
00:37:25.940
should be talking about this. And so that's what I think of when I think of, you know, the moon day,
00:37:33.420
Now, I wanted to ask you about the Dutch farmers protest, because my concern is that this is obviously
00:37:39.380
on its way to Canada, because the CETA agreement, the Canadian European trade agreement that was
00:37:46.240
drafted by Christopher Freeland, shoehorned a whole bunch of gender nonsense. And more importantly,
00:37:55.660
the Paris climate change targets, those were written into the agreement. And because Holland is this
00:38:01.240
enormous agricultural exporter, their government is now imposing these nitrogen targets on their
00:38:09.140
farmers. And I wanted to ask you about the nitrogen side of it. Because as a farmer, I know about
00:38:16.380
manure, nitrogen and manure. And I know about I know about the value of nitrogen in fertilizer,
00:38:24.820
in increasing yields and making food more affordable for people and farming more profitable for farmers
00:38:31.180
who are price takers and not price makers. So you know, when your yield suffers, you suffer. But
00:38:37.200
tell us about the science of nitrogen. Why do they hate it?
00:38:42.160
Yeah, nitrogen actually combines with oxygen to forms a compound called N2O. Okay, two nitrogen atoms in
00:38:49.540
one oxygen, nitrous oxide. And it is actually greenhouse gas. Okay, so if you're concerned about
00:38:55.660
greenhouse gases, you might want to reduce that. But in fact, it's interesting, Will Happer,
00:39:00.640
Professor Happer from Princeton University that we spoke about last time I was on,
00:39:04.440
he actually has done a very detailed analysis of the potential impact of all the different major
00:39:10.780
greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, water vapor, which is a big one, by the way, it's water vapor,
00:39:16.040
not carbon dioxide, and methane and nitrous oxide. And if people go to the ICSC-climate.com,
00:39:26.960
not ICSC-canada.com, which is this one, but our major international body, ICSC-climate.com,
00:39:34.460
right on the homepage, we have an interview with Professor Happer. And he wrote this really
00:39:39.780
exceptional paper analyzing what would happen if we double, you know, or other amounts of increase
00:39:45.520
of nitrous oxide. And like with carbon dioxide, he shows that the increase in temperature is very
00:39:53.260
minimal. Okay. For example, in the case of carbon dioxide, he says, if we doubled it from our current
00:39:58.440
level of 420 to 840, we would see a 1%, 1% change in the outgoing radiation from the earth. And that
00:40:08.060
would result in a temperature rise of less than a degree Celsius. And we're talking about a similar
00:40:12.780
kind of thing with the other greenhouse gases. So in fact, from a climate perspective, and that's the
00:40:17.980
major driver to try to reduce nitrogen. From a climate perspective, we should completely not worry
00:40:24.620
about nitrogen. And nitrogen is an extremely important ingredient in actually making plants work.
00:40:32.440
That's why they put it in fertilizers. So what's happened in Holland is in an attempt to reduce
00:40:38.000
N2O, the gas, the greenhouse gas, they're forcing farmers to reduce the amount of fertilizer they use.
00:40:44.620
And the forecast is that as a result of the Dutch plan, a third, 33% of all their farms will have
00:40:52.600
to close. Okay. Now the Netherlands is a major breadbasket for the whole of Europe. So this is
00:40:58.460
a complete and utter disaster. And Trudeau now is talking about the same kind of thing for Canada.
00:41:03.740
You know, they're not talking about as big a reduction, but still a very major reduction.
00:41:08.420
And so we should get on that topic, you know, now, because before it gets gathering steam,
00:41:14.300
because in fact, as I say, in Europe, it has already got to the point where they've passed
00:41:19.260
rules and laws, they're going to close a third of all of their farms.
00:41:24.520
And cull livestock, cull a third of livestock. What does that do? Like, we're all experiencing
00:41:29.700
food inflation. Imagine you're taking one of every three steaks, one of every three bricks of cheese,
00:41:37.900
right out of the grocery store. What does that do to the cost of food? Nobody thinks about these
00:41:42.300
things until you can't afford to feed your family. Yeah. And I've been told and actually
00:41:47.620
seen various interviews on this, that one of the drivers is that they want farmers to sell their
00:41:52.680
land to the government. Sure. You know, this is a World Economic Forum operative, quite frankly,
00:41:58.080
the head of Holland and like Trudeau and Freeland are as well. And so what they want is for state
00:42:04.280
control to actually control these lands, so they can do what they want with the land. And so the private
00:42:10.060
farmers are essentially going to be losing their farms in the tens of thousands, not just a few.
00:42:15.940
So, you know, the climate scare, Sheila, I mean, I think a lot of people never appreciated when it
00:42:20.280
started taking off, the kind of impact it would eventually have. I mean, the climate scare alone
00:42:26.320
is enough to totally ruin Canada. And I mean that seriously, because it will certainly ruin our fossil
00:42:32.960
fuel industry. And that's why it's so annoying when the Canadian Energy Centre are promoting the climate
00:42:37.580
scare. As I said in my letter to the Ottawa Citizen, or sorry, to the Calgary Herald, it's very much like
00:42:43.720
when we had this Cold War between us and the Soviet Union. You know, they would infiltrate the peace
00:42:49.420
movement with what they called useful idiots. Yeah. In other words, people who would actually try to
00:42:55.520
actually de-weaponize the West, okay, the Russians weren't going to de-weaponize, that's for sure.
00:43:02.520
They were actually trying to demilitarize the West, which would actually empower the Soviet Union,
00:43:07.480
and they would have more strength to invade other countries, etc. And they called those people
00:43:11.460
useful idiots. In other words, they thought they were doing a good thing, but they were in fact
00:43:15.800
sabotaging their own country. And sadly, Pierre Polyev, to a certain extent, I'm not saying he's an
00:43:22.260
idiot, but he is being a useful idiot on this topic. And similarly, the Canadian Energy Centre,
00:43:27.520
they are so frustrating. Not only have I written to them, but quite a number of other people have
00:43:32.180
shared their emails with me that they've written to the Canadian Energy Centre and say, look,
00:43:36.300
stop promoting the one thing that is the greatest threat to our fossil fuel future. You know, they
00:43:42.540
say we're in favour of fossil fuels, but oh, no, we want, you know, we're gonna, it's just so dumb.
00:43:48.120
So happily, I was surprised, actually, because normally the Calgary Hill doesn't publish me.
00:43:53.280
They did publish it, you know, just a few days ago. And so we've got all these useful idiots,
00:43:59.440
you know, the oil companies, you know, the Canadian Energy Centre, the politicians,
00:44:03.060
they're all promoting what is potentially going to destroy our country completely. And it's not just
00:44:10.800
the oil and gas sector, as you said, it's agriculture as well. It's concrete, it's steel,
00:44:15.280
it's all the things that we use to actually make our modern society run, will have to be cut back.
00:44:21.300
And what will happen? They'll ship them all to China. Okay, because China has no limits,
00:44:26.860
they can produce as much as they want. And of course, the big joke of it is,
00:44:31.320
the wind turbines that we buy from China, the power source they're using to make the wind turbines
00:44:40.680
You know, it might take a little bit for some people to get abducted by reality, when, you know,
00:44:48.400
when they move to net zero transportation in the trucking industry, and then your food that is
00:44:54.300
already overly priced because of the restrictions put on farmers never comes to your grocery store.
00:44:59.880
And you have to spend a couple of days hungry. Maybe then, maybe then somebody will get it.
00:45:05.160
Well, Jay Lehrer, who's my co-author in America Out Loud, and he's like, you know,
00:45:08.620
we have the America Out Loud radio show. He says that what he thinks is going to be needed is to have
00:45:13.600
what happened in Texas happen over and over and over and over. In other words, the middle of the
00:45:18.160
winter, you're reliant on wind power, like they were 58% of the electricity came from wind just before
00:45:23.480
the storm hit. And suddenly wind went to zero. They had 700 people die as a result of the blackouts
00:45:31.460
caused by their over-reliance on wind power. And Jay Lehrer thinks that this is going to have to happen
00:45:36.980
over and over and over across the Western world before people wake up. And they say, look,
00:45:42.620
the idea that you phase out fossil fuels to help people, I mean, it's completely insane.
00:45:53.860
I think we're probably going to get kicked off our Zoom call. How do people find the International
00:45:59.760
Climate Science Coalition Canada? And more importantly, how do they support the work that
00:46:03.360
you do? Because you are really up against the deep pockets of the environmentalist movement,
00:46:09.160
so often foreign funded, money just flows to them. And you are one of just like a mere handful of
00:46:16.820
organizations fighting to have some realism and reality and actual science inducted into the
00:46:24.440
political science of the climate change argument.
00:46:27.100
Yeah, for sure. And me being based here in Ottawa is great because, you know, I get insight to what's
00:46:31.600
going on behind the scenes. And we're planning actually to meet with a number of them. I did meet
00:46:35.700
with Roman Baber and briefly with Shere. So we're going to be doing more of that. But yeah,
00:46:40.560
the group is called ICSC Canada. And the web page is ICSC-Canada.com. And in the upper right
00:46:48.860
hand corner is a little window. You can just fill in your email address. You don't have to tell us
00:46:52.700
your name or anything. Just put in the email address. And we'll start to include you in our
00:46:57.000
monthly newsletters. And we talk about all the media hits we've had, our plans for the future.
00:47:01.400
We've got some pretty incredible plans for the future, which I think people will really like
00:47:05.880
to hear of. So yeah, go to icsc-canada.com. Don't forget your podcast. You always forget
00:47:13.360
your podcast. And under this web page, we have resources and you can see exploratory journeys.
00:47:20.160
Our last interview was talking specifically about the Ottawa climate plan. And that applies directly
00:47:26.280
to Calgary. Get ready, Calgary. You know, you're going to have the fossil fuel non-proliferation
00:47:32.240
treaty rammed down your throat, which is kind of sad when you consider it's the fossil fuel capital of
00:47:36.960
Canada. And the last thing, of course, is the other side of the story, which if people go to
00:47:43.080
americautloud.com, click on shows, you can hear our show. And we do one of those every week. So
00:47:48.360
we're pretty active. We get to 30,000 listeners. So it's pretty good.
00:47:52.040
Oh, it's great. Well, Tom, I want to thank you so much for being so generous with your time all
00:47:56.040
the time and explaining these very complicated issues in a way that a normal lay person can
00:48:01.000
understand. I think that is a valuable thing that you do, because I think the other side of the
00:48:06.420
argument is often overly verbose in an attempt to confuse you and intimidate you from participating
00:48:12.340
in these conversations. That's right. Conservatives, stop supporting the liberals. Damn it.
00:48:18.380
From your lips to God's ears, Tom. We'll have you back on again very, very soon.
00:48:31.880
Well, friends, this brings us to the portion of the show where we actually want to hear from you.
00:48:35.700
Unlike the mainstream media who closes their comment section and limits who can reply to
00:48:41.600
their tweets, I invite your viewer feedback. I want you to tell me what we're getting right,
00:48:46.500
what we're getting wrong, and what you think about the topics we're covering in the guests
00:48:50.780
that we have on the show. That's why I give out my email address at Sheila at rebelnews.com. Put
00:48:56.040
gun show letters in the subject line so it's easy for me to find because I select those emails at
00:49:01.440
random. So the more you write in, the more chance you have of me reading your letter. But also,
00:49:07.280
please leave a comment on our Rumble videos or wherever you find our videos. I go looking there too
00:49:13.880
for your comments if you don't want to send me an email directly. Today, though, we're going back
00:49:18.580
to the email and randomly selected. It's Bruce. Again, Bruce, I think you live in Radway, Bruce
00:49:25.420
Atchison. Anyway, he writes to me and says, Hi, Sheila. I believe I will donate $20 to Friends of
00:49:31.300
Science. Michelle does excellent work, so I feel I should support it. Friends of Science does do
00:49:36.440
excellent work and Michelle works very, very hard. That's my friend, Michelle Sterling. She's the
00:49:40.900
communications director over at Friends of Science. And they do incredible work on a shoestring budget,
00:49:47.800
and they are up against the foreign-funded environmentalist movement in this country to
00:49:52.640
just act as a counterbalance, a little dose of reality and practicality in this overheated and
00:50:02.460
illogical debate about climate change. Anyway, Bruce keeps going. Regarding single-use plastics,
00:50:09.420
which is one of my favorite things to talk about, by the way, I love single-use plastics. And I think
00:50:14.540
plastic is a perfect garbage because it's inert and you get to use it once for the thing that you
00:50:21.060
get to use it for. And then if you're smart, you can incinerate it because it's a fossil fuel and you
00:50:28.860
can use that for energy to create electricity. Anyway, Bruce says, I often give shopping bags to my
00:50:34.820
friend who has four cats. She uses them for litter box liners. You know, I don't know anybody who
00:50:42.300
brings home a plastic shopping bag and then throws it in the garbage. Every single person I know uses
00:50:50.360
them for something else. I've got one in the little bucket I use for a garbage can under my desk here.
00:50:57.300
I think everybody uses them for that. I mean, I don't even remember the last time that I saw somebody
00:51:03.940
with a small store-bought garbage bag in their bathroom garbage. It's always a shopping bag,
00:51:11.480
right? Anyway, Bruce goes on to say, I also use worn out Ziploc bags to hold things like electrical
00:51:17.720
cables in. Those rectangular margarine tubs are great for storing leftovers or to keep those mice out of my
00:51:23.080
cereal. Those are food-grade plastic and quite sturdy. I donate small containers to my church so
00:51:28.380
people can take home excess food from Sunday lunch. Those Nesquik bottles are handy for powders like
00:51:33.760
sugar and salt. I use a larger one for dish soap. This also explains why I never rose through the
00:51:39.200
federal government ranks. I make too much sense. Yours in Sleepy Radway, Bruce and Delta the cat.
00:51:45.040
Now, Bruce is next level in his personal upcycling, but I think most people do this. I mean,
00:51:52.520
Bruce is in Radway. I'm also far out of the city, so you do get creative about the things you would
00:51:59.140
maybe recycle or throw in the trash because you're far from the city. You don't want to run to town
00:52:05.500
all the time that you need something, so you get creative about the things you have lying around.
00:52:09.520
That's ingenuity. And I think, though, however, not to maybe the extent that Bruce is, most people are
00:52:17.120
like this. People don't like to be wasteful and just throw things out, especially if you've already
00:52:23.300
been made to pay five cents for your shopping bag. You don't throw it out. You reuse it. It's the same
00:52:30.200
reason they make you pay five cents a deposit on a can of pop or a can of beer. It's so that you want
00:52:36.980
to get your five cents back out or at least your five cents worth. Same thing goes with those grocery
00:52:42.640
bags instead of banning them. Just let us continue to use them. What sense does it make to ban my
00:52:49.360
shopping bag on one side, but then now you're forcing me to buy plastic garbage bags to put in
00:52:55.820
my little tiny bucket that I keep under the desk? It doesn't make any sense, and it actually doesn't
00:53:00.460
prevent people from using plastic. It just makes them use different plastic instead of reusing the
00:53:05.400
stuff they already have. Anyway, it's the liberal logic. Who's to understand it? Definitely not me.
00:53:11.180
Well, folks, that's the show for tonight. Thank you so much for tuning in. I'll see everybody back here
00:53:16.480
in the same time, in the same place next week. And of course, remember, don't let the government