Action4Canada - Toward Net Zero World - How Will Ottawa's Climate Plan Affect You？

00:00:00.000 So we're a little bit behind schedule, so we're right into the introduction of our first speaker.

00:00:07.000 Our first speaker is Robert Lyman. He is the Economics Policy Advisor and Director at the International Climate and Science Coalition Canada.

00:00:18.000 He is an Ottawa-based energy policy consultant and principal at Entrance Policy Research Group.

00:00:25.000 Mr. Lyman has spent 37 years in the Canadian Public Service as a diplomat, economist, and policy advisor.

00:00:33.000 And also spent 10 years as a consultant on energy, transportation, and the environmental policy issues.

00:00:40.000 And tonight we have the pleasure of having Robert present to us the need to rethink the Ottawa Climate Plan.

00:00:48.000 The need to rethink the Ottawa Climate Plan. Please welcome Mr. Robert Lyman.

00:00:55.000 Thank you. I must say I'm extraordinarily pleased to be here and I received such a warm welcome.

00:01:07.000 I want to thank Action for Canada for this opportunity to talk about an issue that I'm sure all of you appreciate is a controversial one.

00:01:17.000 It is so controversial that most of the time when people like me want to discuss some of the facts and analysis that we bring to bear on the topic, we're not really allowed to do so.

00:01:31.000 There's a real intolerance for dissent on this topic.

00:01:36.000 But in the remarks I make today, I'm not going to attack the views of those who believe that climate change poses a catastrophic threat.

00:01:45.000 They have every right to their views.

00:01:48.000 What I want to talk about is what are the consequences of some of the actions that are being promoted by those who claim that this is justified.

00:02:00.000 Particularly those at the Ottawa City level.

00:02:04.000 If later on you want to talk about national issues, I'll be quite happy to do that.

00:02:09.000 I'll start by making one general comment about the national climate policy in Canada.

00:02:19.000 You may not be aware of this, but over the last seven years, the Canadian federal government has spent $120 billion on climate change measures.

00:02:30.000 That's B billion dollars.

00:02:34.000 It is one of the largest and fastest growing areas of government expenditure.

00:02:40.000 And a comparable amount is also being spent by provincial governments.

00:02:47.000 So when we talk about what Ottawa is doing or is planning to do, it's an add-on to what is already occurring.

00:02:55.000 So the main thesis of my presentation, as indicated here, is to focus on costs and benefits.

00:03:10.000 That's what economists look at.

00:03:12.000 And the costs of the Ottawa Climb Master Climate Plan are unconscionably high.

00:03:18.000 The benefits, which ultimately can only be measured in terms of the environmental effects that result from reduced emissions, are too small to measure.

00:03:31.000 And the entire plan needs to be rethought.

00:03:35.000 I have talked to a few of the new councillors that have been elected as a result of the most recent urban election here in Ottawa.

00:03:44.000 And I was really struck to find out that many of the people who approved the climate plan never read the document.

00:03:52.000 They had no idea what it was that they were approving.

00:03:56.000 And they certainly had no idea what it would cost.

00:04:03.000 So what are the main elements of the plan?

00:04:06.000 First, they want to phase out all uses of oil and natural gas.

00:04:11.000 You may not be aware of this, but in Canada, about 77% of all of our energy needs are served by oil and natural gas and coal.

00:04:21.000 The hydrocarbon sources.

00:04:23.000 And within the city of Ottawa, of course, you know every day what you rely upon.

00:04:28.000 Those are the most often, the most reliable, the most affordable, and the most secure sources of energy supply.

00:04:34.000 Ottawa wants to do away with the use of those energy sources.

00:04:38.000 They want to have radical changes in terms of urban design and density.

00:04:45.000 In other words, the number of residences in the city and the number of people that live in the city.

00:04:50.000 They want to shift buildings from natural gas heating and natural gas appliances generally to heat pumps.

00:04:57.000 They want to electrify all surface transportation modes.

00:05:03.000 In other words, cars, SUVs, light trucks, buses, taxis, all heavy duty vehicles.

00:05:14.000 They want them all to be electrified.

00:05:18.000 They want to convert Ottawa hydro to all wind and solar electricity generation.

00:05:25.000 Right now.

00:05:26.000 Sorry.

00:05:27.000 Louder.

00:05:28.000 I'm going too slow.

00:05:29.000 Too fast.

00:05:30.000 Okay.

00:05:31.000 I'll go slower.

00:05:32.000 Never a problem to go slower.

00:05:34.000 The city of Ottawa wants to increase municipal expenditures on the climate plan by something that would be

00:05:54.000 something that would be in the range of $52 billion to $57 billion over the period for 2050.

00:06:03.000 Now there's about a million people in the city of Ottawa.

00:06:07.000 So $52 billion over a million people is about $52,000 per person that they propose to spend directly on the climate plan.

00:06:22.000 And they want to fund all of these expenditures partly through federal government funding, provincial funding, but also through increased taxes and fees that are imposed upon the citizens of Ottawa.

00:06:39.000 So first in terms of urban design, the central goal is to make Ottawa a much denser city.

00:06:48.000 We're already a fairly dense city in terms of certain areas.

00:06:52.000 But they want to make it more so by changing the regulations that apply to the size of buildings, the height of buildings, and by changing the zoning within the city.

00:07:09.000 And the goal basically is to go to a situation where typically now there's about 16 residential units per square kilometer to one where there's about 89 units per square kilometer.

00:07:27.000 So about a four-fold increase in the density of the city.

00:07:34.000 Part of that will be, and our counterpart to that, surprisingly, is to essentially eliminate the use of gasoline-powered vehicles, but also to, frankly, significantly reduce vehicles altogether.

00:07:50.000 So, for example, they want to completely ban parking in the by-ward market area.

00:07:57.000 They want to completely ban parking in the core of Ottawa.

00:08:01.000 They want to change regulations so that it will no longer be required for a developer that is building a new residential area to install, you know, have a minimum requirement for the number of parking spaces.

00:08:17.000 So typically what would happen is that we'd get to the point where people would be moving into houses or even whole regions of the city where there was no parking available.

00:08:27.000 You'd have to be reliant upon public transit, such as it was.

00:08:32.000 And they want to prioritize what is called active transportation.

00:08:38.000 That is walking and cycling or skating to work if you can do that in the winter.

00:08:45.000 Let me just give you some numbers about that.

00:08:48.000 Currently, what's called active transportation represents about 5% of the commuters in Ottawa.

00:08:57.000 The city that has the highest percentage of people involved in active transportation in Canada is Victoria, British Columbia, where the climate makes that perfect.

00:09:07.000 So then they have 16%.

00:09:10.000 The plan, Ottawa Climate Plan, wants to have at least 21% of the people of Ottawa commuting by active transportation.

00:09:19.000 So far higher than is currently the case in Victoria.

00:09:24.000 In terms of buildings, buildings are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, of course, because people need to heat them and cool them in the summertime.

00:09:38.000 And so what they have proposed is that there be new energy retrofit standards that would require that all buildings, residential, commercial, industrial, be upgraded to much higher standards.

00:09:53.000 They want complete changes in the building codes by 2030 that would require an investment of at least $100,000 per house to improve the energy efficiency of those houses.

00:10:08.000 Now, there's no way that you're going to save that amount of money over the time that you're likely in the house.

00:10:14.000 So this is kind of a deadweight loss from your perspective.

00:10:19.000 They also want to fund an extensive expansion of the use of heat pumps.

00:10:24.000 Now, heat pumps can be effective in terms of reducing the needs for heating, but they tend to be expensive.

00:10:34.000 And so the cost of this would fall upon the homeowner.

00:10:37.000 They also want to have endorsed the ending of all natural gas use in furnaces and stoves.

00:10:45.000 Now, if you're familiar with areas of Canada where people have to rely upon electricity for home heating,

00:10:57.000 you'll know that it typically is quite a bit more expensive than natural gas heating.

00:11:02.000 In the world that we're talking about, where they're proposing not only to change the uses of electricity,

00:11:12.000 but their demand for it, the price of electricity is likely to increase further still.

00:11:18.000 In the province of Ontario, over the course of the period since 2009, electricity rates have generally gone up by at least 100%,

00:11:29.000 almost directly as a consequence of what was called the Green Climate Plan of the province initiated in 2009.

00:11:37.000 This is just, in a sense, a duplication of what the province is already doing.

00:11:42.000 So, the consequence of that would undoubtedly be higher house prices.

00:11:47.000 Now, any of you who are at this stage in life where you're buying your first house are already very much aware of what the cost of housing is in Canada.

00:11:56.000 All of these measures that are being proposed would simply accelerate those increases.

00:12:03.000 With respect to transportation, the federal government has already announced that as of 2035, you will not be able to purchase an internal combustion vehicle in Canada.

00:12:21.000 And what the city of Ottawa is saying is, we want to accelerate that schedule.

00:12:28.000 Now, so in other words, by probably around 2030, you would not be able to purchase an internal combustion car, SUV, or pickup truck in the city of Ottawa.

00:12:40.000 How that's going to make a difference, your guess is as good as mine.

00:12:47.000 They want to convert the entire bus fleet to electric vehicles.

00:12:52.000 Basically, the proposal is to spend just under $1 billion over the period from now to 2027 to replace much of the current Ottawa bus fleet with electric vehicles.

00:13:08.000 Each of those electric vehicles cost about $1 million, and then there's an additional $1 million that's required for the infrastructure to ensure that they can be refueled.

00:13:20.000 They also want to ensure that at least 40% of the commercial vehicles in the city are electrified.

00:13:28.000 By commercial vehicles, I'm talking about trucks, I'm talking about taxis, I'm talking about any kind of a rental vehicle would have to be electrified by 2030.

00:13:40.000 And they would set it as a goal that at least 50% of the people that commute to work in Ottawa must go by either rapid transit or by active transportation.

00:13:57.000 Now, it's very interesting to look at the statistics of what has happened to the trends in commuting as a consequence of COVID.

00:14:10.000 Basically, pre-COVID, the number of trips taken by transit in Ottawa was about 96 million annually.

00:14:22.000 As a result of COVID, in 2020, it went down actually to 40 million, so more than dropped in half.

00:14:31.000 And in 2021, a year later, it was up to 60 million.

00:14:35.000 We don't know what it'll be this year.

00:14:37.000 If OC Transport is fortunate, they may be able to get 70 million trips back.

00:14:44.000 But as a result of the concerns about people, continuing concerns by many people about COVID,

00:14:54.000 as a result of the tendency of many federal government departments to allow people to work from home,

00:15:00.000 the demand for transportation services has been significantly reducing.

00:15:06.000 And yet, we're talking about significantly increasing the cost of the remaining transit services.

00:15:17.000 We talked a little bit about electricity, and one can talk about it in general.

00:15:22.000 The goal of the plan is, as indicated here, to have enough renewable electricity, primarily wind and solar generation,

00:15:32.000 and electricity storage, to be constructed so that it will essentially replace all use of hydrocarbons

00:15:39.000 that we use for electricity generation.

00:15:42.000 Now, in Ontario, most of our electricity is already produced by hydroelectricity and nuclear,

00:15:49.000 and we've essentially eliminated coal.

00:15:52.000 So the only main uses for natural gas, as an electricity generation fuel,

00:15:58.000 is basically as a backup source of supply, where there's insufficient power from the other sources.

00:16:04.000 And that's far and away the lowest cost and most efficient way to provide that backup supply.

00:16:11.000 The higher the level of wind and solar power that's used for generation,

00:16:19.000 the more the economy is dependent upon what's called an intermittent sources of supply.

00:16:25.000 That is, sources of supply that either can be produced either when the wind blows or when the sun shines,

00:16:33.000 but not at other times.

00:16:35.000 So when you're increasingly dependent upon those types of electricity generation,

00:16:41.000 you either have to have a significant additional backup generation from other sources,

00:16:47.000 or you have to have electricity storage.

00:16:50.000 Electricity storage is incredibly expensive.

00:16:55.000 And electricity storage could all by itself drive the cost of power up by two to three times.

00:17:03.000 Specifically, they're seeking to have an increase in the solar photovoltaic generation to up to 1,060 megawatts by 2050.

00:17:18.000 That would cover about 36 square kilometers of rooftops with solar input PV.

00:17:25.000 The wind generation would get all the way up to 3,218 megawatts,

00:17:31.000 which is approximately, as I say here, 710 large-scale turbines.

00:17:37.000 And by large scale, I'm talking about turbines that are 600 feet high.

00:17:42.000 And they basically restrict the amount of development that can occur within a half a mile of each one of them.

00:17:54.000 And of course, as I mentioned, 310 megawatts of local energy storage and 612 megawatts by 2050.

00:18:03.000 In terms of, you know, what is the effect on that, on consumer?

00:18:11.000 One thing is to hear those numbers about, you know, windmills and solar photovoltaic facilities.

00:18:18.000 If you live in the rural areas of Ottawa, you'd be very aware of that because of the impact that windmills in particular have upon property values.

00:18:28.000 But the main way in which it affects us, the average citizen is through electricity rates, and also the electricity security of supply.

00:18:45.000 Throughout North America, the reliability of electricity supply has been declining for the last 20 years,

00:18:55.000 largely because of the difficulty in adding a new generation capacity,

00:18:59.000 but also the difficulty in funding and getting approval for the new transmission lines that deliver power from the new generation plants

00:19:09.000 to the homes and buildings and industry where the demand exists.

00:19:16.000 And that problem will only intensify the more that we overbuild in terms of the renewable energy supply.

00:19:34.000 So, fundamentally, the question is, if the province of Ontario is already doing this,

00:19:39.000 why is it necessary for the city of Ottawa to do exactly the same thing,

00:19:44.000 to essentially duplicate the programs of the province?

00:19:52.000 Now, as I mentioned at the beginning, one of the key issues here is what it costs.

00:19:59.000 And the estimate that was in the city's plan is between $52 billion and $57 billion over the period from now until 2050.

00:20:13.000 The revenues for that might come from the federal and provincial government,

00:20:18.000 and the federal government has certainly been spending, as I mentioned before, billions and billions of dollars

00:20:24.000 on its emission reduction programs, much of which goes to other levels of government.

00:20:30.000 But there's no way that the federal government will be prepared to spend this amount of money for every single major city in the country.

00:20:38.000 So, the council recognized that they would have to come up with new sources of funding.

00:20:45.000 But they haven't identified it.

00:20:47.000 None of the new sources of funding needed to finance this plan were ever identified.

00:20:53.000 None of them have yet been approved.

00:20:55.000 So, it's all, we hope we get it.

00:20:57.000 Now, in the preparation of the plan, there was an attempt by the consultant that prepared it to identify a number of things that might be used.

00:21:09.000 And none of this has been approved.

00:21:11.000 But, for example, they're talking about the possibility of introducing congestion charges.

00:21:17.000 That means that for every vehicle that entered the downtown area of Ottawa or entered,

00:21:23.000 any area that is defined as the core would have to pay at least $20 a day.

00:21:29.000 Another one would be that any car that entered within the Greenbelt would have to pay $20 a day.

00:21:40.000 Don't ask me how they would keep track of that, but that's one of the proposals.

00:21:45.000 There's a proposal that there'd be a motor vehicle license fee.

00:21:52.000 A certificate, kind of an annual certificate, of $118 for every car that's registered in the city.

00:21:59.000 A duplication of the permit price that we already paid to the province of Ontario.

00:22:06.000 And the list goes on.

00:22:10.000 It's not just in the area of emissions reduction.

00:22:14.000 They're proposing really draconian fines for anybody who puts organic waste in the garbage.

00:22:22.000 The fines would vary from $500 to $2,000 for anybody that put organic waste in the garbage.

00:22:31.000 I'm sure that'll be popular.

00:22:38.000 So that's the highlights of what the city is proposing to do.

00:22:42.000 But I want to talk to you, what is the global context of all this?

00:22:46.000 Because whatever one thinks of climate change, it is fundamentally a global issue.

00:22:55.000 The emissions that are occurring are at the global level, and the consequences of those emissions are at the global level.

00:23:02.000 No one country produces enough emissions to significantly alter the level of emissions or the climate effects of those emissions.

00:23:11.000 So the only way that it can change is if the countries of the world agree to reduce emissions and actually take the steps to do so.

00:23:23.000 What's going to be the current situation is indicated in this graph, which shows that the amounts of energy that are currently consumed in the world.

00:23:38.000 The green is oil, the red is natural gas, the gray is coal, the light blue is hydroelectricity, and the yellow is renewables.

00:23:53.000 Renewables are about 5% of the world's energy usage.

00:23:59.000 And what we're being told is that the 5% must become 100% in all within 27 years. 0.94

00:24:08.000 The systems of energy supply and consumption that have been developed over 100 years are supposed to be completely eliminated in 27 years.

00:24:20.000 It's not happening.

00:24:22.000 It's not happening not only because of the cost, it's not happening because the countries of the world are not reducing their emissions in accordance with the announced plans.

00:24:37.000 Governments have been setting standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions targets, if you will, since 1990.

00:24:45.000 But by 2019, greenhouse gas emissions globally were 60% higher than they were in 1990.

00:24:56.000 So after 30 years of government setting emissions targets for reduction, we're 60% higher.

00:25:04.000 The most authoritative source of information and analysis regarding energy supply, demand and emissions in the world

00:25:12.000 is the United States Energy Information Administration.

00:25:16.000 And in their International Energy Outlook document for 2021, they projected that global greenhouse gas emissions will increase from now until 2045, which is the end of their projection period.

00:25:31.000 It will increase.

00:25:33.000 Now why?

00:25:34.000 It's because they're growing in countries largely of Asia, but other other countries of the developing countries,

00:25:41.000 where the priorities of the governments in those countries are to increase the standard of living of their people.

00:25:49.000 And increasing the standard of living inevitably includes using the most affordable, reliable sources of energy supply, which continue to be hydrocarbons.

00:26:01.000 So those countries will not sacrifice the standard of living of their people in order to pursue the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whatever the merits of that goal.

00:26:17.000 Canada, all of Canada, produces 1.6% of the goals to greenhouse gas emissions.

00:26:26.000 And so basically, if Canada ceased to be, if we all somehow committed suicide and didn't produce a single ton of greenhouse gas emissions,

00:26:41.000 global emissions would only decline by 1.6%.

00:26:45.000 But that's not the important point.

00:26:48.000 The other important point is that the other 98% is going on increasing anyway.

00:26:55.000 Ottawa, the city of Ottawa, produces 1% of the 1.6%.

00:27:03.000 So if you reduce all of the emissions for the city of Ottawa, the consequence would be so small that it would be not possible to measure it.

00:27:17.000 Not possible.

00:27:18.000 Not possible.

00:27:19.000 So we would be spending $57 billion and we would get zero effects in terms of changes, in terms of global emissions, or temperatures, or time.

00:27:33.000 Thank you for that.

00:27:34.000 Thank you.

00:27:35.000 Thank you very much.

00:27:36.000 Thank you very much.

00:27:37.000 Thank you very much.

00:27:39.000 Thank you.

00:27:44.000 Science Coalition Canada. From 2009 to 2011, he taught a total of 1,500 students, Climate

00:27:52.800 Change and Earth Sciences Perspective, a second year course in the Faculty of Sciences at

00:27:59.120 Carleton University in Ottawa. For the past 14 years, he has been working with a team of

00:28:05.180 scientists and engineers to promote a sensible approach to a range of energy and environmental

00:28:12.040 topics, climate change in particular. So please welcome Tom Harris from the International Climate

00:28:19.480 Science Coalition in Canada. There is no climate emergency. There is no climate emergency.

00:28:26.180 Tom Harris.

00:28:27.480 So, good evening fellow freedom fighters.

00:28:35.140 That is exactly what we're talking about. Just as Bob showed in his presentation, we have

00:28:40.500 woke authoritarian bureaucrats trying to take away our freedoms of choice. How we travel,

00:28:46.320 what we eat, where we go. And you know, to some extent, the climate lockdown has already

00:28:51.740 begun. Because as energy prices increase and go through the roof, you have to start cutting

00:28:56.940 back on what you do. People stop going to the Caribbean for a holiday. You know, they stop

00:29:02.680 choosing that great food that they like, you know, the special mushrooms or whatever, because

00:29:07.000 the prices go through the roof. So climate lockdowns, which is the natural outcome of the climate

00:29:13.280 scare, has already in some ways started. And in fact, it's interesting, one city in the world

00:29:19.180 has just announced they're going to have the world's first climate lockdown officially.

00:29:23.900 Oxford and England have divided their city, and it's not a big city, something like 50,000,

00:29:28.940 they've divided their city into various regions. And you can only go between those parts of the

00:29:34.400 city a certain number of times by car before your quota is used up. Okay. So I mean, this is already

00:29:42.440 happening in other cities are talking about doing the same thing. Now what I'd like to do is to pull

00:29:47.400 the rug out from under the supposed reason that they're doing this. Okay, there's all kinds of

00:29:53.100 reasons behind the scenes, you know, about government control, world government, you know, and various

00:29:58.380 other quite nefarious objectives. But the stated objective, which we can totally dismantle today,

00:30:03.680 is the idea that we are the controllers of climate change, and that we are causing a climate

00:30:09.620 emergency. And the graph they show you quite often is this one. Okay, they get all excited. They say,

00:30:14.940 oh my goodness, look, carbon dioxide is growing, growing through the roof. Okay, this is a climate

00:30:20.180 emergency. And in fact, the city of Ottawa, as the foundation for their climate change master plan and

00:30:26.200 energy evolution, and their declaration that they're going, they have signed, the fossil fuel

00:30:31.620 non-proliferation treaty, believe it or not, they're treating fossil fuels as equivalent to nuclear

00:30:38.000 weapons. Okay, but as we'll see in a minute, fossil fuels are the main reason we have our prosperity

00:30:44.000 in the Western world. And they show you graphs like this, and you get all excited, forgetting, of course,

00:30:49.480 that carbon dioxide is plant food. It's not a bad thing in the least, but they don't show it to you in

00:30:55.700 perspective. And so there's two things I'm going to focus on tonight. One is perspective, and the

00:31:00.900 other is real world data. Okay, they don't like to talk about real world data. I'll tell you a funny

00:31:06.520 story. Ecology Ottawa put on a presentation at the Museum of Space and Aviation, and it was about the

00:31:13.400 end of snow in Canada. So I called up ahead of time to see if they were going to bring in scientists who

00:31:18.820 would actually talk about what the snow cover in North America was really doing. No, no, no. They brought in

00:31:24.520 leading world-class skiers. Okay, people who could lament about the end of snow in Canada. So I went

00:31:30.720 to the microphone, about 300 people there, I was a bit scared, and I said, I asked the skiers, I said,

00:31:37.040 how do you feel about the fact that they didn't bring in scientists to tell you that the actual snow

00:31:42.560 cover in North America has gradually risen for decades? It's been rising continuously. Okay, it's not

00:31:49.400 a great change, but there is some increase. And my goodness, the reaction from the audience was

00:31:54.300 outraged. One lady in the front row, she stood up and she shook her fist at me. Go home! You know, 1.00

00:31:59.500 I said, oh, just check the data. Look at the snow and ice data center in the United States,

00:32:04.980 and you can see that snow cover has been gradually rising. I'm sure it would be a problem for skiers,

00:32:10.500 and I am one, if the snow went away. But it's not happening. And oh, people were outraged at that.

