00:07:14.740People can't imagine working as a nurse or a carpenter or an electrician or a police officer and living in the city that they serve.
00:07:23.900Well, that's something that we should be able to fix, and we're working on fixing that.
00:07:28.180We need to make sure things like people who are paying $2,000 a month on rent, besides someone else who's paying $2,000 a month for a mortgage,
00:07:37.500well, that rent should be counted towards their credit score so they can eventually get a mortgage.
00:07:42.900That's something that nobody thought of before because rent was never such a huge part of people's expenditures.
00:07:49.800Making that change gives people hope, again, that you can see a better future in which you're going to be able to succeed.
00:07:57.860So on one hand, he's saying that in his old speech that, oh, it's terribly offensive.
00:08:04.140You can't look down on Canadians by saying Canada's broken.
00:08:06.520And now in this interview, he's literally saying that the economy doesn't work for young Canadians,
00:08:11.560that institutions aren't serving them, that the deck is stacked against them, and that things
00:08:17.560aren't working for them. Now, I am no linguist, but I would say that things are not working
00:08:23.400and things are broken are pretty semantically similar. I don't think you can be all offended
00:08:31.140and high and mighty and get on your tall, high hybrid horse because, well, the horse has been
00:08:39.060phased out with the carbon tax. You can't get on your high horse and be so offended and mortified
00:08:43.580that someone says Canada is broken while turning around and saying, well, you know what, things
00:08:46.620aren't broken. So for starters, there is some brazen hypocrisy here that Justin Trudeau is
00:08:51.200exhibiting when he makes on one hand the comment that the brokenness of Canada is non-existent,
00:08:57.480and on the other hand concedes that. And then there's the other side of this, which is how on
00:09:01.660earth he can convincingly say that he has the answers when he has been the guy on whose watch
00:09:07.320things have gotten exactly where they have gotten for the last eight years, pushing 10 by the time
00:09:13.040the next election is likely to roll around. So all of a sudden, Justin Trudeau, just as we heard
00:09:18.360from his government on immigration, they've just been this hapless bystander. Well, everything in
00:09:23.820Canada has happened and it doesn't matter that it's been on their watch. It's somehow not their
00:09:28.240fault. It's Stephen Harper's fault. In this Vox interview that he did, which I won't share the
00:09:33.180whole half hour of with you. He was asked about populism. And, you know, Pierre Paliyev is the
00:09:38.380angry, meanie populist. And Justin Trudeau, he's got the guy. He's the guy with all the answers.
00:09:43.980But what's fascinating here is that Trudeau has said, oh, well, I mean, it's global. And there's
00:09:50.240none of this stuff is just in Canada. This is happening everywhere. So he is basically trying
00:09:54.840to make it out to be that anything bad in the country is not his fault. Anything good was his
00:10:00.500doing and we're all supposed to just not see the glaring inconsistencies in that so you've either
00:10:06.580been the most inept incompetent prime minister or you have been just an incredibly malicious force
00:10:11.860and malignant force in canada those are the two options none of this oh well it's a global trend
00:10:17.140and we've just been i mean his defense is basically that we've done nothing and we couldn't stop it
00:10:22.660but trust us because we're going to stop it moving forward that has been justin trudeau's line on
00:10:27.380this now that interview he did with vox i don't know how many votes it's going to get him in
00:10:31.700canada but it's part of a new fandangled strategy the liberals are rolling out which i saw in a
00:10:38.420toronto star piece written by susan delacorte now susan delacorte is an absolutely lovely woman
00:10:43.540uh she's always been very good to me and has never been as rude as many of the others in
00:10:48.260legacy media towards independent media but she's also not a particularly critical voice when it
00:10:53.860comes to Justin Trudeau. And that's, you know, perhaps why she has a home in the Toronto Star
00:10:58.460there. But she says, you're about to hear, this is the headline, you're about to hear Justin Trudeau
00:11:03.000on a lot more popular podcast. Here's what's behind it. And this is apparently part of a
00:11:09.120strategy where Justin Trudeau thinks that people need to hear more from him. So all of these
00:11:14.320terrible liberal polling numbers that put, you know, the desirability of him as Canada's prime
00:11:19.400Minister at like 18% among Canadians who have been surveyed. All of that is just because they
00:11:24.820haven't heard enough from him. No, no, no. Over the last eight years, Canada and Canadians have
00:11:30.380not heard enough from Justin Trudeau. And if only they knew the guy more, if only they heard from
00:11:35.100him more, then they would be more inclined to support the Liberals. Maybe they're just not that
00:11:41.280into you, Prime Minister. Maybe Canadians know full well who you are and what you're about. And
00:11:45.260they know full well that you're the guy who's been at the helm for the last eight years. And
00:11:49.420that is precisely why they are turning at you and turning on you and your government in such
00:11:55.720a dramatic way. Now, I talked a bit, this was going back like 24 days ago now, when this big
00:12:02.540giant carbon tax protest started up. And again, for a lot of people, it was just a protest on
00:12:07.980April 1st against the carbon tax. For some people, specifically in Alberta and also in
00:12:12.740Atlantic Canada, as I just learned, the carbon tax protest has continued. People have continued
00:12:19.160to protest the carbon tax. They've continued to log their discontent about what's been happening
00:12:26.580in this world with the Spike the Hike campaign from Pierre Polyev, the tax campaign, and all
00:12:32.940of that. But what's been interesting here is that Pierre Polyev was doing a little swing through
00:12:37.520Atlantic Canada. I don't know what day it was exactly. It was probably on the weekend, but
00:12:41.680I'm not sure. And he decided to stop. He saw some of these carbon tax protesters near the
00:12:47.560New Brunswick-Nova Scotia border. He decided to pull over and have a little chat with them. Now,
00:12:54.160what was interesting about this little chat is that they were, of course, filming and streaming,
00:13:00.140as you do when you get a heavyweight VIP that drops by your protest site. I was going to share
00:13:05.120some of the clips, but the volume is really, really low, so it would have been difficult.
00:13:08.980But you can hear him say at one point that everything that Justin Trudeau says is BS.
00:13:14.480At another point, you can see him walking by their F. Trudeau flag, which they have on the back of one of their trucks.
00:13:21.240And then he tours this little camper trailer type thing that they have set up.
00:13:25.680And one of the things on that, like if you really, really zoom in and zoom in and zoom in on that trailer, there's what's called the Diagalon flag.
00:13:34.960And I thought I could have gone through the rest of my life without ever having to mention Diagalon, but here we are.
00:13:40.020It was a group that, like Marco Mendicino, basically held up as being some, you know, terror group when the Emergencies Act was coming in.
00:13:47.620It started off as this weird internet subculture meme and joke and has since ballooned into a larger community.
00:13:54.820I don't believe Diagalon is an organized group in any meaningful way.
00:13:59.640I also will fully say that many of the people associated with Diagalon, including its founder, Jeremy McKenzie, have said some absolutely vile things.
00:14:08.700These are the folks who were sitting around on a webcast joking about Anna Polyev, Pierre Polyev's wife, being raped.
00:14:17.140But I also would fairly confidently say that there are probably some people out there that just thought it was a funny joke and aren't part of any of that.
00:14:24.960But nevertheless, there was a Diagalon flag on the side of this camper.
00:14:28.500And then the media lost their minds on this, and it set up Justin Trudeau to smack down Pierre Polyev's comments about him as a peddler of BS at a press conference this morning.
00:19:55.760But apparently last fall, they quietly brought in a policy that anyone who would receive a 5F, which is unfit for service release category, strictly because of the COVID mandate, would be allowed to re-enroll and that their applications were welcome.
00:20:17.140and with the caveat that all 5F reapplications have to be approved by the chief of defense staff.
00:20:24.500So if you get past the recruiting application piece, the chief of defense staff has final say.
00:20:30.260Now, I have had clients of mine who were 5F'd approach recruiting centers, certainly since
00:20:36.420last fall, even as early as last month here in March, and the recruiting centers won't
00:20:41.940even take their application. But then I got news directly from a recruiting source that indeed this
00:20:51.860policy is now back, that they are allowed to apply. Now in Noah Chartier's article, he points out that
00:21:00.260they say they've only had one person apply under this relaxed policy. I'm going to question that
00:21:08.500because I know that for sure that there has been a lot more than one person try to apply and been
00:21:13.920turned down at the recruiting centers. Well and I would also point out here I mean while this might
00:21:19.060be on the surface something that looks quite positive it doesn't really get to the crux of
00:21:24.140the issue here which is that they still have as you note the mandate they've never really apologized
00:21:29.100for it they've never done anything to say hey we want you back it seems like they're just dealing
00:21:35.140with the fact that uh very few people are wanting to go into the canadian armed forces right now
00:21:39.700they've got a recruitment crisis and i think they're trying a little they're trying to really
00:21:42.980dance around the the real root of the issue here yeah well the real root of the issue is two years
00:21:48.660ago these same people were told they were unfit for service that the they were not uh any type
00:21:55.460of person that the canadian armed forces wanted and now uh all of a sudden they're quietly saying
00:22:00.420oh no come back but come back without return necessarily return to your same trade what
00:22:08.660about compensation for the time you were off if you were that qualified that they want you back
00:22:16.740i'm thinking that there's a bit of a conundrum they've got because if they allow them back
00:22:22.180they're defeating their own defense because we've got lawsuits against them in the courts right now
00:22:28.260I'm being able to stand up and say to the court, well, these people were supposedly unfit for
00:22:36.240service and needed to be permanently released, but now they're okay to come back. That's a bit
00:22:42.280of a dilemma. And the mandate itself is particularly absurd now because if you had
00:22:48.820had two doses of the COVID vaccine in 2021, your protection is zero at this point. You have no
00:22:57.920benefit over someone who did not get vaccinated at this point. I mean, so let's even assume there
00:23:03.260was a benefit in 2021. There isn't now. So the idea of clinging to this mandate just defies
00:23:08.520any sense of science. And really, I had spoken to one veteran about this a couple of years ago,
00:23:14.900And he had said that basically it was a compliance issue more than it was a medicine issue.
00:23:19.600They wanted to weed out the type of person that didn't want it more than there was any, you know, strategic or operational reason that it needed to be there.
00:23:28.560Exactly. Because let's face it, going into this mandate of General Ayers, they'd already gone through working in the nursing homes.
00:23:38.660So ground zero, where a lot of the deaths took place, we had armed force members there, and not one of them died of COVID from that exposure. So that's pre-vaccine. So then they bring in this vaccination and decimated the Canadian Armed Forces because they've lost so many people over it, as well as the woke agenda is also to blame.
00:24:01.280But they lost a lot of very capable people with exemplary military records just because of the people standing up and saying, no, I'm not going to take it, whether it's against my religion, whether I don't have informed consent, or I want my bodily autonomy, or I have medical reasons that I can't take it.
00:24:21.960And now that they're desperate, they seem to want them back.
00:24:26.920We had you on the show back in June when you had launched, I think it was like a $500 million lawsuit representing hundreds of soldiers at the time about this.
00:24:36.860And I just wanted to ask, I know these things can take years, but what's the status on that one now?
00:24:42.540Well, it's been interesting because we ended up launching a second mass tort after the first one came out and people approached our office.
00:24:49.940So we're up to about 458, and the two lawsuits, they were only a few months apart from filing,
00:24:55.760but they've caught up to each other because it's the same Crown lawyer, and they've been playing
00:25:00.780some games. We sent them our affidavit of documents, which is basically a list of our
00:25:07.420evidence, and they didn't reply back. So I went into the court to force them to give me a list
00:25:14.700their evidence. We've now ended up in case management and we are before the case management
00:25:19.980justice next week and I'm looking forward to hearing the Crown lawyer defend why he can't
00:25:27.100give me a list of his evidence to defend because at this point they've got no evidence and the
00:25:32.860longer they delay the better it is for me because now we're well over 300,000 pages of evidence of
00:25:39.980wrongdoing in the Canadian armed forces. So they keep delaying, it's just going to get worse.
00:25:46.380I seem to recall, and I might be mixing up the case, but when there was the lawsuit against the
00:25:51.580federal air travel vaccine mandate, I think the applicants had a similar issue in that it was like
00:25:57.580pulling teeth to get the government to provide the evidentiary basis it had for this policy, which,
00:26:03.580I mean, maybe in politics you can get away with fudging on the evidence, but in a court there is
00:26:07.500still a process and if you don't provide evidence for your side of it you don't actually have a
00:26:11.820case do you right yeah so this is exactly what my motion in january when i filed it was saying well
00:26:17.580if they don't want to provide me with any evidence to defend then i want uh leave of the court to
00:26:24.220bring a summary judgment give us what we ask for because you can't defend against what we've claimed
00:26:28.940um they're in a bit of a situation here because uh cap is well known for blocking any access
00:26:37.420information requests but we spent two years very quietly asking for information through access to
00:26:44.380information requests and we collected hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence before they
00:26:50.060even knew we were bringing a lawsuit because not one of those requests came out of my office they
00:26:54.220were all done by private individuals um so we've kind of gone around done an end run around them
00:27:01.500and we have a lot more evidence i think than they realized that we have we would have going
00:27:05.420into the lawsuit. In my opinion, I think they're also trying to delay moving into depositions
00:27:17.180where I'm going to be calling General Eyre, General Cadu, General Fortan, Admiral McDonald,
00:27:25.340all of those are going to be called to testify under oath. And when General Whalen's court
00:27:31.580marshal was coming along the day before they wanted to have air testify at that they dropped
00:27:38.220the charges to keep him from having to testify under oath so interesting well they're terrible
00:27:43.900they're terrible with access to information requests i filed one in january about tampons
00:27:49.020in washrooms on army bases because you know there was they were they were all getting removed by
00:27:54.140soldiers that thought it was nonsense when there's a tampon dispenser in the men's washroom and that's
00:27:58.860still taken over three months and i don't have the records yet so i feel like i have to buckle
00:28:02.780in for a long wait i'm i'm amazed you got all you did in two years given how dnd has been on these
00:28:07.980requests in the past well the information commissioner has actually been very helpful
00:28:12.060she has actually brought lawsuits against the calf to get documents that we have asked for
00:28:16.540um the longest uh access to information requests i thought uh it was a long time but there's some
00:28:23.660that have been years and years and years and they still don't have that information uh even though
00:28:29.340they're entitled to it so uh we we did it we kind of outmaneuvered the system which is what my
00:28:37.100clients hired me to do because after we tried the injunction i said okay we're gonna go deep we're
00:28:42.380gonna go dark and i've got all military people who are really good at keeping secrets if they have to
00:28:48.460and very smart and very motivated and they did fantastic work for me yeah it shows what happens
00:28:54.540when you alienate a very skilled dedicated group of people and they have an axe to grind time on
00:29:00.220their hands and those skills that were previously being deployed for the country and now are being
00:29:04.220deployed against the bureaucrats in the department keep in mind that these are people who know that
00:29:10.140the documents exist because they wrote the documents yeah so they know what to ask for
00:29:15.100which is so key it's not just a fishing expedition right yeah yeah they're like well here's my chain
00:29:20.940of command and i know i had emails with all of these people and in some cases they still had the
00:29:26.060email they they you know they brought it with them so we knew to send in the action uh information
00:29:32.380requests to get it legitimately through the process and then they'd say well though that
00:29:36.700that doesn't exist and we'd go yes it does well good stuff we'll uh wish you well on this catherine
00:29:44.380please do keep us posted as you work your way through the system here i sure will and we're
00:29:48.540also bringing a vaccine injury one we've got lots of members of the canadian forces who were injured
00:29:55.100from the moderna vaccine so that's coming up too all right well appreciate that very much
00:30:00.060katherine christensen from valor law out in alberta thank you so much katherine take care andrew all
00:30:05.580right well one issue that we have been covering all week has been the united nations ongoing
00:30:11.820efforts to push a plastics treaty we have the big confab in ottawa this week thousands of delegates
00:30:17.500from around the world we had the federal government on monday announce the formation of a plastics
00:30:23.020registry which will be coming around 2025 i believe and we've talked about some of the details on
00:30:29.420that but i think at its core we have to really go back to first principles here because what
00:30:33.740the federal government has done is really designated plastic as a toxin and once you've
00:30:39.340done that once you say plastic is toxic you're actually able to justify a lot which was why the
00:30:44.940federal government was slapped down in the way that it was when it had that single-use plastics
00:30:49.980ban the conservative party of canada now has decided to launch a campaign to bring back the
00:30:54.620plastic straws which uh you know isn't we don't have the photo handy but that's an issue near and
00:30:59.180dear to my heart the the plastic straw crusade by the government but let's actually talk about
00:31:03.660the science here we have always been told we have to follow the science what does the science say
00:31:09.180on plastics. I wanted to bring into the show Dr. Chris D'Armond. He's the president of Phantom
00:31:14.700Plastics. Now, he actually is an expert on this. He's not just a guy who is in the industry and
00:31:20.380represents a commercial interest. He actually knows the science in and out on this and has
00:31:25.020spoken about it around the world. Chris, it's good to talk to you. Thanks so much for coming
00:31:28.780on the show today. Yeah, thank you for having me on the show. I appreciate it.
00:31:31.900so let's talk first and foremost about that idea of plastic being a toxin what's the argument that
00:31:39.640they advanced to justify this and and why would you say they're getting it wrong or what are they
00:31:43.820missing yeah that's a great point so you can't just make up things and say this is that or that's
00:31:48.880the other i mean there are scientific ways of telling what's toxic and what isn't toxic
00:31:52.080so when that was that accusation was made i went and looked up the science and that's the problem
00:31:57.500in general people say um you know this person's for plastic against plastic we shouldn't be for
00:32:02.780or against anything we should be for finding what's true right and then once we found the
00:32:07.100evidence once we found what's true then we move on from there and make sensible choices and people
00:32:11.340have forgotten that they're so busy taking sides no one's checking the facts so i'm looking at a
00:32:15.980table right here which i've posted online which is you know the epa's definition of what's toxic
00:32:20.780and what's less toxic and if we look at um plastics we like polyethylene polypropylene pet
00:32:27.020and so forth we find that they're the safest things so there are four categories of toxicity
00:32:31.980they're in the safest category that there is so they're as safe as things we have on our table
00:32:37.500they're they're safer than table salt for example um and i'm looking at a list of there are safest
00:32:42.700alcohol which we drink every day that's the category that these plastics are in they're
00:32:46.460literally so safe you could eat them every day and nothing would happen to you so it's whereas
00:32:50.860if you look at things like copper metal which drinking water pipes are made of they're in the
00:32:54.540most toxic category so there are ways of telling what's toxic what isn't toxic there are literally
00:32:59.740numbers that define how much of this you can ingest and have a problem or not have a problem
00:33:04.140and plastics are simply non-toxic so for somebody to just make up in his bathtub one day this is
00:33:10.220toxic and i decree it so he's not julius caesar right i mean there are actual ways and scientists
00:33:15.020have been studying this for 50 years right this and it's it's all documented and available to the
00:33:19.660public so it's um beyond absurd that somebody should make such a proper proclamation well and
00:33:24.940i find that in this argument and certainly when you look at the policy response to it they conflate
00:33:29.500two issues because you could say plastic is non-toxic but there is a pollution issue and
00:33:33.980you could say we don't like plastic that's being dumped in the oceans and parts of the world but
00:33:38.060but you're right that when they use the toxic label to justify policy which is what the federal
00:33:44.060government in canada did it just doesn't have a basis at all so how do they argue that it is
00:33:49.500when the evidence is so clear on this that it isn't that's strange i haven't looked into their
00:33:53.420argument actually i haven't so i'm a scientist i said i don't think there's much there they just
00:33:57.100made it up i i do know that i looked the same guy and it's so funny that they call him right
00:34:01.100honorable because it appears to be any anything but honorable as far as i can tell because whenever
00:34:05.660i compare what he says to what science says they're the exact opposite he tried to ban a
00:34:10.140flame retardant called dbdpe and i wrote a report i was so outraged that i wrote a report and read
00:34:15.900all the science on that he proposed banning one of the safest flame retardants that prevents
00:34:20.300canadians from dying in their bed in flames uh based on zero evidence he had not one piece of
00:34:26.140experimental evidence upon which to declare this stuff is dangerous and there is science on that
00:34:31.660substance it's been thoroughly tested for years and years and years and found to be completely
00:34:35.340safe it's so safe that if you eat it like not a molecule of it dissolves because it's completely
00:34:39.420insoluble so they say that they're banning this flame retardant on the precautionary principle
00:34:45.020which means better safe than sorry. Whereas what they're actually doing is the opposite. It's
00:34:48.860better sorry than safe. You're saying, okay, I'd rather that hundreds of Canadians potentially die
00:34:52.620in flames on the one hand versus zero evidence of toxicity on the other. And that's what happens
00:34:57.480when you let ideology get out of control and forget to check the data. Just as a complete
00:35:03.140non-scientist here, I'll ask you, are all plastics, when it comes to the toxicity question,
00:35:08.040are all plastics created equally? Or is there a distinction between the plastic that's in a
00:35:12.920plastic straw and the plastic that's in an industrial PVC pipe? Yeah, well, in general,
00:35:17.800plastics are made of really big molecules. And so the FDA has declared them basically safe. So
00:35:22.460plastics are assumed to be safe because they don't migrate around. The molecules can't move.
00:35:26.880They can't go through your skin, for example. The molecules can't go through your skin. They're so
00:35:30.120large. So they're considered, due to their very nature, safer than almost all chemicals. Is there
00:35:35.520a plastic that's toxic? I don't know of one. I've looked at all the major thermoplastics and I don't
00:35:40.640think um i can think of a toxic plastic right now that's toxic and if another question that
00:35:47.040people ask is okay well maybe the plastic's not toxic but what about the additives in them
00:35:50.720and that tape table i just mentioned i looked up the toxicity of the standard additives in
00:35:54.800these plastics like polyethylene polypropylene and don't forget these are things fda approved
00:35:59.280that you can put them in your mouth and store food in them so they've already been tested and
00:36:02.640found to be safe we know what migrates out of them the additives if they come out and how much
00:36:07.360but these even the additives themselves when you check their toxicity they're the same as plastics
00:36:11.200they're so safe you can eat teaspoons of them and nothing happens to you might not be delicious
00:36:16.480though that uh but flavor flavor is not the uh the metric here so so let's take a look at what's
00:36:22.480happening in in ottawa this week we have uh the world leaders on this trying to convene to create
00:36:27.760a plastic treaty and you have the federal government in canada saying we need a plastic
00:36:32.640registry companies need to account for all that they're doing and creating i know you've actually
00:36:37.120consulted with a lot of these companies in the past. And as I've understood it, a lot of them
00:36:41.660are well aware of what they're producing and where it's going. I mean, this is just a basic part of
00:36:46.160what they're doing from an industrial perspective. And I don't see why the hand of government is
00:36:50.780what's needed here. Yeah. So let me give some perspective on that. My job is to be a plastic
00:36:56.520scientist, and I've done it for decades, right? The thing that I'm discussing with you today is
00:37:00.380not what I get paid to do. I'm not paid to be a plastic environmentalist. The reason I got into
00:37:04.280this is that my own daughters were taught lies at school and that made me angry so as a hobby i read
00:37:08.920four thousand scientific studies and i found that nobody's checking the facts the media aren't
00:37:13.160checking the facts apart from people like you who crusade for truth like i do and the green groups
00:37:17.960are making hundreds of millions of dollars from telling lies because every time you compare what
00:37:21.800they say to the facts you find that they're the exact opposite as i mentioned so have you ever
00:37:26.120heard that um we eat a credit card of plastics a week for example the latest scientific peer-reviewed
00:37:31.320study said it would take 20 000 years to eat a credit card of plastic but guess what these green
00:37:36.280groups have got that up on their websites right next to a big juicy donate now button right and
00:37:40.840if you want to understand something follow the money so i'm not here to defend plastics i'm not
00:37:45.000here to do anything other than take the evidence which was really tedious i didn't have these
00:37:49.480reading glasses before i started reading these thousands of studies so i take the evidence and
00:37:53.560present it fairly so if you look on my website or in my free book you'll see that everything
00:37:57.640that i quote is cited verbatim where i literally copy and paste from the study with zero spin
00:38:01.960and cite the study so you can click a link and go and check it yourself and that's where we should
00:38:05.800start let's not start with pro-plastic or against plastic let's start with what's true and what
00:38:10.120isn't true and um to your point probably the single most disappointing thing for me is that
00:38:17.000this thing with plastics is a big distraction if you look at what's actually harming the environment
00:38:21.400plastic is half a percent of the materials we use so in our obsession to talk about plastic
00:38:26.760all day and all night which is half a percent of the materials we use it's the greenest option
00:38:31.800in 90 percent of cases according to life cycle studies so we're obsessing over half a percent
00:38:36.520of all of our materials that's almost always the least harmful option and completely ignoring the
00:38:41.48099 of material which is almost always the the most harmful option so the issue isn't that
00:38:46.520plastics have an impact they certainly do and there is litter but it's not just plastic that's
00:38:50.840litter and it litter isn't caused by materials either it's caused by people so pretty much
00:38:55.720everything is off track here we're not making any impact and we're in fact doomed to failure if we
00:39:00.040keep obsessing over plastic and not talking about the 99 of problematic materials well and also a
00:39:06.280lot of these objectives from the green industry tend to butt up against each other i was skimming
00:39:11.560through your book uh the plastics paradox and one of the headlines you you cite is about coca-cola
00:39:17.640in that coca-cola was so committed to reducing its carbon footprint they uh got rid of aluminum
00:39:23.320and switch to plastic bottle collection so here you have again a company saying oh wow we have
00:39:27.720to do the right thing for the environment plastic is the environmental the environmentally superior
00:39:32.680alternative yes the only way to know what's more harmful and less harmful is something called a
00:39:37.080life cycle analysis and that's accepted by governments and ngos and companies all around
00:39:41.320the world and it's scientifically proven for 50 years and homes to become better and better
00:39:45.320and it's peer-reviewed so it's hard to cheat right there are five such studies on drink containers
00:39:50.200that you just mentioned and they all say that the plastic bottle causes least harm so why would you
00:39:55.160ever go to metal or glass which is scientifically proven to cause vastly more harm and i'm not just
00:40:00.520talking about co2 vastly more fossil fuel burned because you need a lot of energy to make to melt
00:40:05.640glass and metal and more of the other things as well like eutrophication and acid rain and so
00:40:10.680forth it's when you switch to an alternative you end up with more waste more and more harm in almost
00:40:15.480every parameter you can measure. Yeah. And the thing is that we have to look at what we are
00:40:21.240creating plastic to replace and what those alternatives are. I mean, people would love
00:40:26.860to say, all right, let's take the plastic bottle away. And sure, you know, maybe we could all use
00:40:30.900a reusable water bottle that somehow is better than a plastic water bottle. But for the most
00:40:36.320part, I don't think it works out. And anyone who's ever had reusable grocery bags knows you
00:40:40.400basically buy as many of them as you would use plastic bags because you forget them at home.
00:40:44.340And I somehow I feel that it's more intensive here. But plastic is replacing something. And, you know, I'll read the list that you have here. Paper, cotton, glass and metal.
00:40:55.700You have to pick one material of those. And plastic is generally the best of them.
00:41:01.120If you look at 100 lifecycle studies, plastic beats those materials in every study I've seen. The only things that are consistently greener than plastic are wood and wool.
00:41:09.320and unfortunately we can't run the internet based on you know based on a knitted computer and a
00:41:14.560and a wooden wooden wire is coming to our house and my wool straw hasn't taken off yet i need to
00:41:20.160go back and rework the prototype so yeah there are things that are greener than plastic in
00:41:25.440certain applications and i say that in my book because i am genuinely just trying to be honest
00:41:29.120here and show show people the facts so they can make smart choices so what we have is a bunch of
00:41:33.240green groups who as dr patrick moore said and i have his book in front of me here's two of his
00:41:37.320books this is a guy who was the president of greenpeace and he left in disgust and said they
00:41:41.860just make up lies for donations they abandoned the environment decades ago according to him
00:41:46.000and the other big green groups did the same thing they're making hundreds of millions from just
00:41:50.300saying things that aren't true when you check the science and that's the problem because government's
00:41:53.820listening to these people i was just in ottawa with a bunch of these people all around telling
00:41:58.440you know just telling whoppers all day long and whereas the plastics people are in there
00:42:02.080spending hundreds of millions of their own money losing money sometimes doing things which are the
00:42:06.620right thing to do, even though they might not be profitable. It's exactly the wrong way around.
00:42:10.520When we're kids, we're taught that it's the big bad industry. And then there are these crusaders
00:42:14.340for truth. But this has been distorted and turned the other way around where the people that we
00:42:18.340think crusade for truth are just telling us lies all the time. So let me ask you, and I fear I know
00:42:24.780the answer to this, but perhaps you can set me at ease. Do governments call you up? Do politicians
00:42:29.240call you up when they're putting these policies in place? Or is it done completely in the absence
00:42:34.020of all this evidence you've collected over the years?