Tackling the Conservative Party's self-made climate crisis
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
169.14761
Summary
During the Conservative Party of Canada's recent policy convention held virtually because of course, the pandemic, uninspiring leader Aaron O'Toole suggested that the debate around any issues of climate change are over, a deeply unconservative opinion for any conservative to hold. So joining me tonight to discuss what the Conservative approach should have been to the climate change debate at that policy convention is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hello Rebels, you're listening to a free audio only recording of my weekly Wednesday night show,
00:00:04.760
The Gun Show. Tonight my guest is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition
00:00:10.580
Canada and we're talking about the conservative answer to climate change and we're also analyzing
00:00:18.260
the conservative policy convention that decided for us that climate change is not something
00:00:28.340
anybody can talk about anymore. Thanks Erin O'Toole. Now if you like listening to the show then you're
00:00:34.000
going to love watching it but in order to watch you need to be a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
00:00:38.300
That's what we call our long form TV style shows here on Rebel News. Subscribers get access to my show
00:00:43.540
which I think is worth the price of admission but they also get access to Ezra's nightly Ezra Levant
00:00:48.660
show, David Menzies, fun Friday night show Rebel Roundup and Andrew Chapados's brand new show
00:00:55.180
Andrew says and we added Andrew's show for the same price that we were charging before. It's only
00:01:01.920
eight bucks a month to subscribe and just for my podcast listeners you can save an extra 10% on a
00:01:07.560
new Rebel News Plus subscription by using the coupon code podcast when you subscribe. Just go to
00:01:14.220
rebelnewsplus.com to become a member today and now please enjoy this free audio only version of my show.
00:01:25.180
Some real tangible advice for how the Conservative Party of Canada should have handled the debate and
00:01:44.760
the issues around climate change at their recent policy convention. I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're
00:01:50.560
watching The Gunn Show. During the Conservative Party of Canada's recent policy convention held
00:02:12.900
virtually because of course the pandemic, uninspiring leader Aaron O'Toole suggested, sorry, commanded
00:02:20.400
that the debate around any issues of climate change are over. It's a deeply unconservative opinion for
00:02:29.620
any Conservative to hold. Not specifically about global warming but rather about anything. Conservatives
00:02:37.440
generally believe in the free and liberal exchange of ideas and the marketplace of ideas deciding which
00:02:44.420
ones are good and which ones are bad, which ideas fail and which succeed. And those sorts of decisions
00:02:50.520
cannot be made without debate and rigorous discussion. Ruling certain opinions off limits is liberalism.
00:02:58.940
It's cultural Marxism. It's tyranny against a free conscience. But I'm not Aaron O'Toole.
00:03:05.080
So I want to talk about these sorts of issues. I actually think that most people, as a rule,
00:03:12.780
don't really care about the dangers of climate change except for that they're constantly told
00:03:20.460
they should be caring about it. Constantly. Badgered by the media. So joining me tonight to discuss
00:03:27.180
what the Conservative approach should have been to the climate change debate at that policy convention
00:03:34.700
is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada in an interview we recorded
00:03:42.260
So joining me now is Tom Harris. Tom is a good friend of the show, one of the most prepared guests
00:04:01.980
that I've ever had on the show, which I appreciate greatly as a scatterbrained journalist. Tom is with
00:04:07.020
the International Climate Science Coalition Canada. And Tom's joining me now to discuss
00:04:13.620
the Conservative Convention, if you can call it that, and a whole host of other things. Tom,
00:04:22.660
Now, the first thing I wanted to touch base with you about is you wrote an incredible article sort of
00:04:28.760
in the wake of the Conservative Party Convention, and we'll get to that. But your article published
00:04:36.560
in Sun newspaper chains, which I think is, you know, every chance that our side of the debate can get
00:04:43.040
into mainstream media and change hearts and minds, people who might not normally see us,
00:04:49.600
I think that's great. And your article is called Adaptation, a Sensible Climate Policy for Conservatives.
00:04:57.280
I think it's great because there just aren't enough Canadians to make any sort of real change to the
00:05:07.780
Yeah, it's really quite ridiculous to be focused on emissions control. You know, and it really doesn't
00:05:13.100
matter whether you agree with the climate scare or you don't agree with the climate scare. Let's say,
00:05:17.560
for example, you agree and you think that we're causing dangerous climate change by our CO2 emissions.
00:05:22.140
Canada puts out 1.6% of world emissions. We're actually very environmentally conscious. Considering
00:05:28.800
our country's huge and very cold, that's actually very good. And, you know, China is double the output
00:05:34.720
of the United States, and they essentially are expanding without limit. I mean, people think
00:05:39.640
they're going to be held to a 2030 plateauing, but that's not the case, actually. And we've discussed
00:05:45.100
that in previous interviews. They're going to increase essentially forever.
00:05:48.500
And so the analogy I use, and this again is assuming you think we are causing dangerous
00:05:54.000
climate change, which I don't believe. But regardless, if you did, it's like you're sitting
00:05:59.160
in an inflatable life raft and the rest of the occupants are criticizing you vehemently
00:06:05.640
for puncturing it with a pin. While one of your fellow boatmates is cutting over the chainsaw
00:06:12.700
and they're just totally ignoring that person. And of course, that's what is in fact happening
00:06:17.000
on a CO2 emissions basis is that Canada's impact will have no, absolutely no measurable impact
00:06:24.940
on future greenhouse gas trajectory. Now, of course, if you think we aren't causing a climate
00:06:30.460
crisis, then again, reducing emissions is just a waste of time. In fact, it's worse than a waste
00:06:36.640
of time because it'll make us poor and that will affect us throughout all society, including
00:06:42.200
our ability to actually protect the environment. Now, what are some of these adaptations that you
00:06:49.260
would suggest that Canadians could make tangibly if they are concerned about climate change? And
00:06:54.560
I'm not all that concerned about it, but if there's somebody who's not like me,
00:07:02.140
Well, I think the best example is here in Ottawa, a couple of years ago, we had a tornado.
00:07:06.300
Actually, we had several tornadoes. And part of the reason that some parts of the city were
00:07:12.320
without power for many days is because we have our electricity lines above ground hanging delicately
00:07:18.240
from telephone poles. I walked through Kanata, which is a suburb just west of Ottawa, and their
00:07:24.260
power was on everywhere because, of course, their cables were buried underground. Now, of course,
00:07:28.660
the actual reason why we lost power was more complicated than that, but that was a contributing
00:07:33.220
factor. So, indeed, we should bury cables underground so we will retain our electricity,
00:07:39.900
our internet, our cable TV, everything else. And a really good example of how this affects society
00:07:46.060
happened in New York City. In parts of Manhattan, they did not lose any of their services with regards
00:07:52.980
to telephone, television, or internet or anything else. And it's because they had their cables
00:07:59.040
underground. And this is when, in fact, a lot of the city was completely without a power. Now,
00:08:05.020
of course, there's other things that we can do to adapt to climate change. In parts of the Arctic,
00:08:09.160
you know, we see permafrost melting. In other parts, of course, it's getting colder. It depends
00:08:13.260
where you are. These are natural drivers. And, you know, what you see is if somebody's house is falling
00:08:19.080
down because it was built on permafrost that is now melting, they need help. Okay, that is a sensible
00:08:26.160
thing to do. So, indeed, if, you know, if we focus on emissions control and almost nothing on
00:08:32.740
adaptation, we're letting people suffer today due to natural climate change and extreme weather,
00:08:39.540
and maybe human-caused, I don't know. But the fact is we're letting them suffer now because we're
00:08:45.140
spending almost all our money trying to stop what might happen in 50 years. And, you know, this is a
00:08:51.900
really good attack point for the Conservatives against the Trudeau Liberals because, indeed,
00:08:57.400
we're only spending 13 percent of federal finance on climate on adaptation. 87 percent is going to
00:09:05.640
this fictitious idea that we can somehow magically Canada can stop climate change, you know, which
00:09:11.640
doesn't make any sense. And so what O'Toole and the Conservatives should do, and really what all
00:09:16.960
parties should do is say, look, we're elected by the people of Canada to benefit Canadians. And if you
00:09:24.100
have an adaptation policy, that will benefit Canadians. If you have an emissions policy, that
00:09:30.340
will give us nothing but problems. We'll have, you know, more expensive energy, carbon tax, it goes up
00:09:35.640
again 33 percent on Thursday, you know. And I don't know if you saw Laurie Goldstein's video on Sun Media.
00:09:42.240
It was very good. He pointed out that the Fraser Institute has done a study, and they actually
00:09:48.300
showed that if the carbon tax continues to rise to its target of $170 per tonne by 2030, the average
00:09:56.840
Canadian will lose $1,800 a year in their income and 200,000 jobs. So this is not trivial. I mean,
00:10:05.980
this is a very significant thing. He's talking about a $0.38 per litre increase by 2030 just due to the
00:10:13.700
carbon tax. So these are huge costs to Canada, and they have no benefit environmentally because
00:10:19.920
they're focused on carbon dioxide, which is not pollution. Well, and, you know, it's almost like
00:10:26.520
we're speaking two different languages. So conservatives, we say adaptation, and we mean
00:10:31.820
real tangible things. Right. And for the liberals, when we say to them, you know, we need to adapt to
00:10:39.220
climate change, for them, that means putting up wind turbines. And I don't think we have to look any
00:10:44.620
further than Texas and how the insertion of green energy into the grid has made them actually less
00:10:53.380
adaptable to extreme weather. If extreme weather, if that side of the argument is saying extreme
00:10:59.360
weather is becoming more prevalent, you can't put unreliable energy onto the grid, because it causes
00:11:05.660
a cascade of problems that leaves people without power for days. Well, you know, it's interesting
00:11:13.280
because the left wing media and politicians have done their best to take the blame away from wind
00:11:18.460
power for the Texas blackout. But in fact, this is all fake news, quite frankly, because shortly
00:11:24.660
before the winter storm hit Texas, the wind turbines were providing more than half of Texas's
00:11:31.220
electricity, more than half, I think it was 58%. And just before the storm hit, it went to virtually zero.
00:11:38.500
Okay, so natural gas had to not only make up for the sudden cold weather that was hitting, it had to
00:11:44.360
suddenly compensate for a 58 to practically 0% change in wind power. So yes, indeed, by basing it
00:11:52.280
on wind power, they actually put the whole grid at huge risk. And of course, there were other problems
00:11:58.220
too. Like, believe it or not, Sheila, you won't believe this. Because of the climate scare, they
00:12:03.280
decided that they would keep the pipeline valves and other instruments warm using electricity, because
00:12:10.960
of course, this would come from wind power. So instead of using the natural gas that was actually
00:12:15.460
in the pipeline to keep the pipeline operational, which is kind of like, duh, that's pretty obvious,
00:12:21.380
they used electricity. And so when the electricity failed, the gas failed too. So it's, you know,
00:12:28.400
the climate scare causes so many problems throughout society, besides a huge waste of money, a billion
00:12:34.420
dollars a day across the world. I mean, it is really something that the conservatives have to stand up
00:12:40.300
about. Now, they don't have to say the science is wrong. They don't even have to say that. What they
00:12:46.500
should say basically is, look, we're elected by Canadians to do what's good for Canadians. And that
00:12:52.200
is adaptation. Now, you did, you sent me your notes, a pretty great analysis of the Conservative Party
00:13:01.260
Convention and the discussion about climate that happened within it. And apparently, that's the last
00:13:07.340
discussion we're ever going to have about it at a Conservative Party Convention, because Aaron O'Toole
00:13:12.900
decided the debate is over. And that's the end of it, which is for me, an anti-conservative position.
00:13:19.580
I think our side of the aisle believes in the free and liberal exchange of ideas and the marketplace of
00:13:24.520
ideas. Put them all out there. Let's see what works. Apparently, that doesn't happen anymore in
00:13:29.440
Aaron O'Toole's Conservative Party. But you broke down good O'Toole and bad O'Toole. And I thought that
00:13:35.460
was kind of great because Ben Shapiro used to do good Trump, bad Trump. And I thought it was great
00:13:39.680
because it was fair. It was a fair analysis. You weren't in the bag for anybody. But you did a
00:13:43.800
little bit of that. So tell us about it. Well, that's right. I mean, you know, I think Mr. O'Toole
00:13:48.520
has a good heart. I think he's trying to do the right thing. I think some of his advisors, though,
00:13:52.580
are pushing him in the wrong direction. I think that's what it really boils down to. And, you know,
00:13:56.520
I used to work in the House of Commons. And within these Conservative parties, there are often red Tory
00:14:01.540
communication people who are, in a way, in the wrong party. You know, like, I never quite get
00:14:06.220
that. Like, if they want to be red Tories, why don't they just be in the Liberal Party? But yeah,
00:14:10.720
you're right. There were some good things he said. He said, look, you can't protect the environment.
00:14:15.400
You can't have a conversion to new forms of energy if we're broke. And I, you know, I sent you this
00:14:21.160
curve here. It's called the Kuznets curve. Okay. And what it shows is that as the prosperity
00:14:27.980
increases, at the beginning, pollution levels rise, because, you know, you're industrializing.
00:14:33.100
But then after a while, you get to a top point there, where the richer you are, the better the
00:14:39.260
environment is, because you have more resources to protect the environment. So Mr. O'Toole is
00:14:44.340
completely right there. We need prosperity. And obviously, and he didn't say this, but I will,
00:14:50.260
we need fossil fuels, because that is indeed a major driver of Canada's prosperity. And I alert people to
00:14:56.920
this document. That is indeed where the graph came from that I just showed you. This is Climate
00:15:02.880
Change Reconsidered Fossil Fuels. And you can look it up on the web. It's climatechangereconsidered.org.
00:15:09.440
And they have a lot in there explaining why fossil fuels are very important to actually protect the
00:15:15.240
environment. We should be expanding our use of inexpensive, reliable electricity and other fuels,
00:15:21.780
because fossil fuels are the way to go. Now, obviously, you should reduce pollution. We don't want
00:15:26.600
to burn coal the way they do in China. But at the same time, he's quite right there. But his idea
00:15:33.360
that the debate is over, we all want a green future. Well, you have to define what green really
00:15:38.880
is. And this is the other side of the equation, where the conservatives have got to stand up and
00:15:43.640
tell the truth. The fact is, wind and solar power are among the dirtiest energy sources on the planet.
00:15:49.760
And I mean that seriously. If you look at how they're made, and China, of course, is the biggest
00:15:54.600
supplier of all these things, they're making them with incredibly bad environmental controls. And of
00:16:01.260
course, if you care about nature, you should hate wind turbines. I mean, they're killing millions of
00:16:06.040
birds and bats across the world. And bats especially. Bats are killed because all they have to do is go
00:16:11.960
behind the blade in the low pressure zone, and their lungs burst. In fact, I was talking on my podcast,
00:16:17.840
which people can see on the web at exploratory journeys on our web page. Oh, by the way, our home
00:16:23.260
page is icsc-canada.com. And we can talk about that in a minute. But yeah, what he pointed out is that
00:16:30.820
some species of bats are actually being driven to extinction, largely by wind turbines. So that's the
00:16:38.200
other point is not only are wind and solar very unreliable, you know, we don't have batteries to really
00:16:44.240
store the energy for when we need it when they're not providing it. But in fact, they're environmentally
00:16:50.140
very, very damaging. A huge solar farm that's being built in Nevada right now, they say, oh,
00:16:55.000
it's green energy. Well, guess what? In building this huge solar farm, they have to pull all the
00:17:00.940
desert tortoises out of their burrows, take them to a remote location, and apparently something like
00:17:06.420
half of them all die. So how can you call this environmentally friendly? People should have a
00:17:11.480
look at Michael Moore's film. I'm generally no fan of Michael Moore, but he did a really good job on
00:17:17.820
showing the true environmental impact of wind and solar. And as I say, I would say wind power is the
00:17:24.160
dirtiest source of power on the planet. Yeah, it's funny how these so-called environmentalists
00:17:31.540
are perfectly fine with the dangerous chemicals that are in solar panels. For example, you'd be hard
00:17:40.300
pressed to find a greener mayor in the entire country than the one in Edmonton, Mayor Don Iveson.
00:17:45.680
And they just okayed a massive solar panel farm in Edmonton's River Valley. And it, I mean,
00:17:54.720
it's Edmonton. The town is built on top of a coal mine. There's natural gas all over the place.
00:18:01.460
And in the interest of virtue signaling, because this thing is going to only provide,
00:18:06.580
at maximum output, a couple hours of usable power to the one little water treatment plant
00:18:16.140
up the road, just to say, oh, look, we've got green water now. But they're perfectly fine with putting
00:18:21.800
this in Edmonton's River Valley, which is a greater River Valley expanse than New York. It's,
00:18:27.460
you know, one of the most beautiful in the entire world. But the environmentalists on city council,
00:18:32.680
they don't really care, because for them, it's about green virtue signaling.
00:18:37.760
Yeah, I'm sad to hear that. Because I used to go down to the Kinsman Center to work out because I
00:18:43.420
worked for the Canadian Air Force in, in Coal Lake. And you know, a couple hour drive, I was down in
00:18:48.540
Edmonton, I could get back to civilization. And Kinsman Club was wonderful. It's a beautiful valley,
00:18:53.600
no question about it. You know, it is really sad, because I think a lot of environmentalists have
00:18:59.020
their heart in the right place, but they've simply been sold a bill of goods. Yeah. I mean, look at the
00:19:03.780
Altamont Pass wind farm, for example, in California, they've killed 1000s of golden eagles. Okay. Now,
00:19:10.800
what happens with these wind farms is that they're given what's called a kill permit, they're allowed
00:19:15.700
to kill a certain number of endangered species, and they can't be sued. So I mean, what kind of energy
00:19:21.480
source is environmentally friendly that has a kill permit for endangered species? I mean, it's ridiculous.
00:19:26.900
So yeah, the conservatives have got to stand up and say, look, using our fossil fuels responsibly,
00:19:33.180
conserving energy, looking for new forms of ways to use fossil fuels more cleanly. Natural gas,
00:19:39.960
for example, great example, Robert Kennedy Jr. You know, I'd hardly call him a right winger. He says
00:19:46.280
that when you build wind power, you're building natural gas stations. In fact, you just are,
00:19:52.040
because you have to back it up for those, maybe sometimes as much as a week where you don't have
00:19:56.780
much wind. So yeah, the whole thing is, is virtue signaling. And you know, I'm sad to see that Mr.
00:20:03.380
O'Toole is now engaged in virtue signaling as well, because he could really have a wedge issue,
00:20:09.320
driving a division between the liberals virtue signaling, all their focus on, you know, saving the
00:20:15.280
world because of reducing emissions, which will make no difference, no matter what you believe on the
00:20:19.360
science, and a practical solution that will help Canadians, help Canadians have good electricity,
00:20:25.900
good power. But at the same time, protect the environment. I mean, this is a made in Canada
00:20:31.660
solution that will help Canadians to focus on adaptation, and good power, like, where's the
00:20:37.900
where's, you know, they just don't lose, you know, digitally public affairs did a did a focus group
00:20:43.720
study here in Ottawa. And they tested people on different messaging. And they actually asked them,
00:20:50.020
what do you think about adaptation? And it didn't matter if it was left, right or centre, everyone
00:20:55.480
agreed with adaptation. So if you're a conservative strategist, and you're trying to expand your voting
00:21:01.300
base in eastern Ontario, this is a no brainer. Adaptation tell Canadians, look, we can't stop global
00:21:09.580
rise in emissions. And so Matt, no matter what you believe about the causes of climate change,
00:21:14.120
let's focus on adapting to whatever is going to happen next. And and that is a win win win proposition,
00:21:20.760
which the conservative strategists have got to start using because otherwise, they're just virtue
00:21:26.160
signaling just like Trudeau. Well, yeah, I mean, Aaron O'Toole's position on this subject is as extreme
00:21:33.880
as Catherine McKenna's. And as a conservative, that troubles me. And you sent me a study. Now,
00:21:40.960
it was about Republicans and Democrats. But, but I think it should, I mean, it's left and right,
00:21:49.020
whatever. I mean, at this point, Canada is really sort of a two party state anyway. And it showed that
00:21:54.800
once the Republicans diverged from the Democrats on the issue of global warming and climate change,
00:22:03.400
people on the Republican side stopped caring about it because they didn't feel like they had to care
00:22:09.400
about it to go along with the party line. And I think there's some of that that could easily happen
00:22:15.880
for Aaron O'Toole. You know, like when he's saying a climate change is an issue for people,
00:22:21.040
it's an issue for people. It's an issue for people who are partisan because you keep telling
00:22:25.520
them it's an issue for them. But if you just dropped it, people would go back to not caring.
00:22:30.260
That's right. And you know, unfortunately, the strategists in the party clearly believe that
00:22:35.080
until the public are skeptical about climate change or want an adaptation focused policy,
00:22:41.280
that they have to go along because, but you know, they have it backwards. What this study indicated,
00:22:46.760
and you know, I'll put it up on our website, it's ICSC-Canada.com. And we're looking for
00:22:51.640
donations because if we're going to meet with policymakers, and that's one bonus to me being
00:22:57.060
based in Ottawa, we're going to actually meet with policymakers and explain to them, look,
00:23:01.340
you don't have to question the causes of climate change. Adaptation is a an attractive approach
00:23:06.860
that will appear appeal across the whole political spectrum. But yeah, back to this study, I'll put it
00:23:12.320
up on our website. It was by professors at McGill University, Drexel and Ohio State. And they were
00:23:19.300
asking, what is it that drives public opinion on climate change? And of course, this applies to lots
00:23:25.000
of issues. And what they found is it was not primarily the media, which I was interested to
00:23:29.980
see. What it was, is it was the opinions expressed, I suppose, through the media, by the elites in
00:23:37.780
society, and in particular, the politicians. When the Democrats and Republicans both said that there
00:23:45.100
was a huge climate crisis, the public were totally in agreement, practically. When the Republicans
00:23:50.720
diverged and actually started to say, well, we don't think it's that big an issue, we don't think
00:23:55.520
it's that important, the support for climate alarmism went way, way down. And so what they're
00:24:02.240
saying is that public opinion is largely driven by the statements of the elite, by the politicians.
00:24:09.520
So if Mr. O'Toole wants Canada to have a sensible climate plan focused on adaptation, and of course,
00:24:15.840
on the other environmental side, reducing real pollution, not CO2, what he can do to help shift
00:24:21.820
public opinion is to explain to people the sorts of things we're talking about now. Now, it may be
00:24:26.960
the very next day in the media, you know, Globe and Mail, etc, that he'll be slammed. But over time,
00:24:33.400
he can actually sway public opinion by a very sensible, made in Canada, benefiting Canadians,
00:24:40.740
climate change plan. So I mean, that is what we want from our leaders. Of course, we want real
00:24:45.540
leadership to tell us what the truth is, and to actually do things that are good for our country.
00:24:50.820
But also from the conservatives point of view, the public, to a large extent will come along.
00:24:56.120
Many people I know who are liberals, and I explained a lot of this, this to them,
00:25:00.360
are now completely on our side with respect to the need for adaptation. And so I mean, yes,
00:25:06.700
you can bring liberals over to vote for conservatives, if they have sensible policies. But if all you're
00:25:12.420
trying to do is out liberal the liberals, I mean, liberals aren't going to vote for a conservative
00:25:17.000
party that's acting liberal, they're going to vote for the liberals. I mean, it's crazy. Trying to appeal
00:25:22.000
to liberal voters with liberal messages is not going to work. So yeah, give us something sensible,
00:25:28.620
lead the public, do what's good for Canada, and they can win. They can win on this issue.
00:25:33.500
Yeah, I think so too. Now, the other thing, the pressing issue in climate change news this week
00:25:39.900
was the federal carbon tax decision. And I know that you've done some analysis on this,
00:25:45.540
and some of the opinions of the judges involved. Why don't you tell us what you think?
00:25:51.200
Yeah, exactly. They said that it doesn't make sense for individual provinces to have rules and
00:25:57.640
regulations, while other provinces don't. Because they pointed out that there's obviously leakage,
00:26:03.300
from one province to another, when carbon emissions, as they call it, it's really carbon
00:26:08.360
dioxide, when in fact, they are controlled in one place and not another. And that, you know,
00:26:13.360
that actually makes sense. But if you apply that internationally, it also makes sense. It makes
00:26:19.520
no point for Canada to restrict emissions when China is just putting out as much as they want,
00:26:24.660
left, right and center. So the actual logic used by the extreme court, by the Supreme Court,
00:26:29.780
actually applied internationally means, yeah, unless you can get China to agree,
00:26:35.860
don't do anything on reducing emissions. So sadly, they were actually judging science in the Supreme
00:26:42.960
Court, which I think is a mistake. I mean, why should they judge between which side of the science is
00:26:47.360
right? And that's where, in fact, I think the provinces were a little off base, they were accepting
00:26:53.580
the climate scare. And what that does is it actually sets a stage, a tone, that they're actually having
00:26:59.940
to have peace order and good government and protect Canada for the future. You know, that sort of thing
00:27:05.580
is what the provinces are essentially accepting. So they're accepting the underlying premise that
00:27:11.700
eventually led to the Supreme Court decision. Whereas, in fact, if they had just gotten up and showed
00:27:16.580
the whole thing is like, really uncertain. I mean, documents like this with 1000s of references disagree
00:27:22.880
with the climate scare, but we do know it's going to have huge negative impact on Canada. That kind of argument
00:27:28.840
makes a lot more sense. So I think in a way, they kind of gave away the game by agreeing to the climate scare as
00:27:39.660
Yeah, it's interesting that you said the extreme court instead of the Supreme Court. And I thought
00:27:49.640
Well, the dissenting opinions in the extreme court are really worth reading, because they're making many
00:27:55.360
of the same sort of points that we are that look, I mean, Canada is not going to control climate change
00:28:00.080
when China is putting out as much as they want. And, and also the business to do with federal and
00:28:05.380
provincial jurisdiction, I think was their main focus. They made some really good points. So I
00:28:10.260
mean, I think the dissenting voices on that, because it wasn't unanimous, it was a small decision.
00:28:15.940
They're really worth reading, because they're actually quite insightful.
00:28:20.320
And lastly, Tom, Jane Fonda is back on our radar.
00:28:24.460
Oh, yeah, wearing her surgically altered face to lecture us one more time. And I think you signed an
00:28:30.940
open letter to Jane Fonda. I don't know if she'll read it or if she'll have an assistant
00:28:35.340
read it to her, or if she can open her surgically altered eyes wide enough to see it. But
00:28:44.220
That's right. Stephen Buffalo, who's a native person very much in favor of sensible policies
00:28:49.620
to boost fossil fuels. I'll also put his, his open letter up on our site, because I think it was
00:28:55.360
very meaningful. It was very respectful and polite letter to Jane Fonda. And as you say, I signed it,
00:29:01.420
I encourage lots of people to sign it. And he's asking her to have a sensible discussion about
00:29:07.800
environmental responsibility, which, of course, we are in Canada, very responsible in comparison
00:29:12.880
with most of the world, and the need for jobs and the need for wealth to protect the environment,
00:29:18.860
all that sort of thing. So it's a very good letter. And I hope I'm sure she will read it at some point.
00:29:24.180
But, you know, in many cases, these people's minds are not particularly open. But I think it's a really
00:29:31.020
excellent job that Stephen Buffalo did. So I'll again, I'll put it up on icsc-canada.com.
00:29:36.380
Yeah, I really enjoy Stephen Buffalo. He's with the Indian Resource Council, and such a strong advocate
00:29:42.540
for the industry as a wealth generator and a way out of generational poverty for his for his people.
00:29:49.060
And that's something that these out of country advocates, especially those in Hollywood, they really
00:29:54.980
miss that whole part of the equation. They see the Indigenous activist side of the equation, but they
00:30:02.240
never see the people who are, you know, finding a way out of poverty because of the good high paying jobs
00:30:12.180
that the resource industry provides. And not only just jobs, but partnerships with Indigenous bands,
00:30:18.700
for example, the Mikkasu in Fort McMurray, there are a lot of Indigenous owned and band owned companies
00:30:27.220
that people like Jane Fonda just want to pretend don't even exist.
00:30:31.380
Yeah, it's a shame because, you know, the ones in the Native community who are against the oil sands
00:30:36.480
and other fossil fuel projects, they get lots of publicity through the press. And you get the impression
00:30:41.640
from a distance that Natives are all against this, but they're not, you know, I mean, it makes a lot of
00:30:46.840
sense. And Mr. Buffalo is not trying to suggest that we ignore the environment. In fact, he's saying
00:30:52.160
the opposite. He's he's basically making really solid points about how we do protect the environment
00:30:57.560
and that this is the way to go. You know, like killing that pipeline was ludicrous. I mean, you know,
00:31:03.900
obviously shipping things by pipeline is the environmentally responsible thing to do. But yeah,
00:31:09.780
sadly, environmentalists, unfortunately, are not terribly well informed. And in many cases,
00:31:14.660
it's largely because of mainstream media just focusing on Natives who oppose fossil fuels
00:31:19.560
instead of those like Mr. Buffalo. Yeah, it's funny. One of the people who work in our office,
00:31:25.220
Margaret, she pointed out the fact today that, you know, we never get shipping containers stuck
00:31:31.120
in a pipeline. There's a big thing, a big boat of shipping containers stuck in the Suez Canal right now.
00:31:37.800
Yeah, that's a mess. Now, Tom, tell us about this new Canadian branch of the International Climate
00:31:46.100
Science Coalition. So International Climate Science Coalition Canada. What are you guys planning
00:31:51.800
to do? Because I heard the word lobbying politicians, and I kind of like that.
00:31:56.180
That's right. Well, we've contracted a specialist in political affairs, and he's giving us advice as to
00:32:03.740
how do we really change policy in Canada? You know, for it's funny, because when he was working
00:32:09.220
on his strategy, he went around and interviewed various people. And he asked us, he said, Oh,
00:32:15.080
yeah, what are you doing? They said, Oh, we got 400 newspaper articles published or something.
00:32:19.180
And he says, And how's that been for you? Have you changed policy? I had to admit, well, no.
00:32:27.160
And so what he's advising is that we should act and we're going to do this, actually,
00:32:31.280
we're going to register properly and everything else. But we should meet with policymakers right
00:32:35.760
here in Ottawa, where I live, and explain to them, Look, we're not asking you to be, you know,
00:32:41.060
questioning climate change. I mean, great if you did, but we're not asking you to do that.
00:32:45.300
What we'd like you to do is focus on doing things that are good for Canadians, which, of course,
00:32:49.740
is adaptation, inexpensive, clean energy, things like that. So we're going to really focus hard on
00:32:56.720
showing the public, of course, through articles like we had in the sun, but also through meeting
00:33:02.140
with policymakers, senior bureaucrats, politicians, and I don't care any party, because the liberals
00:33:07.220
too, can make real hay with this, if they point out that look across the world, 19 20s of the 1 billion
00:33:16.020
a day that's spent on climate finance is going to stop climate change, only 5% is going to help real
00:33:21.980
people today. And that's a point that liberals should care about. The fact that people in Somalia
00:33:28.220
and northern Canada, all kinds of places where there is climate change, of course, natural climate
00:33:32.860
change, they're suffering because they don't get the proper support. When I was at the Copenhagen
00:33:37.860
Climate Conference in 2009, many of the Africans were outraged. They were saying, Look, you people are
00:33:44.260
all focused on what might happen in half a century. We need help now. So yeah, I think, in fact,
00:33:50.480
I'm very open to talk to the liberals, too. In fact, my local MP is liberal, and I hope to meet
00:33:55.520
with her, because this is a sensible approach that can be used across the political spectrum.
00:34:02.160
Yeah. And as you say, they don't actually have to concede anything about whether or not humans are
00:34:08.000
causing this. If they're, if they agree that the climate is changing, and apparently the conservatives
00:34:13.400
do, and the liberals definitely do, then why is there just this one focus on mitigation,
00:34:21.480
Yeah, that's right. And we incorporated this new group as a not for profit, because, you know,
00:34:26.740
coming into an MP's office, it does look better if you're a not for profit. And so for people who
00:34:32.140
are concerned about that, we in fact are accepting donations to this new not for profit group,
00:34:39.160
Great. Tom, thanks so much for taking the time today. I always feel like I learned a lot
00:34:43.520
anytime that I discuss anything with you. And one last thing, can you just plug your podcast one more
00:34:50.180
time? Because that's a very interesting kind of a free speechy podcast in that you are hearing
00:34:56.460
discussions of things that you just won't hear in the mainstream media.
00:34:59.360
Yeah, it's great fun to do that. If people go to icsc-canada.com and you click on resources,
00:35:05.940
the second one down, I believe it is, is called Exploratory Journeys. And it takes you to our
00:35:11.420
podcast. We've run it for over a year now. And we've had experts from all over the world,
00:35:16.040
polar bear experts, Susan Crockford, you know, all kinds of people. And it's really quite fun,
00:35:21.480
actually. If people listen in, they'll also hear a discussion just this past week between our
00:35:26.920
our consultant, Joseph Benamy and myself about the problems with the conservatives approach and
00:35:33.020
what they should do instead. So there's a full half hour discussion on that if people want to
00:35:37.640
learn more. Yeah, that's great. I didn't even subscribe through your website. I just found it
00:35:42.320
on, I think I found it on Spotify. I mean, so if anybody wants to find your podcast on Spotify,
00:35:47.820
it's there too. It's called Exploratory Journeys. And I really enjoy it. It'll kill a lot of time
00:35:52.660
on the treadmill. Tom, thanks for coming on the show. And thank you for always
00:35:56.900
being so informative and so generous with your time. Okay, it's great to be on, Sheila. Bye-bye.
00:36:10.100
Aaron O'Toole once advertised himself as firmly opposed to cancel culture, but he's
00:36:15.120
a proponent of cancel culture when stifling debate and ideas within his own party, ideas that he might
00:36:23.480
disagree with. It's a bold strategy. And I think it's going to work out terribly for him. You don't
00:36:29.780
win elections by making enemies of your most reliable friends. Well, everybody, that's the show
00:36:36.960
for tonight. Thank you so much for tuning in. I'll see everybody back here in the same time in the same
00:36:41.240
place next week, or maybe not. Who knows where I'll be. But remember, don't let the government tell you