00:32:16.620 So we're going to talk about data, what's really happening, not computer models. Now this graph is

00:32:22.280 quite interesting because it gives you some perspective. We are down here, okay, the green,

00:32:27.820 that's current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But as you can see, we're at one of

00:32:33.060 the lowest levels of CO2 in Earth's history. Look back here, we had 10 times as much CO2. And this

00:32:39.980 is a time period when many of the plants, especially more around here, is many of the plants evolved at a

00:32:45.880 time when CO2 was much, much higher in the atmosphere. And that is exactly why they pump

00:32:52.220 carbon dioxide into greenhouses. Because plants grow faster, they grow bigger, and they also don't

00:32:59.320 need as much water. And so across the world, we've seen, oh, about 15% increase in the green

00:33:06.000 coverage of the Earth, according to NASA, because of the increase in carbon dioxide. And I have a report

00:33:12.260 here, actually. It's called Climate Change Reconsidered, okay? It's the biological impacts.

00:33:18.560 Thousands of peer-reviewed studies that show that increasing CO2 is great, okay? People who really

00:33:24.920 understand carbon dioxide, they say, let's hope that CO2 doubles or even triples. Because right now,

00:33:32.040 we're at one of the lowest levels in Earth's history. In fact, if we go back to the previous glacial

00:33:37.700 period, CO2 dropped to around 180 parts per million. Right now, it's about 420. There's been a 50%

00:33:44.940 rise since 1880. But as you can see, even with a 50% rise, it's like nothing, okay, in a global

00:33:51.460 context. But the interesting thing is that during the last glacial, we were quite close to a dangerously

00:33:58.300 low level of CO2 when plants start to die. And all life on Earth would essentially end, okay?

00:34:05.320 So the bottom line is that at 180 parts per million in the last glacial, we were close

00:34:12.360 to the level at which life on Earth would end. And so people who actually study this, Patrick

00:34:18.220 Moore, for example, is on the ICSC Canada board along with Bob. And Patrick Moore presents a

00:34:24.700 presentation showing CO2 dropping over millions of years and says we saved life on Earth because

00:34:32.660 of releasing carbon dioxide. Because he points out that we were on the way down to a level below

00:34:38.640 150 parts per million and life would end. So when people talk about carbon pollution, you can say

00:34:45.740 it's not carbon, it's carbon dioxide, okay? And it's not pollution, it's plant food. I have summaries of

00:34:52.400 this I can hand out. I have dozens of them in the back. And actually, we're going to have a contest.

00:34:58.380 We can do it right now. I'm going to give out one of these reports. In fact, I think I'll give

00:35:03.440 out the science report. That's it. The science report gives thousands of period science, it actually

00:35:10.040 basically shows everything I'm going to show today. So I have a question. Whoever gets the first right

00:35:15.320 answer gets this book worth 154 US dollars. So if you've already heard me tell you what the answer

00:35:23.780 is, please don't. It's for people who haven't heard me say what the answer is. In the United States,

00:35:29.480 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the US government, they keep track of all the

00:35:35.300 extreme weather records in every state in the Union. Highest temperature, lowest temperature,

00:35:40.880 most rain, most snow, biggest hailstone. I mean, it's quite incredible. You look at that. Hailstone's the

00:35:45.400 size of a volleyball is the record. But regardless, they keep track of all these records. And in 1936,

00:35:52.100 they had 27 records set. Highest temperature, most wind, etc. 27 records set, and those records still

00:36:00.920 stand, okay? Now, if you listen to our media, you would think, oh, extreme weather is increasing all

00:36:07.120 across the world. So who can guess how many extreme weather records were set last year in 2022? So who gets

00:36:14.840 the first right answer gets this book? Zero. Zero? Yeah, I said it. You said it. You get it. There you go.

00:36:23.960 This is for everybody. Yeah. So that's the answer. The answer is there was not a single record set on a

00:36:32.440 statewide basis in the whole US in 2022. And that is the best extreme weather record in the world.

00:36:39.660 Okay? Now, granted, it's not the whole world. It is the most dense amount of, you know, data stations,

00:36:45.340 etc. And it is the best record for a large area in the world. And there were no records set last year.

00:36:52.160 So let's just summarize this evil gas, carbon dioxide. Geologically speaking, the earth is in a

00:36:59.180 CO2 famine, okay? Geologic record reveals ice ages and ice houses. Now, what's an ice house?

00:37:06.780 An ice house is much bigger than an ice age. It lasts for many millions of years. Typically,

00:37:11.780 ice ages are only about 100,000 years. But the ice house, okay? Actually, that's not entirely true.

00:37:18.080 The glaciers are a few hundred thousand years. The ice ages could be longer. I won't get into the

00:37:24.300 details. But ice houses are even bigger still. They last for tens, if not hundreds of millions of

00:37:30.460 years. And they can be so cold that some scientists have said that the whole earth, including the

00:37:36.160 oceans, was covered with ice. But then you have periods in between, hothouses, they call them, when

00:37:41.980 there was no ice anywhere on the planet, okay? Not even in the high mountains. So climate change? Yeah,

00:37:48.740 that is what the earth does. That's, it's just like what Tim Patterson said when he testified before

00:37:53.180 the parliament, one of the committees there, and he said, well, the only constant about climate is

00:37:58.400 change. It changes all the time, okay? So when Greenpeace came to my door and they said,

00:38:04.980 oh, will you give us money to stop climate change? I said, uh, will you stop the next glacial, please?

00:38:12.820 Because that's infinitely more dangerous. I mean, in the last glacial, for example,

00:38:17.360 there was only one small region of the Yukon that was not covered with kilometers of ice. Right here,

00:38:22.500 there was about two kilometers of ice over our head. And if you go up to the King Mountain lookout,

00:38:27.360 you can see they have a panorama that shows how high it was, the glaciers covering the whole Gatineau,

00:38:33.060 of course. Temperatures have been similar to the present day on earth when carbon dioxide levels were

00:38:39.120 up to 20 times as high as today. So we talk about a 50 percent rise. How about a 2,000 percent rise,

00:38:46.160 okay? And the earth at times was in its cold periods. We're going to look at that in more detail.

00:38:50.640 I've already talked about this before, but greenhouses, they like CO2. Worldwide food

00:38:57.900 harvests are up more than 30 percent in the last 30 years. Bigger harvests, less land, thanks to CO2.

00:39:05.240 Now, of course, fertilizers and agriculture mechanism have played a role as well, but we've

00:39:11.660 seen aerial fertilization because of CO2. And that's what people should talk about, not problems.

00:39:17.980 Now, Al Gore, he showed this graph here, okay? And he was forecasting to the great future,

00:39:24.440 you know, and saying, oh, it's going to be a catastrophe. But let's actually do a little

00:39:27.600 bit of an interesting graph here. Oh, first of all, this shows Al Gore's high point when seen

00:39:33.260 in geologic terms, okay? And it was geologists who actually turned me from a climate alarmist

00:39:39.720 to a climate realist. Because they showed me, well, CO2 has been much higher in the past.

00:39:44.780 So what if it's down here 50 percent higher than 1880? It's still trivial. So let's have a look at

00:39:50.560 this. This is temperature of the earth, okay, over this long time period, about a half a billion years.

00:39:57.000 That's as far back as we can go because they typically get fossilized seashells, and they grind

00:40:03.020 them up, and they do oxygen isostope analysis, and they can get estimates approximate of temperature

00:40:08.900 in the past. And they're doing that work at Ottawa U. And by the way, Ian Clark, who is a earth scientist,

00:40:14.680 a geologist, who knows all about these things, if you look him up on the internet, Ian Clark

00:40:18.860 is a climate realist. He's one of our science advisors. So let's have a look at this graph.

00:40:25.060 And we're going to show you two things in real time, so to speak. We're going to show you

00:40:29.340 atmospheric CO2, it's going to plot, and global temperature. Now let's see how global temperature

00:40:36.560 is driven by CO2. Let's see if it really happens. Oops, go back one here. Okay, how do I go back?

00:40:47.580 Well, I think I can go back, and it is worth doing, okay, because it's very important. Previous.

00:40:52.960 Here we go. Now watch this. There's our average global temperature. Oh, CO2 rose. No change in

00:41:01.560 temperature. Now, what happened here? Now isn't that interesting? Look, we had a global ice house

00:41:09.480 right here, 440 million years ago in that region, and CO2 level was over 4,000 parts per million.

00:41:16.280 It's 420 now. So it was 10 times higher, and we were in the coldest period of the last half billion

00:41:22.520 years. And you can see there is no correlation. This is what changed me, as I say, to climate realism.

00:41:29.100 I realized that the narrative that CO2 is driving temperature may be true in the theoretical models,

00:41:35.840 but it isn't true in the real world. And this is real world data. Over the last 300 years, yes,

00:41:43.620 there's been some warming. Thank goodness, because we were stuck in the middle of the little ice age

00:41:48.120 here, when there were more storms, when there were more famine, more war. That is bad. 20 times more

00:41:53.980 people die in the cold than due to the heat, okay? You want bad conditions on Earth? Yeah, have global

00:42:00.680 cooling. That is bad. Now, this is the graph that's often shown to try and alarm people, that temperature

00:42:07.520 is rising. Well, let's keep things in perspective. We're talking about a half a degree here.

00:42:13.640 Now, since I started speaking, it's probably got more than a half a degree warmer in the room. I'm so

00:42:17.340 excited. But these changes are so tiny. In fact, Richard Lindzen, I believe it was him at MIT,

00:42:24.960 he says, you know, if there weren't climatologists and meteorologists around telling us about it,

00:42:29.780 who on Earth would have noticed in their entire life that there's been a roughly one degree sea

00:42:34.820 rise in 142 years? You say, well, no, no one would even notice it. That is a climate emergency,

00:42:42.440 according to the Canadian government, according to the city of Ottawa. We're in a climate emergency.

00:42:47.220 Oh, but you can't actually feel the change, okay? If you actually plot it on a normal graph,

00:42:54.800 the kind of temperatures that we experience throughout history, average global temperature,

00:42:58.660 let's say going from zero up to 110, might be a maximum, in, let's see, Fahrenheit, this

00:43:04.620 is what it looks like, okay? You can't see the change. It's only when you have half a degree

00:43:09.520 being like massive amounts that you can see any change at all. And look at the change daily.

00:43:16.080 These are the variations that occur in these different locations across the U.S. in an average

00:43:21.540 sense. This is the rise. You can hardly see it. It's the pink line, okay? But look at the variation

00:43:28.820 day-to-day throughout the course of a year. So the change is trivial. It is truly trivial.

00:43:36.780 This is satellite measurements, okay, since the satellite record began. And what we're seeing

00:43:42.400 is this, 0.134 degrees C per decade. Okay, about a tenth of a degree per decade. And let's zoom

00:43:52.060 in on this part here recently. Oh, sorry, this shows the same graph, but it gives it more detail.

00:43:59.140 It shows that the January average across the world was actually colder, very slightly,

00:44:05.260 0.044 degrees colder than the average throughout this whole period, okay? From the 91 to 2020 average,

00:44:15.020 you can see it actually is slightly colder. But the interesting thing is this, in the last eight

00:44:19.620 and a half years, there's been no warming. And that's despite 450 billion tons of carbon dioxide

00:44:26.700 emission in that period. Zero warming with 450 billion tons of CO2. Oh yeah, CO2 is causing

00:44:34.580 a problem. Nope. So you have to say, well, what is the climate scare based on then? Besides

00:44:40.620 the drive, besides the drive for world government and all the other things that they talk about,

00:44:45.580 controls and things, it's based on this. These are 102 computer model forecasts of the future.

00:44:53.180 Actually, in this case, they went back in time, back to 1975, and they plug in the data that existed

00:45:00.020 in 1985, and then they run the model to see how well does it actually compare with what really happened,

00:45:06.660 okay? So these are all different models. They're all over the board, but the average is the black line.

00:45:12.400 The actual warming that's occurred, depending on whether you're using satellites for different

00:45:17.200 sources, or a reanalysis using balloons and things like that, I believe. But regardless,

00:45:23.140 the average is much less, really, than what the models forecast. And this graph is particularly

00:45:30.260 meaningful, because what it shows is this is the model average, 0.44 degrees Celsius per decade.

00:45:36.720 The actual temperature rise, as we saw in a previous graph, is actually about a third of that. So we're

00:45:43.500 supposed to use these model results to actually spend trillions of dollars to stop climate change

00:45:49.940 that they say is an emergency, but actually hasn't happened yet. So this is the foundation. This graph

00:45:56.280 here is the touchstone, the reason that they actually are trying to make us, you know, spend billions of

00:46:02.940 dollars because they're expecting us to trust the models. But they don't show you this line here,

00:46:07.300 because that line shows that the models don't work. Now, I don't know about you, but if I had a 0.85

00:46:12.440 financial analyst, and he forecast 300% of a stock's rise from what it really did, I think I'd fire the

00:46:21.060 analyst. Now, this is the graph which actually talks about the number of records that are set across all

00:46:28.960 U.S. stations. And you can see if we went up here all the way to 2022, there would be none. And you

00:46:35.480 were right. You won the book. So you see back here in the 30s, okay, 1936, 37, the records were mostly

00:46:43.180 set, okay? They're not being set today. So you say, well, why do we hear so many reports about extreme

00:46:49.160 weather? Well, think about it. A hundred years ago, if a tornado hit Oklahoma, there was a good chance that

00:46:54.780 nobody would see it, okay? And nobody would certainly record it, because they didn't have

00:46:58.920 easy recording devices. But now when a tornado hits, many more people see it, they report it,

00:47:04.580 they film it. So it's observational bias. Oh, but Hurricane Ian was the third most damaging hurricane

00:47:11.020 in U.S. history. Yes, true. But the reason is because there's a lot more infrastructure. Across the

00:47:18.120 world, there's been a 13-fold increase in stuff, okay, like hotels or buildings or homes or things

00:47:25.260 like that. So that on the coast of Florida, where a hundred years ago, you might have had one hotel,

00:47:31.080 they now have 13. So as a consequence, there's going to be more damage. Now, they're better built,

00:47:37.040 no question about it, but you still will get increased financial costs because of storms.

00:47:42.260 And the interesting thing, though, is the storms themselves, though, are not getting worse. We are

00:47:49.440 getting better at preparing for them with satellite projections. You know, we can actually see a storm

00:47:54.420 coming. We don't know exactly where it's going, but we can warn people. And so what you see here,

00:47:59.140 climate-related deaths, 1920 to 2020, look at this. It's gone down to just about none. Now,

00:48:06.080 there's two reasons for that. One is because there's less extreme weather, but the other is because

00:48:10.700 we're much better prepared. We're more wealthy, okay? We can prepare for things better when we're

00:48:16.420 wealthy. And in fact, you'll see here on the side table, I have a flyer for ICSC Canada, which we

00:48:23.540 encourage you to pick up. And here's what we propose as the real way to move forward. And thanks

00:48:30.180 to Bob, actually, for assembling this. Prepare for future climate change with sensible, cost-effective

00:48:36.220 adaptation strategies. In other words, you make sure you have solid power, a good, you know,

00:48:42.940 good infrastructure. Promote economic prosperity. To provide the wealth, we need to ensure resiliency.

00:48:50.260 Okay? Resiliency is a big factor. If you want to survive anything, climate change, you know,

00:48:55.200 earthquakes, whatever, you do better if you're wealthy and you can prepare. And the last one is

00:49:00.540 ensure a reliable, affordable energy supply to safeguard our citizens and maintain our standard

00:49:06.960 of living and national security in an increasingly uncertain world. So when people say, oh, you don't

00:49:12.600 want any money spent on climate change, I say, no. No, we have to spend it sensibly. Not like the city

00:49:17.880 of Ottawa is doing. They do have a resiliency part to their climate change master plan. But this will

00:49:24.340 blow you away. This is so crazy. It's like something out of Dr. Seuss. Ottawa is the seventh coldest

00:49:31.640 capital city in the world. Okay? 20 times more people die because of the cold than because of

00:49:37.580 the heat. You would think Ottawa might plan for cooling. Okay? Because temperature never stays the

00:49:43.700 same. The only constant about climate is change. So if you're sitting in Ottawa, you would think that

00:49:49.760 they would start to have something to plan for cooling. Okay? But the only thing they're planning

00:49:55.620 for, from a climate change perspective, adaptation, is warming. And I say, what? If Ottawa gets warmer,

00:50:03.380 it's mostly, you know, the global warming that's projected to occur by the computer models would be

00:50:07.920 at night, in the winter, in the northern parts, and then far southern. In other words, high latitude.

00:50:13.720 Okay? Now, if it's minus 45 instead of minus 50 in the Yukon, at night someday in the winter,

00:50:21.080 I don't know of any life form. Humans, animal, plant, I don't think anything would care.

00:50:26.020 And Ottawa is only planning for warming. You know, like, oh, god, this is just crazy. So obviously,

00:50:31.920 you do have to plan for adaptation. That does make sense. You want people to have good, solid power

00:50:37.700 sources so they can keep their homes warm, so they can cool their homes in the summer. Okay? So you want

00:50:42.880 that, and we're just not going to get it on wind and solar, as Bob pointed out. The beauty of this

00:50:48.640 is that global, I say, global deaths from all natural disasters has gone down hugely. Okay? It's

00:50:55.680 not just climate. On all scales, on all issues, we're doing much, much better. So this is a good

00:51:02.420 news presentation. CO2 is good for us. There's no climate emergency. We are saving lives. So the doom

00:51:08.840 and gloomy here from the environmental movement doesn't make any sense. Now, I'm going to go

00:51:14.220 through these pretty quickly, because I've given you plenty of data already, that's for sure.

00:51:18.660 But the droughts, okay? Terrible droughts across the world. Well, this is the little blip here. Okay?

00:51:25.020 It's not a problem. This is U.S., but they're still the best database. I'll just skip through a

00:51:30.520 couple of these quickly. Hurricane frequency. Okay? We're talking about hurricane frequency in this

00:51:35.760 range. Okay? It depends on whether you're talking about different kinds of hurricanes. But the

00:51:41.160 bottom... Oh yeah, here we go. Hurricanes greater than 64 knots, greater than major hurricanes. So

00:51:46.740 the bottom line is this shows that there is no increase in the frequency of hurricanes. And

00:51:51.560 if you think about it, the thing that drives weather of all kinds is the temperature and pressure

00:51:57.420 differences across latitudes. In other words, the temperature difference, let's say, between

00:52:01.940 the Yukon and British Columbia. That forces atmospheric circulation, and it causes weather.

00:52:08.780 So, if it occurred that global warming occurred mostly in high latitudes, like in the Yukon,

00:52:15.640 then you would expect to see the temperature rise there, okay? A little bit. And therefore,

00:52:20.340 the difference in temperature between the Yukon and B.C. would be less. Now, that's what drives

00:52:25.780 extreme weather. So what we find then is that in a warmer world caused by some greenhouse gas warming,

00:52:32.340 you have less drivers of extreme weather. You have less extreme weather. And, you know,

00:52:36.580 the Chinese found this when they looked in the sediments of the Pacific Ocean. They found that it

00:52:40.900 was in cold periods when the strongest typhoons and cyclones hit. It was in cold periods when we had the

00:52:47.620 worst extreme weather. We see that in England, in the Little Ice Age, where complete towns were washed away by

00:52:53.380 massive storms in the middle of the Little Ice Age. So, once again, environmental activists have it upside

00:52:59.940 down. CO2 is good. There's no temperature rise of danger. And extreme weather will reduce as we warm

00:53:08.340 the Earth slightly due to CO2. And it's only very slight. U.S. violent tornadoes have gone down, okay?

00:53:16.340 Now, here's the reality. I'll just let you read that quickly. Because Philip Stott, PhD from the United

00:53:23.540 Kingdom, said it very, very clearly.

00:53:35.780 It's scientific nonsense. And that is what is driving. So I hope we've pulled the rug out from under the

00:53:41.700 climate scare. It's not just that it's going to cost us an absolute fortune. It's that the stated

00:53:46.660 objective of the climate activists is wrong in every case, okay? I've never seen a field where

00:53:53.460 every single thing they bring up is the opposite. Polar bears have quadrupled in number since 1950.

00:54:00.500 There's more coral on the Great Barrier Reef than ever before that they've measured, okay? Least extreme

00:54:06.420 weather. Temperature rise is trivial. Ocean rise, very slight. We're talking about 7, 10 inches per

00:54:12.580 century, you know? You go back 8,000 years, sea level was rising 10 times faster because there was

00:54:19.380 more ice to melt, okay? So there's no question these things have been going on. And generally speaking,

00:54:25.300 it's a good thing. The 97% consensus is completely ridiculous, okay? The study that's used, they didn't 0.98

00:54:33.540 even talk to 97 scientists to come up with this. You know, a friend of mine was a fellow at the Royal

00:54:38.980 Society of Canada. And one day he read in the newspapers that the Royal Society of Canada had

00:54:44.100 endorsed a declaration of climate emergency. We had to reduce greenhouse gases. And he thought, geez,

00:54:50.420 I'm a fellow in the group. They never asked me. And he was an energy specialist, somebody they should

00:54:55.060 have asked. So he called the president of the Royal Society of Canada and he said, what's this? You've made a

00:55:00.420 declaration to the public and you didn't even ask me. I'm a fellow. He said, president said,

00:55:05.940 well, we considered it consistent with the world opinion of scientists. So we signed it. And you

00:55:11.860 know, I thought, huh, I wonder if that's what's happening with the other scientific associations

00:55:17.300 because the environmentalists are always telling us, look at all these different associations across

00:55:21.620 the world who signed up to this climate emergency. So I started investigating and so far, and I challenge

00:55:27.540 anyone here, if you can give me an example that conflicts with this, so far, I've not found a

00:55:32.740 single scientific organization that supports the climate scare that has polled their members

00:55:39.140 and showed that a majority of their members actually agree with a sensationalist statement

00:55:44.180 that they wanted to put out. So again, if anybody can show me a group, you know, different associations

00:55:50.020 that have done it, I'd love to hear it. And I've challenged them on this and I asked them,

00:55:54.340 oh, well, did you actually poll your members before you released this statement? No answer.

00:56:00.100 Because they don't want to say no, because they don't want me to quote them. But nobody has yet

00:56:04.020 shown that it actually is real with regards to the people in their group. This UN IPCC,

00:56:10.900 that's one of the UN lead authors, he says this, the 97% is essentially polled from thin air. It's not

00:56:18.980 based on any credible research whatsoever. Doesn't this kind of remind you of other issues that

00:56:25.620 Action for Canada stand up for? I only heard of Action for Canada in the middle of last year.

00:56:31.940 And I must say, I'm very, very impressed with this group. It's awesome.

00:56:35.220 So we've had 50 years of eco-doom forecast. We have 10 years left to avoid catastrophe. 1972.

00:56:46.740 Oh, by the way, one thing is really quite hilarious. Al Gore said when he was speaking at the

00:56:53.140 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he said there's going to be as much as a billion

00:56:58.180 refugees, climate refugees across the world. Well, what are the forecasts? Okay, in 2005,

00:57:04.980 the UN Environment Program said there would be 50 million refugees by 2010. Oh, 2010 came along

00:57:12.260 and there weren't any. Okay, so then they said there's going to be 50 million refugees, climate

00:57:17.940 refugees by 2020. Nobody seemed to forget. Everyone, I guess they just took it off their webpage. By 2020,

00:57:25.620 there were no climate refugees. Okay, so that's the bottom line. There are none. There was a case in 0.99

00:57:31.220 New Zealand where somebody applied to be a climate refugee from some small island, I believe, and it

00:57:36.260 went to court. And they said, well, no, there's no reason for you to run away from your country from a 0.97

00:57:42.180 climate perspective. You know, these coral islands, people have to realize coral grows, okay? And it

00:57:48.260 grows faster than sea level can rise. And so we have people like Niels Axel Morner and various other

00:57:54.740 scientists who actually look at what's really happening in the history of coral reef growth and

00:58:00.420 ocean rise. And you always find that the coral reef growth is faster than the ocean rise. So that's all

00:58:07.140 nonsense. There is cases where the ocean, sorry, where the islands are sinking. Okay, we're supposedly

00:58:13.220 responsible for that. The bald eyes are sinking, things like that. But what's really happening is that

00:58:18.500 they're actually polluting the water around their island and it kills the coral. So that's number

00:58:24.660 one. And the other thing is quite interesting. In the Mediterranean, remember, that's a rock shoreline,

00:58:30.820 okay? It's not coral. It's a rock shoreline. They build breakwaters out into the ocean so that it keeps

00:58:36.660 their beaches, okay? So they're doing that intentionally. They don't want the beaches washed away. Well,

00:58:41.540 in some coral islands, they started doing the same thing in the Pacific, building these large breakwaters out

00:58:48.180 into the ocean to keep their beaches. But that interferes with the circulation of nutrient-rich

00:58:54.340 waters that keeps the coral alive. So in both cases, whether it's dumping their garbage or whether

00:59:00.500 it's building inappropriate structures, they are causing these problems to themselves, okay? It has

00:59:06.580 nothing to do with the West. Now, you know, it's a great moneymaker though because the small island

00:59:13.060 countries see it as a way to get huge amounts of foreign aid for our guilt, okay? Our climate guilt.

00:59:19.540 Now, I have nothing against giving them foreign aid, but let's make sure it's not done because of guilt,

00:59:24.900 okay? Now, the Trojan horse in the whole climate discussion is something called loss and damage.

00:59:31.380 The UN has now agreed at the last conference to actually incorporate into the UN agreements

00:59:37.860 financial charges to the developed world for climate change caused in the developing world.

00:59:44.820 And the interesting thing is there's no statute of limitations. In other words, they don't have a

00:59:49.060 deadline where, okay, you can't go back to 1970 and say a hurricane then was caused by us, so we owe you a billion.

00:59:55.780 That is literally the Trojan horse. A lot of the costs you hear, you know, right now they're spending

01:00:01.940 over a billion US dollars a day on climate finance across the world, most of it going to wind and solar

01:00:07.700 companies, so it is a huge moneymaker. But the Trojan horse, which has the potential for hundreds of

01:00:13.940 trillion, I mean more money there is in the whole world, is this idea that we would be held responsible

01:00:20.180 for climate problems or actually extreme weather problems, not climate really, in the developing

01:00:26.180 world, okay? So that is the big thing we have to watch out for. And our leaders have agreed to this

01:00:31.780 in concept. They haven't put any money into it, but they've agreed to it. Now, what is it leading towards?

01:00:39.860 That is the big issue. It's actually leading to, for example, ecological Leninism, okay? State power should

01:00:47.780 definitely be used to ban SUVs and private jets. And I'm going to go through some of the things that

01:00:53.700 show that this is really an attack on our freedom under the excuse of climate change, which, as I said, 0.92

01:01:00.580 is a completely ridiculous excuse. Should everyone have their own personal carbon quota, okay? They

01:01:07.940 actually brought this up in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, and you would be prevented. Your

01:01:12.500 credit card wouldn't work anymore if you've used too much carbon, really carbon dioxide. This is

01:01:18.980 actually coming right now. You can see this is a potential future thing that is going to actually

01:01:24.900 have a massive impact on what freedoms you have to spend your own money. Climate lockdown 2021

01:01:32.020 International Energy Agency's Net Zero Report urges behavioral changes to fight climate change, okay? So,

01:01:38.580 once again, this is control. A shift away from private car use, upper speed limits, and thermostat

01:01:45.380 controls. Limits on hot water. Oh my goodness. Now, we're talking about heat or eat in places like

01:01:52.820 England when it comes to people in the low income category or retired people on fixed income. Heat or eat 0.98

01:01:59.060 is very real in the United Kingdom already, and that is coming here where people will have to reduce

01:02:04.500 one or the other. They can't have both at the levels they're used to. The U.N. trying to track

01:02:11.620 down what are the purposes of this and what would it result in. The U.N. climate chief, she's previous,

01:02:17.300 she's a couple of years ago, Christina Figures laments, U.S. democracy is very detrimental in the war on

01:02:24.180 global warming. She lauds one party ruled China for doing it right on climate change. And this is the quote,

01:02:33.220 climate, or sorry, China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some

01:02:39.620 of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S. Isn't that nice? And of course,

01:02:45.140 as we know, our prime minister admires China to a certain extent. And by the way, the last few slides

01:02:51.860 here showing the mechanisms that are going to be used to control us, these are from Mark Morano

01:02:57.700 from climatedepot.com and he said I could use them. And there we go, climate depot. Concerning COVID,

01:03:05.700 people must make a declaration as to why they need to travel. Proposed climate lockdown, you can't fly

01:03:11.460 commercial unless it's morally justified. Okay, so we're going to have a new class of bureaucrats,

01:03:17.300 moral justification department, I guess. They're even talking about having children is, in fact,

01:03:24.260 one of the greatest threats to the climate. Having a baby in 2021, pure environmental vandalism,

01:03:30.420 in vogue, okay. I wonder how that would go over in Nigeria.

01:03:33.940 Here we go. Era of constant electricity at home is ending, says the power chief, okay, in the UK.

01:03:44.260 This is what they really want to do. And climate change brings more crime. So of course, what would

01:03:49.700 be the answer? Defund the police. Like, what? I sort of wonder if as a result of the COVID lockdown,

01:03:57.380 they figure they can get away with virtually anything and we'll just be obedient, you know.

01:04:01.620 And we're going to get onto that. I'll finish up in about two minutes. But I think that is what

01:04:06.020 a lot of this is driving us towards. Climate change gives people more diarrhea.

01:04:16.340 And questioning authority has become too much of a good thing. And it's killing people.

01:04:20.580 For many people, do your own research means following a social media post into a rabbit hole

01:04:25.380 of misinformation. Like, my God, they might look at the ICSC Canada website. Or even disinformation from

01:04:31.300 Russians or others. Observe columnist Al Cross. Oh my God, you can't research it yourself.

01:04:37.300 And if you disagree with any of this, you belong in jail, okay. That's it. The end of you.

01:04:42.580 You must not do your own research when it comes to science, according to Forbes. Or are they

01:04:47.780 being sarcastic? Maybe they are. Here's something funny on a WebMD. Climate change causes five million

01:04:55.220 extra deaths per year. Okay. So a tenth of a degree per decade. Okay. Anyway. And then they go on to say

01:05:03.620 during that time, 2000 to 2019, global temperatures rose by a quarter of a degree Celsius per decade.

01:05:10.580 Now, that's wrong. Okay. I don't believe it's that high. But even if it weren't, does anyone think a

01:05:16.020 quarter of a degree is going to kill people? And then they go on at the very end to admit

01:05:21.220 the excess deaths, blah, blah, blah, where most deaths caused by cold exposure. Okay. That is

01:05:27.060 a nice scenario. So here's what Dr. Grignall said in the UK, an engineering professor. The UN IPCC,

01:05:35.700 which is the opposite of the NIPCC, okay, which you just want to copy up and people can pick up

01:05:43.060 handouts here, is a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. And I think that's what it

01:05:50.260 boils down to. Because if you, if you look at the actual rules of the IPCC, they have a few documents,

01:05:56.660 they have the main science report, and then they have a summary for policy makers. Okay. The summary,

01:06:02.420 if they, if they read anything, the politicians are reading the summary. But it says specifically that

01:06:07.860 the science report must be tuned to coincide and agree with the summary. Now, I don't know about you,

01:06:15.620 but if my boss told me to write a report to agree with a summary that being written by somebody else,

01:06:21.380 I'd have to see if the summary actually made sense first. And you know, it's interesting that my sister

01:06:26.420 used to, where one of my sisters worked in the government, and she was given a job in one 0.90

01:06:30.100 department, I won't say which one, and she was expected to find information to support what the

01:06:35.940 minister said. She couldn't find any. Okay. So she went back and said, I can't find any. So they say,

01:06:41.780 look harder. Okay. A friend of mine also was a, he was an expert in North Atlantic temperatures,

01:06:49.700 in the North Atlantic Ocean. And he had a report all written. He was working for Fisheries and Oceans,

01:06:56.100 and he submitted it to his director. Now, it showed that the North Atlantic was cooling.

01:07:00.980 He never heard back from the director. And every time he saw the director in the hall, he would walk

01:07:04.740 the other way. So one day, he cornered him in the washroom, and he said, are you going to approve my

01:07:09.540 report and send it into the journal to be published? And he patted him on the back and said, well,

01:07:14.820 you've had lots of papers published, right? And you wouldn't mind if we didn't publish this one,

01:07:20.020 would you? He said, well, yes, I spent months on it. And he said, well, you know,

01:07:23.860 the minister said the oceans in the North Atlantic were warming. And your report shows that it's cooling.

01:07:30.900 And so I don't think we're going to submit your report. So you have people right in the government

01:07:35.380 of Canada, who are, we're scientists, who are having their reports blocked, or who are, you know,

01:07:42.260 they're forbidden from speaking out, God help you. If Energy Minds and Resources or Natural Resources

01:07:47.380 Canada, I guess they're really called, if those people find something that's different to what the

01:07:52.580 government wants, we don't hear it. Now, this is interesting. This is my last slide, I believe.

01:07:59.300 And this is Dr. Atmar Endenhofer, IPCC, that's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN,

01:08:06.740 co-chair of Working Group 3. Okay, and here's what he said, we, the UN IPCC, redistribute the fact of

01:08:14.100 the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international

01:08:20.500 climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy

01:08:27.940 anymore. And that came from a UN guy. I imagine he didn't keep his job long, I don't know what his

01:08:34.260 history was, but I believe he was being pretty darn honest. Now, the trouble is, right now, the truth

01:08:41.780 is constantly being shot down. You know, you can see it all the time in the media. I mean, if I submit a

01:08:47.620 letter to the Ottawa Citizen, for example, saying, well, you realize what this sensationalist article

01:08:52.820 says is not supported by local scientists, it's not supported by the science in these books,

01:08:58.420 good luck trying to get it published. You know, it is interesting, I actually was meeting privately with

01:09:04.100 a leading editor in one of Canada's major papers, I can't say which one, because he told me this in

01:09:09.380 confidence, but I can tell you because I'm not going to tell you his name or his newspaper. I asked him,

01:09:15.380 I said, why do you only show one side in the climate debate, when there's obviously at least two sides,

01:09:21.940 probably lots of sides. And at first he said, well, we agree with David Suzuki. And I said, oh,

01:09:28.180 okay, you realize he was a fruit fly geneticist. But anyway, do you have anybody on staff who has even

01:09:35.220 a Bachelor of Engineering to try to judge between the two points of view, you know, there is or there

01:09:41.140 isn't a climate emergency. He said, well, no. So I said, okay, so why do you really do it? Why do you

01:09:47.620 only show the alarmist side? And he said, you know, Tom, if we allowed, if we allowed people like Dr. Clark

01:09:55.860 at Ottawa U and others to be published, our advertisers wouldn't like it. Now, there's two reasons for that.

01:10:02.660 At first I thought, oh yeah, because catastrophe sells and they want high circulation. So their

01:10:07.620 advertisers get the feeling that their ads are seen by lots of people. But there's something even

01:10:12.500 more fundamental. Many, many companies, car companies, computer companies, all sorts of companies

01:10:18.100 are using the climate scare to sell products. Okay. They want to be able to say, you know,

01:10:23.140 our products are green. We've reduced CO2 in our manufacturing process. And the last thing they

01:10:29.300 want is to have an ad claiming that a certain car is low CO2 or a certain printer or whatever,

01:10:34.580 they don't want to have a scientist on the next page saying, it's all bunk. So my conclusion was

01:10:40.980 that from a media point of view, sure, to a large extent, they just yield to what's politically easy

01:10:46.420 to do. But also, they make more money that way. So I think we should get mad. I really do. I think we should

01:10:55.060 get darn angry. Somehow the left seem to feel that they're the only right, they're the only

01:11:02.420 ones who have the right to be morally outraged. Well, you know, I think they're wrong. If you've

01:11:08.420 listened to Tom McDonald, the rap star, okay, you've got to look him up. Tom McDonald has a video

01:11:14.340 called Brainwashed. And it is really encouraging. You have to put up with the tattoos on their face and

01:11:19.380 everything. But the bottom line is his video, he goes through all of it. You know, he says,

01:11:24.420 don't defund police, defund the media who lie through their teeth. You know, and big pharma

01:11:29.300 don't want to cure you, dog, because a customer cured is a customer lost. And so he goes through

01:11:34.580 all these different issues. And it's beautiful, because there are 17 million views, over 64,000

01:11:41.620 comments, and mostly from young people saying, whoa, I'm mad. This guy's saying exactly what I feel.

01:11:47.860 Okay, so I think we have a really huge constituency of quiet, perhaps, so far,

01:11:54.100 but very annoyed young people. And Tom McDonald's popularity, I think, speaks to that.

01:11:59.460 You know, so I think we should get mad, we should go to these meetings. I have an article on

01:12:04.420 AmericaOutloud.com today, if you look it up. I talked about what happened at our ward meeting,

01:12:10.500 talking about the budget. Ward 789 met, and a couple of the people here actually asked questions.

01:12:16.900 And you know, it's interesting, because at the beginning, they said, oh, we welcome all your

01:12:20.260 questions. Oh, well, Danielle started to ask the question. Cut her off right away. Oh, 1.00

01:12:25.540 this is about the budget. You can't talk about climate change. And she said, yes, it's about the

01:12:30.180 budget, because we're funding the climate change then. Okay, but they kept cutting her off over and

01:12:35.620 over and over. And people in the audience were yelling out, let her talk, you know, things like that.

01:12:39.540 So I think that was great. Of course, the moderator, who was a city employee, he actually said, if this

01:12:47.060 keeps up, I'm going to kick people out. Well, yeah, we should get mad. They are working to ruin the

01:12:52.420 society that our grandparents and parents work to defend and build. Okay, this is actually the

01:12:59.300 appropriate reaction. We should be damn angry. And when they won't answer our questions, we should 0.94

01:13:04.100 do exactly what Ari did in, where's Ari? Yeah, there we are. Right during the actual presentation,

01:13:11.620 he yelled out, she didn't answer the question. And they threatened to kick you out. But so what?

01:13:17.940 They work for us. Okay? Imagine if in your workplace, your boss comes and asks you an awkward question.

01:13:24.740 You say, I don't want to answer. And you go talk to somebody else. That's essentially what they did.

01:13:30.420 As Derek was saying, none of the counselors answered any of the hard questions. So we should be angry.

01:13:37.220 We should speak out and say, no, you work for us. Answer our question. I may not agree with your answer,

01:13:43.380 but don't talk about something else, which is what they always do. They always bridge to other things.

01:13:48.740 So we have to go to all the public meetings we can. We have to get up and ask important questions and

01:13:54.660 not back down. And when they don't answer exactly what Ari did, you're not answering the question.

01:14:00.900 Because otherwise, they can just say, that's handled. And they walk off. And they continue to ruin our

01:14:06.180 society. That's where this is going. So anyway, thanks for your time.

01:14:11.460 Thank you.

Action4Canada - March 07, 2023

Toward Net Zero World - How Will Ottawa's Climate Plan Affect You？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript