Rebel News Podcast - SHEILA GUNN REID ｜ Tom Harris on whether Conservatives are ceding too much to the environmentalist left

00:00:00.000 How should the Conservative Party of Canada be talking about the issue or rather non-issue

00:00:05.000 of climate change depending on who you ask? I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.

00:00:09.900 I think there is a stark disconnect between how politicians talk and seem to care about

00:00:34.000 climate change and how normal people talk and care about climate change. As in, I think normal people

00:00:39.560 actually don't care at all except insofar as we might ask, how much is this going to cost us?

00:00:46.100 For example, right now, the city of Calgary has committed to an $87 billion climate change scheme.

00:00:57.200 Now, did Mayor Gioti Gondek campaign on that? Nope. What say do the taxpayers of Calgary get in any of

00:01:06.120 this? Well, absolutely none. And this flows directly from the non-binding declaration of a climate

00:01:13.940 emergency the city of Calgary brought forward not all that long ago. You see these non-binding things

00:01:19.620 quickly become binding once they start writing policy around them. Now, my guest tonight is Tom

00:01:26.100 Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada and he recently wrote an op-ed

00:01:30.560 in the National Post about how he thinks the Conservative Party of Canada should start discussing

00:01:37.120 these issues. He says they should not be using the language of the left to talk about climate change.

00:01:44.680 That's just conceding too much ground to the enemy on this issue. And when I say the enemy,

00:01:51.740 I mean the people who want us to pay to change the weather. Now, I've got a long conversation

00:01:57.580 with Tom, so I'm just going to shut up right now and throw to the interview we recorded yesterday

00:02:03.360 afternoon.

00:02:11.120 So joining me now from his office in Ottawa is good friend of the show, Tom Harris from the

00:02:16.340 International Climate Science Coalition Canada. And last time I talked to Tom, it was way back

00:02:23.200 in May, and he was just headed into the Canada Strong and Free Conference. That's what they call

00:02:29.560 the Manning Centre Conference these days. And Tom sort of did a straw poll of the people who were in

00:02:37.560 attendance about what they thought the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada

00:02:42.100 should consider as their climate policy. And that led into an article that was, you know, to their

00:02:48.100 credit, published in the National Post. Tom, thanks for joining us. Tell us what you found out when you

00:02:53.260 were, you know, polling the attendees, and how that turned into an article.

00:02:58.140 Yeah, that's right. It turns out that the general rank and file of the Conservative Party,

00:03:03.500 the grassroots, were very, very supportive of our point of view on climate change. And I'll just get rid of

00:03:09.780 my virtual background for a second. Here is the actual banner that we had. There is no climate

00:03:15.840 emergency. And I went on to say, climate change is natural. Trying to stop it will only bankrupt our

00:03:20.900 society and put our most vulnerable people at risk. Now, it's interesting that we had literally hundreds

00:03:27.800 of people actually come up to us and say, yeah, we agree completely. And we wish to heaven that the actual

00:03:34.300 candidates for leadership would be saying this sort of thing. So they were very frustrated. We went

00:03:39.760 into the actual debate that they had there. Everyone was there except Patrick Brown. And

00:03:45.140 they actually indirectly supported the climate scare. They generally didn't say much about

00:03:50.400 climate change in that debate. But there's a huge disconnect between what the grassroots want. And

00:03:55.880 after all, they're the ones that are going to vote for leader and what the leadership candidates

00:04:00.140 are saying. You know, Pierre Polyev is a good example. And it seems likely that he's going to win.

00:04:05.360 I mean, my contacts within the party tell me it's almost certain he will. But while he doesn't

00:04:10.660 obvious, I mean, it's not 100% sure that whether he believes or doesn't believe the climate scare,

00:04:16.080 but I get the impression he very definitely doesn't. But what he's doing is he's promoting

00:04:21.000 the idea that we have to store carbon dioxide underground. He calls it carbon sequestration

00:04:26.740 and carbon emissions. You know, he's using the language of the enemy. In fact, Sheila, it's really sad

00:04:31.980 because, you know, my contacts in the party, they're actually saying that in some ways, Pierre

00:04:37.020 is he's campaigning for the liberals, because what he's doing is he's supporting the climate scare.

00:04:43.900 He's he's saying that, in fact, you know, carbon dioxide is this big problem. We have to

00:04:48.360 put it underground. I mean, that's what he's saying indirectly. He's also promoting electric vehicles.

00:04:53.900 He's also saying that we should be encouraging developing countries to get off coal, which,

00:04:58.820 of course, is a major source of electricity in China and India, and switch over to clean Canadian

00:05:04.400 natural gas. The objective, of course, being to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So sadly,

00:05:10.220 Pierre is not doing what the base want. In fact, none of them are. I think some of them,

00:05:15.600 in particular, Jean Charest is probably pretty hopeless. I don't think you're ever going to see

00:05:19.820 him being a climate realist. And of course, the reason is that Jean Charest, as environment minister,

00:05:25.280 led the Canadian delegation to the Rio conference in 1992, that got Canada into this whole mess in the

00:05:32.900 first place. You know, that's where we signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which

00:05:37.240 underlies all the UN agreements. And that Framework Convention is a real problem, because it gives an

00:05:43.740 out clause, as we've talked before, to all developing nations. China was considered a developing nation in

00:05:50.040 1992. They had no billionaires. Now they have, I don't know, maybe 200. I mean, they've got lots and

00:05:56.420 lots of world's second largest economy, or first, depending on the day. And yet they're still

00:06:01.400 classified as a developing country under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. And you might remember

00:06:06.560 what the Chinese delegates said in Peru, when he was questioned about whether or not that China would

00:06:13.480 consider getting off that status. He said, no, he said, the purpose of the Paris Agreement is to

00:06:19.740 enforce the Climate Framework Convention on Climate Change, not to change it. So they've got a sweetheart

00:06:26.160 deal. So what Pierre should be saying, and this is the kind of messaging that, you know, is pretty

00:06:32.620 straightforward to give. And I think the major concern among all the candidates is if they say things

00:06:38.260 like we say, which I just said on the on the banner, that they'll be called climate change

00:06:43.420 deniers. They're really scared about that. So here's a three step approach that Pierre should

00:06:47.940 be taking. And in fact, they should all take. I'm hopeful that Roman Barber eventually will take this

00:06:52.980 approach. But so far, he's been noncommittal on on climate. He's apparently just, you know,

00:06:57.880 frightened of the topic because it's so politically incorrect. And I think he is not a climate alarmist.

00:07:03.320 No, I don't think so either.

00:07:04.460 In my discussions with him, it's pretty clear that he's quite realistic.

00:07:07.320 And I don't think Pierre is a climate alarmist either. The first thing he should stop doing

00:07:12.440 is stop campaigning for the liberals. In other words, stop promoting the climate scare. Stop

00:07:19.040 saying things like carbon sequestration. Do you know what carbon sequestration is to me? Grass.

00:07:25.480 Yeah, grass. Grass pulls it out of the atmosphere and uses it and grassland grazing cattle. That's

00:07:32.560 carbon sequestration if you care about those sorts of things. Yeah, completely. But you know what,

00:07:37.160 Pierre says, and I've had email exchanges with him, and he's actually answered personally to his

00:07:41.220 credit. I'll bring this point up. And he says, No, we're not going to have Trudeau's carbon tax.

00:07:46.280 And I say, Okay, great. What are you going to have?

00:07:48.820 We're going to have carbon dioxide sequestration. Although there's the other problem. He's got to

00:07:55.460 change his language. It's not carbon emissions. It's not carbon pollution. It's carbon dioxide.

00:08:02.520 Okay, that's the first thing all candidates should do right away. Stop calling it carbon emissions,

00:08:07.420 because carbon is soot or graphite. I mean, if you think of it, soot is real pollution.

00:08:13.080 Sure.

00:08:13.280 Okay. Yeah. In fact, during the early days of the coal, use of coal, we, in fact, saw lots of

00:08:19.800 real pollution. So yes, we should reduce that. But carbon dioxide is plant food. And in fact,

00:08:25.880 most of the plants in our environment outside evolved at a time when carbon dioxide was much,

00:08:30.800 much higher than today. And in fact, if you doubled carbon dioxide from today's levels,

00:08:36.080 from 420 to 840, it would only be positive. That would be the only impact. We would have a lot more

00:08:43.080 plant growth. We'd have plants growing in areas that are currently too dry, because as CO2 increases,

00:08:48.920 you need less water. So we can actually have crops in areas, you know, that are actually currently too

00:08:54.640 dry. So first of all, stop using their language. And language is just so, so important. You remember 0.99

00:09:01.280 the appendix to 1984? It was all about new speak, how you change the thinking pattern of the population

00:09:07.940 by using language that triggers certain ideas and emotions and things like that. Well, carbon

00:09:14.180 emissions triggers a negative emotion, an image of, you know, black soot, that sort of thing. So first 0.94

00:09:20.300 of all, Pierre and all candidates, stop calling it carbon pollution, stop calling it carbon emissions,

00:09:26.120 carbon sequester. No, no, it's carbon dioxide. They could do that change tomorrow, and nobody would

00:09:32.860 really notice. And they would actually be stopping supporting the climate scare. They'd stop campaigning

00:09:38.260 for the liberals. The other thing, of course, is that Pierre has to stop giving these messages that

00:09:43.920 imply that he thinks we have this big emergency. Get rid of your sequestration. That's a very dangerous

00:09:49.620 thing, if you think about it. You know, there have been cases in history, in the Cameroons, for example,

00:09:54.960 in Africa, where there was a big emission of carbon dioxide. A big bubble came up through their lake.

00:10:00.980 I think it was Lake Lagos. I'm not sure. But what happened is this massive bubble of carbon dioxide

00:10:06.900 escaped, and it was natural. And it rolled down the valley through the Cameroons, killing livestock and 0.89

00:10:15.000 people and everything. And there's an interesting story about a man who saw all these things dying

00:10:19.920 around him. But of course, it's invisible. He didn't know what was causing it. So he jumped on his

00:10:24.700 motorcycle and he just went zooming off as fast as he could. And by very good coincidence, he zoomed in

00:10:30.180 the right direction. So he got out of the bubble, although he couldn't have seen it, and he survived

00:10:35.960 to tell the story. And that led to massive death in the Cameroons, especially of livestock, because

00:10:42.340 carbon dioxide escaped naturally and it's heavier than air. So it displaces there and basically you

00:10:48.560 suffocate. So you don't want to have a carbon sequestration, carbon dioxide sequestration

00:10:53.720 station anywhere near your home. Can I tell you that I do? I do.

00:11:00.460 Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry.

00:11:02.040 Because I'm near the refineries. And so this is something that refineries usually just sign on to.

00:11:08.100 They get grants from the government to do it. And the reason the refineries are near here is because

00:11:13.160 there are salt caverns below. And so then they eject their CO2 down there and they say, look at us.

00:11:20.460 Well, at least you know where it would be coming from. So you'd know what direction to zoom off in.

00:11:24.700 Exactly.

00:11:25.060 You start noticing everything falling dead. So yeah, this CO2 sequestration is a huge mistake. And

00:11:31.800 Pierce should not be saying that. It's going to massively increase the cost of electricity. I mean,

00:11:36.560 perhaps even double it. And of course, it's dangerous in the long run. If you start putting it all over

00:11:42.340 the place, eventually one of them is probably going to leak. The other thing is EVs. Why is he

00:11:47.160 promoting EVs? Well, of course, the whole concept behind that is that it's supposedly going to reduce

00:11:52.580 carbon dioxide. But you know, we interviewed an engineer, Ronald Stein from California, who's done

00:11:59.060 the full lifecycle analysis on electric vehicles. And he finds that when you count the actual mining and

00:12:05.820 the manufacturing and refining of all the materials to make EVs and to make their batteries, you end up

00:12:11.680 within the complete lifecycle, you end up with more carbon dioxide emitted than if you just use a

00:12:17.740 gasoline powered car. So if you're really concerned about CO2, and of course, I don't think people

00:12:22.780 should be. But if you are, then don't buy an EV because it's actually more carbon dioxide. So Pierre,

00:12:29.500 stop promoting EVs. That's dumb, especially in Canada. You'd laugh, Sheila, here in Ottawa, we're going 0.99

00:12:34.820 to have all electric buses. And the Auditor General just said recently, Auditor General of Ottawa,

00:12:39.860 that it might be a good idea if the city were to actually test them in the winter.

00:12:44.540 Yeah, that's probably a good plan.

00:12:47.600 The city of how to pilot bus project, and they tested it in the spring, summer and fall,

00:12:52.140 but they never tested it in the winter. You know, and of course, in Germany, we have buses

00:12:57.580 in their winter, which is much more mild than ours. And, you know, they broke down halfway around

00:13:02.940 their routes and had the people had to be rescued by internal combustion driven buses. And of course,

00:13:08.840 the last thing is, don't push developing countries to get off of coal for the sake of climate. I mean,

00:13:14.960 first of all, coal is a wonderful energy source. It's very dense. It saved our forests. Okay,

00:13:21.400 if you go back in time to before we had our forests, they were completely denuding England

00:13:26.040 to get wood. Okay, so coal was a was a great discovery. And it was something that we were able

00:13:32.840 to then help save the environment. If anything, we should be encouraging developing countries to use

00:13:39.040 the cleanest coal technology. Okay, to use the best scrubbers and the best pollution control. But

00:13:45.560 trying to get them off coal, that's really criminal, because that's going to massively increase their

00:13:50.660 cost of electricity. And that's the last thing they need. So, so Pierre has to basically stop those

00:13:55.920 two things. Then the question is, what should he say about climate change? Well, of course,

00:14:01.180 two things. One is he should say, considering the fact that Canada has so little influence on world

00:14:07.360 emissions, at the very least, we should be focusing more on adaptation. And concerning the idea that we

00:14:14.780 are causing dangerous climate change, what Pierre should say is, look, I really care about the environment.

00:14:20.540 I also care about our economy, I care about, you know, Canadians futures. So if we're going to spend

00:14:26.880 hundreds of billions, and remember, what was it, the environment minister said, since Trudeau came in,

00:14:33.300 they spent 110 billion on the transition to supposedly to transition to new energy sources to supposedly stop

00:14:40.640 climate change, 110 billion. So I mean, that gives Pierre a great opportunity to say, look, if we're going

00:14:46.360 to spend that amount of money, we're going to have to have a good solid look at the science. And we'll

00:14:52.300 bring in scientists on both sides of the climate debate, and we'll have open hearings, so the public

00:14:58.100 can hear what's really going on. And then we'll make decisions based on the best available science,

00:15:04.460 it's time to cancel, cancel culture, we'll get rid of that, we'll bring in scientists who actually study 1.00

00:15:11.540 the field, and let the public actually hear. And then we'll decide what we should do with respect

00:15:17.520 to emissions reduction. Now, in that case, you know, he'll still be criticized as a denier. And so

00:15:23.720 the answer to that... He is anyway, who cares? Yeah, yeah. So the answer to that as well is your case

00:15:29.300 so weak, it cannot withstand rational debate. Right. Okay, if you're so confident that the science

00:15:35.920 supports your plan, Mr. Judeau, or Mr. Charest, then why are you afraid of hearing both sides of

00:15:43.480 the argument? And, you know, it actually reminds me of a scene in Star Trek, The Next Generation. And,

00:15:48.980 you know, I've always been a Star Trek fan. Data, the robot was sent to evacuate a colony because these

00:15:54.400 nasty aliens were coming to reoccupy their own, their own colony, because they actually had it 1.00

00:15:59.140 originally. And the colonists didn't want to hear anything. And so Data said, is your point of view so 0.96

00:16:05.320 weak, it cannot withstand rational debate, at which point they zapped him and they turned him off.

00:16:10.840 That's what they do to us now. Yeah, exactly. So, so I mean, Pierre has to recognize a couple

00:16:16.760 things. First of all, he's currently, as I say, campaigning for the liberals, because he's promoting

00:16:21.920 the climate scare. And people who really care about, care about climate change are going to vote

00:16:27.300 liberal. They're not going to vote for the conservatives, weaker climate change approach. I mean,

00:16:32.840 he's not going to get any new supporters by being a climate alarmist, because they're just going to go

00:16:37.700 to what they consider the people who have the most extreme plan, which is the liberals or the NDP.

00:16:42.780 So and also at this point, he's supposed to be appealing to the grassroots, the base. And the

00:16:49.920 base has made it very, very clear with O'Toole, with Andrew Scheer, that they are very much against

00:16:55.780 this sort of pandering to woke political correctness on climate change. They're sick of it.

00:17:01.220 Okay. And at the conferences, I say, we had hundreds of people say, damn, you're you guys 1.00

00:17:06.360 are right. You know, like, why are you? Why are our leaders supporting the climate scare? This is 0.98

00:17:12.040 terrible. And it brings up the article that I had published on June 1, in the National Post,

00:17:17.740 the Financial Post section. It's interesting, Sheila, in the United States, a few years ago,

00:17:22.580 they actually were trying to determine what is it that most causes public opinion on climate change?

00:17:28.840 What is the big driver of public opinion? Now, the people doing the poll thought that we had a

00:17:33.940 climate emergency. So they were trying to figure out how can we get people more enthusiastic?

00:17:38.440 Yeah, right. So they looked at things like, is it the science? Is it the statement of the media?

00:17:43.980 Is it the statement of pressure groups? Is it the actual weather around them? Or is it the elites in

00:17:50.800 society, in particular, the politicians? And it was that last group that was by far the biggest

00:17:57.040 driver. And they gave good examples. For example, when the Republicans supported the climate scare,

00:18:02.600 like with John McCain, and, you know, both sides of the aisle were supporting the climate scare,

00:18:07.940 the support for strong action to stop climate change, that was quite high in the United States.

00:18:13.840 But when the Republicans were saying, yeah, well, you know, we think we should have adaptation,

00:18:19.200 you know, we should study the issue more or whatever, when they were actually not promoting the

00:18:23.960 climate scare, support in the public dropped off, not a little, but considerably. And so these

00:18:29.800 researchers from McGill University, Ohio State and Drexel University, they concluded that the major

00:18:36.180 driver of public opinion on climate change is the opinions of the elites, and in particular,

00:18:42.560 the opinions of politicians. So, you know, I hear from the Conservative Party quite a lot that

00:18:47.860 they will be climate realists, they will actually promote what's true, when public opinion supports

00:18:54.660 it. They're going to wait for a very long time, because what they don't understand is their own

00:18:59.840 power to influence public opinion. And I don't mean it doing it out of the blue, just a sudden pop,

00:19:06.700 because, you know, Danielle Smith did that in a CBC sponsored event, where she just suddenly expressed

00:19:12.800 some climate realist type points of view, and she didn't do it strategically intelligently.

00:19:17.540 So she got booed, and she was just criticized like crazy. But of course, that's what's going to

00:19:22.660 happen if you're dumb about it. I mean, if you don't, if you don't present it in such a way, 0.99

00:19:28.220 gradually over time, stop calling it carbon, stop promoting the climate scare, and then eventually start

00:19:34.900 promoting something that makes sense. If you actually have a proper strategy, yes, you can do that. And you

00:19:40.580 can also then lead public opinion to go in that direction. You know, your public opinion polling

00:19:46.720 data about when, you know, the parties are in conformity, and when they have divergent viewpoints,

00:19:53.820 it reminds me of this thing that Ezra always talks about. And then he'll also sometimes when he's

00:19:58.880 really enthusiastic, he'll make us watch a video from 1951 on his cell phone, and he makes us all

00:20:04.140 gather around. But it's the Solomon Asch conformity experiment. And so in 1951, they, it was an

00:20:12.640 experiment to see if you would deny what you know to be true, to go along with the group, because you

00:20:19.360 don't want to be the one sticking out. And it was they would show lines. And the other people were

00:20:26.420 told which, what thing they should answer versus what was reality. And then the test subject would,

00:20:33.940 they would look at the lines and say, which one is the tallest, there were three lines.

00:20:37.140 And the other people would say, Oh, it was line three, even though it was line one. And they found

00:20:42.880 that the subjects would go along with the group, even though they obviously knew what the right

00:20:48.620 answer was. But they would say, you know what, maybe, yeah, maybe it is line three that is the

00:20:52.160 tallest, even though line three is like this and line one is like that. I know they're wrong,

00:20:56.360 but why should I make waves? Two. In this case, the subject knows he is right, but goes along to avoid

00:21:02.480 the discomfort of disagreeing with the group. Until such time as somebody in the other group

00:21:08.180 broke ranks and said, actually, I think it's one. And then the test subject would be more likely to

00:21:14.800 say, you know what, it's one also. With a partner yielding drops to only 5% of the critical trials

00:21:20.260 compared to 37% without a partner. And I think that's that sort of plays out across everything that

00:21:27.620 we talk about, whether it's about climate change, where there's complete ideological

00:21:31.300 homogeneity, lockdown restrictions. Once one person stands up, everybody else says,

00:21:37.540 you know what, me too. But it just takes that one person. So who's it going to be from the 0.99

00:21:43.580 conservative side of the debate? Well, that's right. And the party whip,

00:21:47.320 from what I've been told from inside, has told MPs, you cannot speak out against the climate scare.

00:21:53.220 So you have people, you know, like Brad Trost, who used to be an MP, and there's comments from

00:21:57.600 Humboldt, Saskatchewan. Very smart guy. Very smart guy.

00:22:01.100 I mean, he was a geologist, and he actually knew that the climate scare was completely bogus.

00:22:06.240 But if I understand rightly, he was forbidden from actually saying anything like that.

00:22:11.200 And probably the only person in the party actually qualified to talk about it.

00:22:15.240 Yeah, exactly. Exactly. And of course, then the party sabotaged him, and he's no longer an MP.

00:22:20.100 But, you know, just as another example of what you're saying, Sheila, whenever I go to a public

00:22:25.380 hearing, and there's a question period afterwards, I get to the mic as soon as possible,

00:22:30.320 right away. If I can be first, I am. You know, a lot of people will say, oh, wait and see how it

00:22:35.640 goes. You know, I don't want to be first. No, I want to be first, because you set the tone for other

00:22:40.540 people to then come to the microphone and also say, yeah, you know, I have a doubt about this climate

00:22:45.520 scare issue. I remember back in the 30s, you know, my grandfather telling me about the Dust Bowl,

00:22:50.580 and they had far more extreme weather than we do today, which is actually true. And so what I do

00:22:56.640 is I get to the mic right away, or if you're calling into a radio talk show, do it early on,

00:23:01.800 because then other people hear it, and they're more likely to say, yeah, he's reflecting my point

00:23:06.700 of view, and they call in or they go to the microphone. So the conservatives have got to realize

00:23:10.960 they are the major driver, along with the rest of the politicians, for public opinion. So stop

00:23:17.780 waiting for public opinion, because you're never going to have it. And why does Pierre

00:23:22.540 Polyev want to preside over a failed country? I mean, that's essentially what will happen if 0.79

00:23:29.380 the climate scare continues, because, and you know, this is where the Canadian Energy Centre

00:23:33.560 are completely out to lunch. I had a letter to the editor published in the Calgary Herald just a few

00:23:39.580 days ago, in which I said, look, stop promoting the climate scare, because they talk about, oh,

00:23:45.000 our oil and gas doesn't produce as much greenhouse gases. So buy our oil and gas. No,

00:23:50.460 who cares? Carbon dioxide, our carbon dioxide is a great thing. In fact, it's interesting,

00:23:56.700 Patrick Moore, who used to be, of course, one of the founders of Greenpeace, he was one of the

00:24:01.000 founders. He's now actually joined our board of directors. Oh, great. Yeah, he's wonderful.

00:24:06.420 Anyway, he shows a graph of decreasing carbon dioxide over millions of years before humans started

00:24:12.800 burning fossil fuels. And what he shows is that if we had not started to release carbon dioxide,

00:24:19.360 you know, as a result of burning fossil fuels, we were actually headed naturally to one of the lowest

00:24:25.000 levels to a dangerously low level. You see, if you get down to 150 parts per million, we're currently

00:24:30.640 420, then what happens is plants start to die. And that has happened actually in the not too distant

00:24:37.240 past where we got close to that. During the last glacial period, we got down to about 180 parts

00:24:42.700 per million. So we were actually approaching the point at which life on Earth would begin to end.

00:24:49.140 And Patrick says, well, thank God we came along and started to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

00:24:56.500 You know, and also we do have to remember, Sheila, we're at one of the lowest levels of CO2

00:25:00.960 in Earth's history. I mean, we've had CO2 levels as high as 20 times today's level. I don't mean the

00:25:07.360 doubling that I'm talking about, which would be beneficial, by the way. I'm talking about 20 times,

00:25:12.000 thousands of parts per million, instead of 420. So you know what Patrick does is he actually shows

00:25:19.180 that carbon dioxide is wonderful. It's the gas of life. And we should want it to increase. Because

00:25:26.140 otherwise, nature was pulling us down to a dangerously low level. So yeah, the conservatives

00:25:31.560 have got to look themselves in the mirror and say, ah, we help drive public opinion. So we're going to

00:25:36.860 start giving the right messages, but in particular, stop giving the wrong messages.

00:25:43.460 Now, I want to talk to you. We'll just touch briefly on it. One of the subjects that you and I talk

00:25:50.500 about quite frequently is the climate strategy of Ottawa. And I thought it was enormous and crazy at,

00:25:58.040 I think, in excess of $60 billion. And Calgary said, hold our beer, because they brought in one

00:26:06.120 that's $87 billion. Yeah. And they want to go to net zero and all electric vehicles. Again,

00:26:14.780 this is the electric vehicles thing, by the way, Michelle Sterling has done a really good analysis 0.99

00:26:19.260 of this, where she said, our grid doesn't support these wild and crazy ideas. We don't have the energy

00:26:25.140 infrastructure to get to net zero vehicles the way these people want from us. But if you're talking

00:26:31.400 about a winter city, Calgary's it. And yet their mayor, brand new mayor, did not campaign on an $87

00:26:39.200 billion carbon tax bill, because that's what really this is. And yet they've imposed it. And nobody,

00:26:46.660 everybody always says, oh, these climate emergency declarations, they're simply symbolic.

00:26:51.200 Yeah. Until such time as they say, oh, that climate emergency thing that we just announced,

00:26:57.200 well, here's what we're going to, here's, that's the basis for this now.

00:27:00.840 Yes. Yeah, exactly. And in fact, as you might have heard, Ottawa just signed the fossil fuel

00:27:06.500 non-proliferation. Oh, good Lord.

00:27:08.500 So what we've got is a sequence of events. You've got the declaration.

00:27:11.640 Sorry, they're treating it like a bioweapon or like a nuclear weapon?

00:27:15.380 Yeah. Fossil fuels?

00:27:16.120 I should just read to you the purpose of the thing. It says the campaign for a fossil fuel

00:27:22.020 non-proliferation treaty was inspired by treaties that addresses the threat of nuclear weapons,

00:27:28.040 landmines, and other dangerous substances. Over the past year, the campaign has been supported by

00:27:33.360 101 Nobel laureates, 2,600 academics, 231 parliamentarians, hundreds of youth leaders,

00:27:41.400 and a growing group of faith leaders in more than 1,300 civil societies.

00:27:44.720 I'm not, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care what a bunch of teenagers think,

00:27:48.000 but they always say youth leaders. I'm like, uh, annoying teenagers. I've got some of those.

00:27:52.800 I go out of my way not to listen to them.

00:27:54.920 And you know, here's what, um, what's, how do you pronounce her name? Zipporah Berman?

00:28:00.980 Yes. Zipporah Berman.

00:28:02.340 Yeah. She's the chair for the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty out of.

00:28:06.100 Naturally.

00:28:06.260 She says by endorsing the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, the city of Ottawa is

00:28:11.760 taking responsibility for moving beyond fossil fuels and prior to prioritizing the protection

00:28:18.000 of people and the planet. Now, of course that is complete newspeak. I mean, that is completely

00:28:22.860 the opposite of what's happening. If we get rid of fossil fuels, and this is a very important point,

00:28:27.860 people should stop pulling their punches on. They should say it point blank. It's not protecting

00:28:32.700 people and it's not protecting the planet by getting away from fossil fuels. I mean, fossil fuels

00:28:37.700 are arguably the greatest invention of mankind. I mean, perhaps the development of writing was also

00:28:44.260 pretty darn important, but the fact is carbon dioxide. And here's something that people should

00:28:50.560 be quoting. Okay. I'll hold this up. This is a climate change reconsidered. I'll hold it in the right

00:28:56.120 spot here. There we go. Well, anyway, people can check it out at climate change reconsidered dot

00:29:02.080 org. And what it shows is that fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions is not a problem. They've done

00:29:09.120 other reports too. The most recent one is on fossil fuels and they show how it is a great generator of

00:29:15.440 wealth, of security, of solid energy. You know, so, I mean, the whole idea that they're prioritizing the

00:29:21.380 protection of people on the planet. No, you need to prioritize people by actually having the best

00:29:27.380 energy sources, by allowing people to have air conditioning and heating and things like that.

00:29:32.680 So, they have it exactly backwards. And I'll just read a couple other things. This treaty,

00:29:38.760 this nonproliferation treaty, actually started in the UK and was launched at Climate Week New York City,

00:29:46.440 September 25th, 2020. Okay. That's where it came from. And it's interesting. When they first started

00:29:53.260 talking about it, they were citing the Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere, which is in

00:29:58.460 1988, where the threat of climate upheaval, which is the term they used, was compared second only to

00:30:05.440 nuclear war. Okay. And so, here's what Ottawa's resolution was. And I don't know what the fraction of

00:30:13.920 the councillors voting for it. It's interesting, because when you actually look at the webpage,

00:30:17.500 trying to figure out, well, who the heck voted for this insane thing?

00:30:20.140 They don't tell you.

00:30:21.280 No, they say that the vote breakdown is not available. So, they say, this is, what's her name?

00:30:29.820 Catherine McKinney. She's the actual sponsor of it. She says, whereas the city of Ottawa declared a

00:30:36.500 climate emergency on April 24th, 2019. And that's key, eh? That, as you said earlier,

00:30:42.100 is the beginning of the chain of events that happens that leads to things that are really

00:30:47.160 crazy. Every time.

00:30:48.860 Yeah. So, you know, Calgary declared the climate emergency. What happened? Well, we were saying

00:30:53.300 this last time we spoke. They're going to soon have, and they now do have, an insane $87 billion

00:30:59.260 climate change master plan. Well, you can be sure they're going to next sign this fossil fuel

00:31:04.000 non-proliferation treaty. And so, Catherine McKinney says this, whereas the construction of new fossil

00:31:10.340 fuel infrastructure and expanded reliance on fossil fuels, it poses communities to untenable risks to

00:31:17.600 public health and safety. Now, that is weird. I mean, you get untenable risks to public health and

00:31:23.420 safety if you stop using fossil fuel. Right. Because, indeed, you don't have the energy you need to

00:31:29.400 actually survive extreme weather. She says, whereas a new global initiative is underway calling

00:31:35.500 for fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, that would, and this is the important point, this is

00:31:40.180 what it's supposed to do, end new fossil fuel exploration and expansion and phase out existing

00:31:47.460 production. And be it further resolved, and here's the next step, that the mayor, on behalf of the

00:31:54.280 council in the city of Ottawa, send a letter from the mayor to the Prime Minister of Canada, Premier of

00:31:59.760 Ontario, urging the Canadian and Ontario governments to support the global initiative for a fossil fuel

00:32:05.940 non-proliferation treaty. So, they want the whole country to sign it. And yet, you know, the thing is,

00:32:10.740 I mean, fossil fuels are, if not the major resource importance for all of Canada, it's a major driver

00:32:18.160 of our economy. Now, another topic is that today is the 53rd anniversary of the first landing on the moon.

00:32:25.360 And I, of course, as a space nut, I actually, you know, I'll just get rid of my background here.

00:32:33.240 There we go. Look at this.

00:32:34.740 Do you have that?

00:32:35.980 Yeah, this is the Montreal Gazette. The whole front page was a picture of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin

00:32:41.940 on the moon, okay? And then that was the Montreal Gazette. Here's the Montreal Star, which was a more

00:32:47.400 major newspaper at the time. I was actually a delivery boy. Gate to the universe opens, you know,

00:32:54.120 and they had the whole thing. And they had a 20-page section. And this just shows how, why, you know,

00:33:00.960 people like me became aerospace engineers. I mean, this was a very, very exciting time. I mean, look at the

00:33:06.340 back. They had literally 20 pages of moon stuff. I mean, I was in seventh heaven, quite literally.

00:33:13.680 Yeah.

00:33:13.980 Now, the reason I bring that up, tomorrow is the 53rd anniversary of the first moonwalk, okay, is because

00:33:20.960 guess who are climate realists? Guess who actually are? It's the Apollo astronauts. In 2012, 49 former

00:33:30.480 NASA scientists and astronauts signed an open letter to NASA to say, stop promoting the climate scare.

00:33:37.560 Rely on real data to tell us what's really happening. You know, one of their mantras, this group, was,

00:33:43.540 in God we trust, everyone else bring data. I thought that was kind of cute. But here are the

00:33:52.360 Apollo astronauts. By the way, Buzz Aldrin is a climate realist. He said point blank, and it's

00:33:58.840 been reported in various media sources, and he was the second man on the moon tomorrow, the 53rd

00:34:03.520 anniversary. He thinks the climate scare isn't founded. But in addition to that, we have Walter

00:34:08.500 Cunningham from Apollo 7. I've met him many times. Charles Duke, 16. Richard Gordon from Apollo 12.

00:34:16.780 And here's a fellow, Dr. Harrison Schmidt, Jack Schmidt. He actually was the only scientist to

00:34:22.920 walk on the moon from Apollo 17. And I had the privilege of introducing him a couple of times at

00:34:27.760 conferences. Very, very nice man. Al Worden from Apollo 15. These are all the Apollo astronauts that

00:34:34.200 signed this open letter to NASA saying, stop promoting this nonsense. You know, we also had

00:34:40.760 the flight director, Chris Kraft, from the Apollo mission. And it goes on and on. So, I mean, the idea

00:34:46.880 that we are causing dangerous climate change, there are many, many world leaders in science, the

00:34:52.800 astronauts, all sorts of people who are saying this, this is nonsense. So, at the very least, Pierre and

00:34:58.960 company should stop promoting it. Yeah, it's so bizarre because you have these scientists who

00:35:06.620 achieved this great feat, despite the technology in front of them, also brought to you by our old

00:35:14.620 friend Fossil Fuels. Yeah. And they are being told to shut up by teenage girls like Greta Tenberg. And it

00:35:22.140 just, it's fascinating to me that that's where we've gone as a society. But these guys who achieved this,

00:35:28.960 great thing through science and grit and innovation and being able to think about solutions outside of

00:35:37.540 the box, which we are not allowed to do anymore. We're only allowed to be ideological conformists

00:35:42.460 and scientific conformists. We aren't allowed to innovate. These guys achieved this thing because

00:35:47.840 they were allowed to think differently. And now they're being told to shut up and called

00:35:53.720 unscientific science deniers. Yeah. And you know, the astronauts, generally speaking,

00:35:59.100 are committed environmentalists. I mean, like Buzz Aldrin when he walked on the moon. And remember,

00:36:04.640 Buzz Aldrin has a PhD from MIT in astronautics. Okay. This is a very, very bright man. A very brave man

00:36:12.660 too. I mean, they had no backup. If they couldn't launch, they were stuck on the moon. You might remember

00:36:17.400 that Richard Nixon actually had a backup speech to give. They came in peace for all mankind and they

00:36:24.020 will rest in peace for all mankind. He had the speech prepared for them unable to leave the moon

00:36:30.040 because they had one engine, one engine. That was it. They had no backup. Nobody can rescue them.

00:36:35.220 They didn't have enough air to last for more than three days. So they were dead if their rocket didn't

00:36:40.120 work. So extremely brave men. But you know, the interesting thing is Buzz Aldrin said that the thing that

00:36:46.080 astounded him is that when he reached up with arm's length, he could cover the earth with his thumb.

00:36:52.220 Yeah. Everything on humanity, everything on the planet was everything he ever knew was covered by his 0.96

00:36:58.300 thumb. So you know, the astronauts are very strong, committed environmentalists. So people might say, oh,

00:37:03.060 they're climate change. No, no, these are top scientists. They may have been astronauts too. But they're

00:37:08.760 also very well qualified scientists as well. And also committed environmentalists. So I mean, if they can tell us

00:37:15.360 this sort of thing, that the climate scare is ridiculous and dangerous, actually, because it's

00:37:19.860 getting us off of our most valuable source of energy, which is fossil fuels, then yeah, everybody

00:37:25.940 should be talking about this. And so that's what I think of when I think of, you know, the moon day,

00:37:31.400 which is what today is.

00:37:33.420 Now, I wanted to ask you about the Dutch farmers protest, because my concern is that this is obviously

00:37:39.380 on its way to Canada, because the CETA agreement, the Canadian European trade agreement that was

00:37:46.240 drafted by Christopher Freeland, shoehorned a whole bunch of gender nonsense. And more importantly, 0.54

00:37:55.660 the Paris climate change targets, those were written into the agreement. And because Holland is this

00:38:01.240 enormous agricultural exporter, their government is now imposing these nitrogen targets on their

00:38:09.140 farmers. And I wanted to ask you about the nitrogen side of it. Because as a farmer, I know about

00:38:16.380 manure, nitrogen and manure. And I know about I know about the value of nitrogen in fertilizer,

00:38:24.820 in increasing yields and making food more affordable for people and farming more profitable for farmers

00:38:31.180 who are price takers and not price makers. So you know, when your yield suffers, you suffer. But

00:38:37.200 tell us about the science of nitrogen. Why do they hate it?

00:38:42.160 Yeah, nitrogen actually combines with oxygen to forms a compound called N2O. Okay, two nitrogen atoms in

00:38:49.540 one oxygen, nitrous oxide. And it is actually greenhouse gas. Okay, so if you're concerned about

00:38:55.660 greenhouse gases, you might want to reduce that. But in fact, it's interesting, Will Happer,

00:39:00.640 Professor Happer from Princeton University that we spoke about last time I was on,

00:39:04.440 he actually has done a very detailed analysis of the potential impact of all the different major

00:39:10.780 greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, water vapor, which is a big one, by the way, it's water vapor,

00:39:16.040 not carbon dioxide, and methane and nitrous oxide. And if people go to the ICSC-climate.com,

00:39:26.960 not ICSC-canada.com, which is this one, but our major international body, ICSC-climate.com,

00:39:34.460 right on the homepage, we have an interview with Professor Happer. And he wrote this really

00:39:39.780 exceptional paper analyzing what would happen if we double, you know, or other amounts of increase

00:39:45.520 of nitrous oxide. And like with carbon dioxide, he shows that the increase in temperature is very

00:39:53.260 minimal. Okay. For example, in the case of carbon dioxide, he says, if we doubled it from our current

00:39:58.440 level of 420 to 840, we would see a 1%, 1% change in the outgoing radiation from the earth. And that

00:40:08.060 would result in a temperature rise of less than a degree Celsius. And we're talking about a similar

00:40:12.780 kind of thing with the other greenhouse gases. So in fact, from a climate perspective, and that's the

00:40:17.980 major driver to try to reduce nitrogen. From a climate perspective, we should completely not worry

00:40:24.620 about nitrogen. And nitrogen is an extremely important ingredient in actually making plants work.

00:40:31.760 Right.

00:40:32.440 That's why they put it in fertilizers. So what's happened in Holland is in an attempt to reduce

00:40:38.000 N2O, the gas, the greenhouse gas, they're forcing farmers to reduce the amount of fertilizer they use.

00:40:44.620 And the forecast is that as a result of the Dutch plan, a third, 33% of all their farms will have

00:40:52.600 to close. Okay. Now the Netherlands is a major breadbasket for the whole of Europe. So this is

00:40:58.460 a complete and utter disaster. And Trudeau now is talking about the same kind of thing for Canada.

00:41:03.740 You know, they're not talking about as big a reduction, but still a very major reduction.

00:41:08.420 And so we should get on that topic, you know, now, because before it gets gathering steam,

00:41:14.300 because in fact, as I say, in Europe, it has already got to the point where they've passed

00:41:19.260 rules and laws, they're going to close a third of all of their farms. 1.00

00:41:24.520 And cull livestock, cull a third of livestock. What does that do? Like, we're all experiencing

00:41:29.700 food inflation. Imagine you're taking one of every three steaks, one of every three bricks of cheese,

00:41:37.900 right out of the grocery store. What does that do to the cost of food? Nobody thinks about these

00:41:42.300 things until you can't afford to feed your family. Yeah. And I've been told and actually

00:41:47.620 seen various interviews on this, that one of the drivers is that they want farmers to sell their

00:41:52.680 land to the government. Sure. You know, this is a World Economic Forum operative, quite frankly,

00:41:58.080 the head of Holland and like Trudeau and Freeland are as well. And so what they want is for state

00:42:04.280 control to actually control these lands, so they can do what they want with the land. And so the private

00:42:10.060 farmers are essentially going to be losing their farms in the tens of thousands, not just a few.

00:42:15.940 So, you know, the climate scare, Sheila, I mean, I think a lot of people never appreciated when it

00:42:20.280 started taking off, the kind of impact it would eventually have. I mean, the climate scare alone

00:42:26.320 is enough to totally ruin Canada. And I mean that seriously, because it will certainly ruin our fossil

00:42:32.960 fuel industry. And that's why it's so annoying when the Canadian Energy Centre are promoting the climate

00:42:37.580 scare. As I said in my letter to the Ottawa Citizen, or sorry, to the Calgary Herald, it's very much like

00:42:43.720 when we had this Cold War between us and the Soviet Union. You know, they would infiltrate the peace 0.99

00:42:49.420 movement with what they called useful idiots. Yeah. In other words, people who would actually try to 1.00

00:42:55.520 actually de-weaponize the West, okay, the Russians weren't going to de-weaponize, that's for sure. 0.80

00:43:02.520 They were actually trying to demilitarize the West, which would actually empower the Soviet Union, 0.92

00:43:07.480 and they would have more strength to invade other countries, etc. And they called those people

00:43:11.460 useful idiots. In other words, they thought they were doing a good thing, but they were in fact 1.00

00:43:15.800 sabotaging their own country. And sadly, Pierre Polyev, to a certain extent, I'm not saying he's an

00:43:22.260 idiot, but he is being a useful idiot on this topic. And similarly, the Canadian Energy Centre, 0.99

00:43:27.520 they are so frustrating. Not only have I written to them, but quite a number of other people have

00:43:32.180 shared their emails with me that they've written to the Canadian Energy Centre and say, look,

00:43:36.300 stop promoting the one thing that is the greatest threat to our fossil fuel future. You know, they

00:43:42.540 say we're in favour of fossil fuels, but oh, no, we want, you know, we're gonna, it's just so dumb.

00:43:48.120 So happily, I was surprised, actually, because normally the Calgary Hill doesn't publish me.

00:43:53.280 They did publish it, you know, just a few days ago. And so we've got all these useful idiots, 0.99

00:43:59.440 you know, the oil companies, you know, the Canadian Energy Centre, the politicians, 1.00

00:44:03.060 they're all promoting what is potentially going to destroy our country completely. And it's not just

00:44:10.800 the oil and gas sector, as you said, it's agriculture as well. It's concrete, it's steel,

00:44:15.280 it's all the things that we use to actually make our modern society run, will have to be cut back.

00:44:21.300 And what will happen? They'll ship them all to China. Okay, because China has no limits, 0.96

00:44:26.860 they can produce as much as they want. And of course, the big joke of it is,

00:44:31.320 the wind turbines that we buy from China, the power source they're using to make the wind turbines

00:44:36.300 material is coal. Right.

00:44:40.680 You know, it might take a little bit for some people to get abducted by reality, when, you know,

00:44:48.400 when they move to net zero transportation in the trucking industry, and then your food that is

00:44:54.300 already overly priced because of the restrictions put on farmers never comes to your grocery store.

00:44:59.880 And you have to spend a couple of days hungry. Maybe then, maybe then somebody will get it.

00:45:05.160 Well, Jay Lehrer, who's my co-author in America Out Loud, and he's like, you know,

00:45:08.620 we have the America Out Loud radio show. He says that what he thinks is going to be needed is to have

00:45:13.600 what happened in Texas happen over and over and over and over. In other words, the middle of the

00:45:18.160 winter, you're reliant on wind power, like they were 58% of the electricity came from wind just before

00:45:23.480 the storm hit. And suddenly wind went to zero. They had 700 people die as a result of the blackouts

00:45:31.460 caused by their over-reliance on wind power. And Jay Lehrer thinks that this is going to have to happen

00:45:36.980 over and over and over across the Western world before people wake up. And they say, look,

00:45:42.620 the idea that you phase out fossil fuels to help people, I mean, it's completely insane.

00:45:48.060 It's the exact opposite.

00:45:50.660 Tom, I could talk to you all day.

00:45:53.860 I think we're probably going to get kicked off our Zoom call. How do people find the International

00:45:59.760 Climate Science Coalition Canada? And more importantly, how do they support the work that

00:46:03.360 you do? Because you are really up against the deep pockets of the environmentalist movement,

00:46:09.160 so often foreign funded, money just flows to them. And you are one of just like a mere handful of

00:46:16.820 organizations fighting to have some realism and reality and actual science inducted into the

00:46:24.440 political science of the climate change argument.

00:46:27.100 Yeah, for sure. And me being based here in Ottawa is great because, you know, I get insight to what's

00:46:31.600 going on behind the scenes. And we're planning actually to meet with a number of them. I did meet

00:46:35.700 with Roman Baber and briefly with Shere. So we're going to be doing more of that. But yeah,

00:46:40.560 the group is called ICSC Canada. And the web page is ICSC-Canada.com. And in the upper right

00:46:48.860 hand corner is a little window. You can just fill in your email address. You don't have to tell us

00:46:52.700 your name or anything. Just put in the email address. And we'll start to include you in our

00:46:57.000 monthly newsletters. And we talk about all the media hits we've had, our plans for the future.

00:47:01.400 We've got some pretty incredible plans for the future, which I think people will really like

00:47:05.880 to hear of. So yeah, go to icsc-canada.com. Don't forget your podcast. You always forget

00:47:13.360 your podcast. And under this web page, we have resources and you can see exploratory journeys.

00:47:20.160 Our last interview was talking specifically about the Ottawa climate plan. And that applies directly

00:47:26.280 to Calgary. Get ready, Calgary. You know, you're going to have the fossil fuel non-proliferation

00:47:32.240 treaty rammed down your throat, which is kind of sad when you consider it's the fossil fuel capital of

00:47:36.960 Canada. And the last thing, of course, is the other side of the story, which if people go to

00:47:43.080 americautloud.com, click on shows, you can hear our show. And we do one of those every week. So

00:47:48.360 we're pretty active. We get to 30,000 listeners. So it's pretty good.

00:47:52.040 Oh, it's great. Well, Tom, I want to thank you so much for being so generous with your time all

00:47:56.040 the time and explaining these very complicated issues in a way that a normal lay person can

00:48:01.000 understand. I think that is a valuable thing that you do, because I think the other side of the

00:48:06.420 argument is often overly verbose in an attempt to confuse you and intimidate you from participating

00:48:12.340 in these conversations. That's right. Conservatives, stop supporting the liberals. Damn it.

00:48:18.380 From your lips to God's ears, Tom. We'll have you back on again very, very soon. 1.00

00:48:23.220 Okay. Bye-bye.

00:48:31.880 Well, friends, this brings us to the portion of the show where we actually want to hear from you.

00:48:35.700 Unlike the mainstream media who closes their comment section and limits who can reply to

00:48:41.600 their tweets, I invite your viewer feedback. I want you to tell me what we're getting right,

00:48:46.500 what we're getting wrong, and what you think about the topics we're covering in the guests

00:48:50.780 that we have on the show. That's why I give out my email address at Sheila at rebelnews.com. Put

00:48:56.040 gun show letters in the subject line so it's easy for me to find because I select those emails at

00:49:01.440 random. So the more you write in, the more chance you have of me reading your letter. But also,

00:49:07.280 please leave a comment on our Rumble videos or wherever you find our videos. I go looking there too

00:49:13.880 for your comments if you don't want to send me an email directly. Today, though, we're going back

00:49:18.580 to the email and randomly selected. It's Bruce. Again, Bruce, I think you live in Radway, Bruce

00:49:25.420 Atchison. Anyway, he writes to me and says, Hi, Sheila. I believe I will donate $20 to Friends of

00:49:31.300 Science. Michelle does excellent work, so I feel I should support it. Friends of Science does do

00:49:36.440 excellent work and Michelle works very, very hard. That's my friend, Michelle Sterling. She's the

00:49:40.900 communications director over at Friends of Science. And they do incredible work on a shoestring budget,

00:49:47.800 and they are up against the foreign-funded environmentalist movement in this country to

00:49:52.640 just act as a counterbalance, a little dose of reality and practicality in this overheated and

00:50:02.460 illogical debate about climate change. Anyway, Bruce keeps going. Regarding single-use plastics,

00:50:09.420 which is one of my favorite things to talk about, by the way, I love single-use plastics. And I think

00:50:14.540 plastic is a perfect garbage because it's inert and you get to use it once for the thing that you

00:50:21.060 get to use it for. And then if you're smart, you can incinerate it because it's a fossil fuel and you

00:50:28.860 can use that for energy to create electricity. Anyway, Bruce says, I often give shopping bags to my

00:50:34.820 friend who has four cats. She uses them for litter box liners. You know, I don't know anybody who

00:50:42.300 brings home a plastic shopping bag and then throws it in the garbage. Every single person I know uses

00:50:50.360 them for something else. I've got one in the little bucket I use for a garbage can under my desk here.

00:50:57.300 I think everybody uses them for that. I mean, I don't even remember the last time that I saw somebody

00:51:03.940 with a small store-bought garbage bag in their bathroom garbage. It's always a shopping bag,

00:51:11.480 right? Anyway, Bruce goes on to say, I also use worn out Ziploc bags to hold things like electrical

00:51:17.720 cables in. Those rectangular margarine tubs are great for storing leftovers or to keep those mice out of my

00:51:23.080 cereal. Those are food-grade plastic and quite sturdy. I donate small containers to my church so

00:51:28.380 people can take home excess food from Sunday lunch. Those Nesquik bottles are handy for powders like

00:51:33.760 sugar and salt. I use a larger one for dish soap. This also explains why I never rose through the

00:51:39.200 federal government ranks. I make too much sense. Yours in Sleepy Radway, Bruce and Delta the cat.

00:51:45.040 Now, Bruce is next level in his personal upcycling, but I think most people do this. I mean,

00:51:52.520 Bruce is in Radway. I'm also far out of the city, so you do get creative about the things you would

00:51:59.140 maybe recycle or throw in the trash because you're far from the city. You don't want to run to town

00:52:05.500 all the time that you need something, so you get creative about the things you have lying around.

00:52:09.520 That's ingenuity. And I think, though, however, not to maybe the extent that Bruce is, most people are

00:52:17.120 like this. People don't like to be wasteful and just throw things out, especially if you've already

00:52:23.300 been made to pay five cents for your shopping bag. You don't throw it out. You reuse it. It's the same

00:52:30.200 reason they make you pay five cents a deposit on a can of pop or a can of beer. It's so that you want

00:52:36.980 to get your five cents back out or at least your five cents worth. Same thing goes with those grocery

00:52:42.640 bags instead of banning them. Just let us continue to use them. What sense does it make to ban my

00:52:49.360 shopping bag on one side, but then now you're forcing me to buy plastic garbage bags to put in

00:52:55.820 my little tiny bucket that I keep under the desk? It doesn't make any sense, and it actually doesn't

00:53:00.460 prevent people from using plastic. It just makes them use different plastic instead of reusing the

00:53:05.400 stuff they already have. Anyway, it's the liberal logic. Who's to understand it? Definitely not me.

00:53:11.180 Well, folks, that's the show for tonight. Thank you so much for tuning in. I'll see everybody back here

00:53:16.480 in the same time, in the same place next week. And of course, remember, don't let the government

00:53:21.160 tell you that you've had too much to think.

00:53:41.180 You're welcome.

00:53:50.800 You did it.

00:53:52.900 I'm ready.

00:53:53.100 You know?

00:53:54.360 I'm ready.

00:53:55.000 You're welcome.

00:53:55.580 I'm ready to let the brus transactions in命

00:54:01.360 You're welcome.

00:54:03.360 It booty.

Rebel News Podcast - July 21, 2022

SHEILA GUNN REID ｜ Tom Harris on whether Conservatives are ceding too much to the environmentalist left

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript