Rebel News Podcast - Tackling the Conservative Party's self-made climate crisis

00:00:00.000 Hello Rebels, you're listening to a free audio only recording of my weekly Wednesday night show,

00:00:04.760 The Gun Show. Tonight my guest is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition

00:00:10.580 Canada and we're talking about the conservative answer to climate change and we're also analyzing

00:00:18.260 the conservative policy convention that decided for us that climate change is not something

00:00:28.340 anybody can talk about anymore. Thanks Erin O'Toole. Now if you like listening to the show then you're

00:00:34.000 going to love watching it but in order to watch you need to be a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.

00:00:38.300 That's what we call our long form TV style shows here on Rebel News. Subscribers get access to my show

00:00:43.540 which I think is worth the price of admission but they also get access to Ezra's nightly Ezra Levant

00:00:48.660 show, David Menzies, fun Friday night show Rebel Roundup and Andrew Chapados's brand new show

00:00:55.180 Andrew says and we added Andrew's show for the same price that we were charging before. It's only

00:01:01.920 eight bucks a month to subscribe and just for my podcast listeners you can save an extra 10% on a

00:01:07.560 new Rebel News Plus subscription by using the coupon code podcast when you subscribe. Just go to

00:01:14.220 rebelnewsplus.com to become a member today and now please enjoy this free audio only version of my show.

00:01:25.180 Some real tangible advice for how the Conservative Party of Canada should have handled the debate and

00:01:44.760 the issues around climate change at their recent policy convention. I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're

00:01:50.560 watching The Gunn Show. During the Conservative Party of Canada's recent policy convention held

00:02:12.900 virtually because of course the pandemic, uninspiring leader Aaron O'Toole suggested, sorry, commanded

00:02:20.400 that the debate around any issues of climate change are over. It's a deeply unconservative opinion for

00:02:29.620 any Conservative to hold. Not specifically about global warming but rather about anything. Conservatives

00:02:37.440 generally believe in the free and liberal exchange of ideas and the marketplace of ideas deciding which

00:02:44.420 ones are good and which ones are bad, which ideas fail and which succeed. And those sorts of decisions

00:02:50.520 cannot be made without debate and rigorous discussion. Ruling certain opinions off limits is liberalism.

00:02:58.940 It's cultural Marxism. It's tyranny against a free conscience. But I'm not Aaron O'Toole.

00:03:05.080 So I want to talk about these sorts of issues. I actually think that most people, as a rule,

00:03:12.780 don't really care about the dangers of climate change except for that they're constantly told

00:03:20.460 they should be caring about it. Constantly. Badgered by the media. So joining me tonight to discuss

00:03:27.180 what the Conservative approach should have been to the climate change debate at that policy convention

00:03:34.700 is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada in an interview we recorded

00:03:40.780 earlier this week.

00:03:42.260 So joining me now is Tom Harris. Tom is a good friend of the show, one of the most prepared guests

00:04:01.980 that I've ever had on the show, which I appreciate greatly as a scatterbrained journalist. Tom is with

00:04:07.020 the International Climate Science Coalition Canada. And Tom's joining me now to discuss

00:04:13.620 the Conservative Convention, if you can call it that, and a whole host of other things. Tom,

00:04:18.660 thanks for joining me.

00:04:20.980 Yeah, it's great to be on, Sheila.

00:04:22.660 Now, the first thing I wanted to touch base with you about is you wrote an incredible article sort of

00:04:28.760 in the wake of the Conservative Party Convention, and we'll get to that. But your article published

00:04:36.560 in Sun newspaper chains, which I think is, you know, every chance that our side of the debate can get

00:04:43.040 into mainstream media and change hearts and minds, people who might not normally see us,

00:04:49.600 I think that's great. And your article is called Adaptation, a Sensible Climate Policy for Conservatives.

00:04:57.280 I think it's great because there just aren't enough Canadians to make any sort of real change to the 0.95

00:05:05.540 weather. There just aren't enough of us.

00:05:07.780 Yeah, it's really quite ridiculous to be focused on emissions control. You know, and it really doesn't

00:05:13.100 matter whether you agree with the climate scare or you don't agree with the climate scare. Let's say,

00:05:17.560 for example, you agree and you think that we're causing dangerous climate change by our CO2 emissions.

00:05:22.140 Canada puts out 1.6% of world emissions. We're actually very environmentally conscious. Considering

00:05:28.800 our country's huge and very cold, that's actually very good. And, you know, China is double the output 0.98

00:05:34.720 of the United States, and they essentially are expanding without limit. I mean, people think

00:05:39.640 they're going to be held to a 2030 plateauing, but that's not the case, actually. And we've discussed

00:05:45.100 that in previous interviews. They're going to increase essentially forever.

00:05:48.500 And so the analogy I use, and this again is assuming you think we are causing dangerous

00:05:54.000 climate change, which I don't believe. But regardless, if you did, it's like you're sitting

00:05:59.160 in an inflatable life raft and the rest of the occupants are criticizing you vehemently

00:06:05.640 for puncturing it with a pin. While one of your fellow boatmates is cutting over the chainsaw

00:06:12.700 and they're just totally ignoring that person. And of course, that's what is in fact happening

00:06:17.000 on a CO2 emissions basis is that Canada's impact will have no, absolutely no measurable impact

00:06:24.940 on future greenhouse gas trajectory. Now, of course, if you think we aren't causing a climate

00:06:30.460 crisis, then again, reducing emissions is just a waste of time. In fact, it's worse than a waste

00:06:36.640 of time because it'll make us poor and that will affect us throughout all society, including

00:06:42.200 our ability to actually protect the environment. Now, what are some of these adaptations that you

00:06:49.260 would suggest that Canadians could make tangibly if they are concerned about climate change? And

00:06:54.560 I'm not all that concerned about it, but if there's somebody who's not like me,

00:06:59.640 what would you advise for them?

00:07:02.140 Well, I think the best example is here in Ottawa, a couple of years ago, we had a tornado.

00:07:06.300 Actually, we had several tornadoes. And part of the reason that some parts of the city were

00:07:12.320 without power for many days is because we have our electricity lines above ground hanging delicately

00:07:18.240 from telephone poles. I walked through Kanata, which is a suburb just west of Ottawa, and their

00:07:24.260 power was on everywhere because, of course, their cables were buried underground. Now, of course,

00:07:28.660 the actual reason why we lost power was more complicated than that, but that was a contributing

00:07:33.220 factor. So, indeed, we should bury cables underground so we will retain our electricity,

00:07:39.900 our internet, our cable TV, everything else. And a really good example of how this affects society

00:07:46.060 happened in New York City. In parts of Manhattan, they did not lose any of their services with regards

00:07:52.980 to telephone, television, or internet or anything else. And it's because they had their cables

00:07:59.040 underground. And this is when, in fact, a lot of the city was completely without a power. Now,

00:08:05.020 of course, there's other things that we can do to adapt to climate change. In parts of the Arctic,

00:08:09.160 you know, we see permafrost melting. In other parts, of course, it's getting colder. It depends

00:08:13.260 where you are. These are natural drivers. And, you know, what you see is if somebody's house is falling

00:08:19.080 down because it was built on permafrost that is now melting, they need help. Okay, that is a sensible

00:08:26.160 thing to do. So, indeed, if, you know, if we focus on emissions control and almost nothing on

00:08:32.740 adaptation, we're letting people suffer today due to natural climate change and extreme weather,

00:08:39.540 and maybe human-caused, I don't know. But the fact is we're letting them suffer now because we're

00:08:45.140 spending almost all our money trying to stop what might happen in 50 years. And, you know, this is a

00:08:51.900 really good attack point for the Conservatives against the Trudeau Liberals because, indeed,

00:08:57.400 we're only spending 13 percent of federal finance on climate on adaptation. 87 percent is going to

00:09:05.640 this fictitious idea that we can somehow magically Canada can stop climate change, you know, which

00:09:11.640 doesn't make any sense. And so what O'Toole and the Conservatives should do, and really what all

00:09:16.960 parties should do is say, look, we're elected by the people of Canada to benefit Canadians. And if you

00:09:24.100 have an adaptation policy, that will benefit Canadians. If you have an emissions policy, that

00:09:30.340 will give us nothing but problems. We'll have, you know, more expensive energy, carbon tax, it goes up

00:09:35.640 again 33 percent on Thursday, you know. And I don't know if you saw Laurie Goldstein's video on Sun Media.

00:09:42.240 It was very good. He pointed out that the Fraser Institute has done a study, and they actually

00:09:48.300 showed that if the carbon tax continues to rise to its target of $170 per tonne by 2030, the average

00:09:56.840 Canadian will lose $1,800 a year in their income and 200,000 jobs. So this is not trivial. I mean,

00:10:05.980 this is a very significant thing. He's talking about a $0.38 per litre increase by 2030 just due to the

00:10:13.700 carbon tax. So these are huge costs to Canada, and they have no benefit environmentally because

00:10:19.920 they're focused on carbon dioxide, which is not pollution. Well, and, you know, it's almost like

00:10:26.520 we're speaking two different languages. So conservatives, we say adaptation, and we mean

00:10:31.820 real tangible things. Right. And for the liberals, when we say to them, you know, we need to adapt to

00:10:39.220 climate change, for them, that means putting up wind turbines. And I don't think we have to look any

00:10:44.620 further than Texas and how the insertion of green energy into the grid has made them actually less

00:10:53.380 adaptable to extreme weather. If extreme weather, if that side of the argument is saying extreme

00:10:59.360 weather is becoming more prevalent, you can't put unreliable energy onto the grid, because it causes

00:11:05.660 a cascade of problems that leaves people without power for days. Well, you know, it's interesting

00:11:13.280 because the left wing media and politicians have done their best to take the blame away from wind

00:11:18.460 power for the Texas blackout. But in fact, this is all fake news, quite frankly, because shortly

00:11:24.660 before the winter storm hit Texas, the wind turbines were providing more than half of Texas's

00:11:31.220 electricity, more than half, I think it was 58%. And just before the storm hit, it went to virtually zero.

00:11:38.500 Okay, so natural gas had to not only make up for the sudden cold weather that was hitting, it had to

00:11:44.360 suddenly compensate for a 58 to practically 0% change in wind power. So yes, indeed, by basing it

00:11:52.280 on wind power, they actually put the whole grid at huge risk. And of course, there were other problems

00:11:58.220 too. Like, believe it or not, Sheila, you won't believe this. Because of the climate scare, they

00:12:03.280 decided that they would keep the pipeline valves and other instruments warm using electricity, because

00:12:10.960 of course, this would come from wind power. So instead of using the natural gas that was actually

00:12:15.460 in the pipeline to keep the pipeline operational, which is kind of like, duh, that's pretty obvious,

00:12:21.380 they used electricity. And so when the electricity failed, the gas failed too. So it's, you know,

00:12:28.400 the climate scare causes so many problems throughout society, besides a huge waste of money, a billion

00:12:34.420 dollars a day across the world. I mean, it is really something that the conservatives have to stand up

00:12:40.300 about. Now, they don't have to say the science is wrong. They don't even have to say that. What they

00:12:46.500 should say basically is, look, we're elected by Canadians to do what's good for Canadians. And that

00:12:52.200 is adaptation. Now, you did, you sent me your notes, a pretty great analysis of the Conservative Party

00:13:01.260 Convention and the discussion about climate that happened within it. And apparently, that's the last

00:13:07.340 discussion we're ever going to have about it at a Conservative Party Convention, because Aaron O'Toole

00:13:12.900 decided the debate is over. And that's the end of it, which is for me, an anti-conservative position.

00:13:19.580 I think our side of the aisle believes in the free and liberal exchange of ideas and the marketplace of

00:13:24.520 ideas. Put them all out there. Let's see what works. Apparently, that doesn't happen anymore in

00:13:29.440 Aaron O'Toole's Conservative Party. But you broke down good O'Toole and bad O'Toole. And I thought that

00:13:35.460 was kind of great because Ben Shapiro used to do good Trump, bad Trump. And I thought it was great

00:13:39.680 because it was fair. It was a fair analysis. You weren't in the bag for anybody. But you did a

00:13:43.800 little bit of that. So tell us about it. Well, that's right. I mean, you know, I think Mr. O'Toole

00:13:48.520 has a good heart. I think he's trying to do the right thing. I think some of his advisors, though,

00:13:52.580 are pushing him in the wrong direction. I think that's what it really boils down to. And, you know,

00:13:56.520 I used to work in the House of Commons. And within these Conservative parties, there are often red Tory

00:14:01.540 communication people who are, in a way, in the wrong party. You know, like, I never quite get

00:14:06.220 that. Like, if they want to be red Tories, why don't they just be in the Liberal Party? But yeah,

00:14:10.720 you're right. There were some good things he said. He said, look, you can't protect the environment.

00:14:15.400 You can't have a conversion to new forms of energy if we're broke. And I, you know, I sent you this

00:14:21.160 curve here. It's called the Kuznets curve. Okay. And what it shows is that as the prosperity

00:14:27.980 increases, at the beginning, pollution levels rise, because, you know, you're industrializing.

00:14:33.100 But then after a while, you get to a top point there, where the richer you are, the better the

00:14:39.260 environment is, because you have more resources to protect the environment. So Mr. O'Toole is

00:14:44.340 completely right there. We need prosperity. And obviously, and he didn't say this, but I will,

00:14:50.260 we need fossil fuels, because that is indeed a major driver of Canada's prosperity. And I alert people to

00:14:56.920 this document. That is indeed where the graph came from that I just showed you. This is Climate

00:15:02.880 Change Reconsidered Fossil Fuels. And you can look it up on the web. It's climatechangereconsidered.org.

00:15:09.440 And they have a lot in there explaining why fossil fuels are very important to actually protect the

00:15:15.240 environment. We should be expanding our use of inexpensive, reliable electricity and other fuels,

00:15:21.780 because fossil fuels are the way to go. Now, obviously, you should reduce pollution. We don't want

00:15:26.600 to burn coal the way they do in China. But at the same time, he's quite right there. But his idea

00:15:33.360 that the debate is over, we all want a green future. Well, you have to define what green really

00:15:38.880 is. And this is the other side of the equation, where the conservatives have got to stand up and

00:15:43.640 tell the truth. The fact is, wind and solar power are among the dirtiest energy sources on the planet.

00:15:49.760 And I mean that seriously. If you look at how they're made, and China, of course, is the biggest 1.00

00:15:54.600 supplier of all these things, they're making them with incredibly bad environmental controls. And of

00:16:01.260 course, if you care about nature, you should hate wind turbines. I mean, they're killing millions of

00:16:06.040 birds and bats across the world. And bats especially. Bats are killed because all they have to do is go

00:16:11.960 behind the blade in the low pressure zone, and their lungs burst. In fact, I was talking on my podcast,

00:16:17.840 which people can see on the web at exploratory journeys on our web page. Oh, by the way, our home

00:16:23.260 page is icsc-canada.com. And we can talk about that in a minute. But yeah, what he pointed out is that

00:16:30.820 some species of bats are actually being driven to extinction, largely by wind turbines. So that's the

00:16:38.200 other point is not only are wind and solar very unreliable, you know, we don't have batteries to really

00:16:44.240 store the energy for when we need it when they're not providing it. But in fact, they're environmentally

00:16:50.140 very, very damaging. A huge solar farm that's being built in Nevada right now, they say, oh,

00:16:55.000 it's green energy. Well, guess what? In building this huge solar farm, they have to pull all the

00:17:00.940 desert tortoises out of their burrows, take them to a remote location, and apparently something like

00:17:06.420 half of them all die. So how can you call this environmentally friendly? People should have a

00:17:11.480 look at Michael Moore's film. I'm generally no fan of Michael Moore, but he did a really good job on

00:17:17.820 showing the true environmental impact of wind and solar. And as I say, I would say wind power is the

00:17:24.160 dirtiest source of power on the planet. Yeah, it's funny how these so-called environmentalists

00:17:31.540 are perfectly fine with the dangerous chemicals that are in solar panels. For example, you'd be hard

00:17:40.300 pressed to find a greener mayor in the entire country than the one in Edmonton, Mayor Don Iveson.

00:17:45.680 And they just okayed a massive solar panel farm in Edmonton's River Valley. And it, I mean,

00:17:54.720 it's Edmonton. The town is built on top of a coal mine. There's natural gas all over the place.

00:18:01.460 And in the interest of virtue signaling, because this thing is going to only provide,

00:18:06.580 at maximum output, a couple hours of usable power to the one little water treatment plant

00:18:16.140 up the road, just to say, oh, look, we've got green water now. But they're perfectly fine with putting

00:18:21.800 this in Edmonton's River Valley, which is a greater River Valley expanse than New York. It's,

00:18:27.460 you know, one of the most beautiful in the entire world. But the environmentalists on city council,

00:18:32.680 they don't really care, because for them, it's about green virtue signaling.

00:18:37.760 Yeah, I'm sad to hear that. Because I used to go down to the Kinsman Center to work out because I

00:18:43.420 worked for the Canadian Air Force in, in Coal Lake. And you know, a couple hour drive, I was down in

00:18:48.540 Edmonton, I could get back to civilization. And Kinsman Club was wonderful. It's a beautiful valley,

00:18:53.600 no question about it. You know, it is really sad, because I think a lot of environmentalists have

00:18:59.020 their heart in the right place, but they've simply been sold a bill of goods. Yeah. I mean, look at the

00:19:03.780 Altamont Pass wind farm, for example, in California, they've killed 1000s of golden eagles. Okay. Now,

00:19:10.800 what happens with these wind farms is that they're given what's called a kill permit, they're allowed

00:19:15.700 to kill a certain number of endangered species, and they can't be sued. So I mean, what kind of energy

00:19:21.480 source is environmentally friendly that has a kill permit for endangered species? I mean, it's ridiculous. 0.96

00:19:26.900 So yeah, the conservatives have got to stand up and say, look, using our fossil fuels responsibly,

00:19:33.180 conserving energy, looking for new forms of ways to use fossil fuels more cleanly. Natural gas,

00:19:39.960 for example, great example, Robert Kennedy Jr. You know, I'd hardly call him a right winger. He says

00:19:46.280 that when you build wind power, you're building natural gas stations. In fact, you just are,

00:19:52.040 because you have to back it up for those, maybe sometimes as much as a week where you don't have

00:19:56.780 much wind. So yeah, the whole thing is, is virtue signaling. And you know, I'm sad to see that Mr.

00:20:03.380 O'Toole is now engaged in virtue signaling as well, because he could really have a wedge issue,

00:20:09.320 driving a division between the liberals virtue signaling, all their focus on, you know, saving the

00:20:15.280 world because of reducing emissions, which will make no difference, no matter what you believe on the

00:20:19.360 science, and a practical solution that will help Canadians, help Canadians have good electricity,

00:20:25.900 good power. But at the same time, protect the environment. I mean, this is a made in Canada

00:20:31.660 solution that will help Canadians to focus on adaptation, and good power, like, where's the

00:20:37.900 where's, you know, they just don't lose, you know, digitally public affairs did a did a focus group

00:20:43.720 study here in Ottawa. And they tested people on different messaging. And they actually asked them,

00:20:50.020 what do you think about adaptation? And it didn't matter if it was left, right or centre, everyone

00:20:55.480 agreed with adaptation. So if you're a conservative strategist, and you're trying to expand your voting

00:21:01.300 base in eastern Ontario, this is a no brainer. Adaptation tell Canadians, look, we can't stop global

00:21:09.580 rise in emissions. And so Matt, no matter what you believe about the causes of climate change,

00:21:14.120 let's focus on adapting to whatever is going to happen next. And and that is a win win win proposition,

00:21:20.760 which the conservative strategists have got to start using because otherwise, they're just virtue

00:21:26.160 signaling just like Trudeau. Well, yeah, I mean, Aaron O'Toole's position on this subject is as extreme

00:21:33.880 as Catherine McKenna's. And as a conservative, that troubles me. And you sent me a study. Now,

00:21:40.960 it was about Republicans and Democrats. But, but I think it should, I mean, it's left and right,

00:21:49.020 whatever. I mean, at this point, Canada is really sort of a two party state anyway. And it showed that

00:21:54.800 once the Republicans diverged from the Democrats on the issue of global warming and climate change,

00:22:03.400 people on the Republican side stopped caring about it because they didn't feel like they had to care

00:22:09.400 about it to go along with the party line. And I think there's some of that that could easily happen

00:22:15.880 for Aaron O'Toole. You know, like when he's saying a climate change is an issue for people,

00:22:21.040 it's an issue for people. It's an issue for people who are partisan because you keep telling

00:22:25.520 them it's an issue for them. But if you just dropped it, people would go back to not caring.

00:22:30.260 That's right. And you know, unfortunately, the strategists in the party clearly believe that

00:22:35.080 until the public are skeptical about climate change or want an adaptation focused policy,

00:22:41.280 that they have to go along because, but you know, they have it backwards. What this study indicated,

00:22:46.760 and you know, I'll put it up on our website, it's ICSC-Canada.com. And we're looking for

00:22:51.640 donations because if we're going to meet with policymakers, and that's one bonus to me being

00:22:57.060 based in Ottawa, we're going to actually meet with policymakers and explain to them, look,

00:23:01.340 you don't have to question the causes of climate change. Adaptation is a an attractive approach

00:23:06.860 that will appear appeal across the whole political spectrum. But yeah, back to this study, I'll put it

00:23:12.320 up on our website. It was by professors at McGill University, Drexel and Ohio State. And they were

00:23:19.300 asking, what is it that drives public opinion on climate change? And of course, this applies to lots

00:23:25.000 of issues. And what they found is it was not primarily the media, which I was interested to

00:23:29.980 see. What it was, is it was the opinions expressed, I suppose, through the media, by the elites in

00:23:37.780 society, and in particular, the politicians. When the Democrats and Republicans both said that there

00:23:45.100 was a huge climate crisis, the public were totally in agreement, practically. When the Republicans

00:23:50.720 diverged and actually started to say, well, we don't think it's that big an issue, we don't think

00:23:55.520 it's that important, the support for climate alarmism went way, way down. And so what they're

00:24:02.240 saying is that public opinion is largely driven by the statements of the elite, by the politicians.

00:24:09.520 So if Mr. O'Toole wants Canada to have a sensible climate plan focused on adaptation, and of course,

00:24:15.840 on the other environmental side, reducing real pollution, not CO2, what he can do to help shift

00:24:21.820 public opinion is to explain to people the sorts of things we're talking about now. Now, it may be

00:24:26.960 the very next day in the media, you know, Globe and Mail, etc, that he'll be slammed. But over time,

00:24:33.400 he can actually sway public opinion by a very sensible, made in Canada, benefiting Canadians,

00:24:40.740 climate change plan. So I mean, that is what we want from our leaders. Of course, we want real

00:24:45.540 leadership to tell us what the truth is, and to actually do things that are good for our country.

00:24:50.820 But also from the conservatives point of view, the public, to a large extent will come along.

00:24:56.120 Many people I know who are liberals, and I explained a lot of this, this to them,

00:25:00.360 are now completely on our side with respect to the need for adaptation. And so I mean, yes,

00:25:06.700 you can bring liberals over to vote for conservatives, if they have sensible policies. But if all you're

00:25:12.420 trying to do is out liberal the liberals, I mean, liberals aren't going to vote for a conservative

00:25:17.000 party that's acting liberal, they're going to vote for the liberals. I mean, it's crazy. Trying to appeal

00:25:22.000 to liberal voters with liberal messages is not going to work. So yeah, give us something sensible,

00:25:28.620 lead the public, do what's good for Canada, and they can win. They can win on this issue.

00:25:33.500 Yeah, I think so too. Now, the other thing, the pressing issue in climate change news this week

00:25:39.900 was the federal carbon tax decision. And I know that you've done some analysis on this,

00:25:45.540 and some of the opinions of the judges involved. Why don't you tell us what you think?

00:25:51.200 Yeah, exactly. They said that it doesn't make sense for individual provinces to have rules and

00:25:57.640 regulations, while other provinces don't. Because they pointed out that there's obviously leakage,

00:26:03.300 from one province to another, when carbon emissions, as they call it, it's really carbon

00:26:08.360 dioxide, when in fact, they are controlled in one place and not another. And that, you know,

00:26:13.360 that actually makes sense. But if you apply that internationally, it also makes sense. It makes

00:26:19.520 no point for Canada to restrict emissions when China is just putting out as much as they want,

00:26:24.660 left, right and center. So the actual logic used by the extreme court, by the Supreme Court,

00:26:29.780 actually applied internationally means, yeah, unless you can get China to agree,

00:26:35.860 don't do anything on reducing emissions. So sadly, they were actually judging science in the Supreme

00:26:42.960 Court, which I think is a mistake. I mean, why should they judge between which side of the science is

00:26:47.360 right? And that's where, in fact, I think the provinces were a little off base, they were accepting

00:26:53.580 the climate scare. And what that does is it actually sets a stage, a tone, that they're actually having

00:26:59.940 to have peace order and good government and protect Canada for the future. You know, that sort of thing

00:27:05.580 is what the provinces are essentially accepting. So they're accepting the underlying premise that

00:27:11.700 eventually led to the Supreme Court decision. Whereas, in fact, if they had just gotten up and showed

00:27:16.580 the whole thing is like, really uncertain. I mean, documents like this with 1000s of references disagree

00:27:22.880 with the climate scare, but we do know it's going to have huge negative impact on Canada. That kind of argument

00:27:28.840 makes a lot more sense. So I think in a way, they kind of gave away the game by agreeing to the climate scare as

00:27:37.080 an underlying premise to the whole thing.

00:27:39.660 Yeah, it's interesting that you said the extreme court instead of the Supreme Court. And I thought

00:27:45.240 that's one hell of a Freudian slip there, Tom.

00:27:49.640 Well, the dissenting opinions in the extreme court are really worth reading, because they're making many

00:27:55.360 of the same sort of points that we are that look, I mean, Canada is not going to control climate change

00:28:00.080 when China is putting out as much as they want. And, and also the business to do with federal and

00:28:05.380 provincial jurisdiction, I think was their main focus. They made some really good points. So I

00:28:10.260 mean, I think the dissenting voices on that, because it wasn't unanimous, it was a small decision.

00:28:15.940 They're really worth reading, because they're actually quite insightful.

00:28:20.320 And lastly, Tom, Jane Fonda is back on our radar.

00:28:24.460 Oh, yeah, wearing her surgically altered face to lecture us one more time. And I think you signed an

00:28:30.940 open letter to Jane Fonda. I don't know if she'll read it or if she'll have an assistant

00:28:35.340 read it to her, or if she can open her surgically altered eyes wide enough to see it. But

00:28:41.280 you she's back in the news.

00:28:44.220 That's right. Stephen Buffalo, who's a native person very much in favor of sensible policies

00:28:49.620 to boost fossil fuels. I'll also put his, his open letter up on our site, because I think it was

00:28:55.360 very meaningful. It was very respectful and polite letter to Jane Fonda. And as you say, I signed it,

00:29:01.420 I encourage lots of people to sign it. And he's asking her to have a sensible discussion about

00:29:07.800 environmental responsibility, which, of course, we are in Canada, very responsible in comparison

00:29:12.880 with most of the world, and the need for jobs and the need for wealth to protect the environment,

00:29:18.860 all that sort of thing. So it's a very good letter. And I hope I'm sure she will read it at some point.

00:29:24.180 But, you know, in many cases, these people's minds are not particularly open. But I think it's a really

00:29:31.020 excellent job that Stephen Buffalo did. So I'll again, I'll put it up on icsc-canada.com.

00:29:36.380 Yeah, I really enjoy Stephen Buffalo. He's with the Indian Resource Council, and such a strong advocate

00:29:42.540 for the industry as a wealth generator and a way out of generational poverty for his for his people.

00:29:49.060 And that's something that these out of country advocates, especially those in Hollywood, they really

00:29:54.980 miss that whole part of the equation. They see the Indigenous activist side of the equation, but they

00:30:02.240 never see the people who are, you know, finding a way out of poverty because of the good high paying jobs

00:30:12.180 that the resource industry provides. And not only just jobs, but partnerships with Indigenous bands,

00:30:18.700 for example, the Mikkasu in Fort McMurray, there are a lot of Indigenous owned and band owned companies

00:30:27.220 that people like Jane Fonda just want to pretend don't even exist.

00:30:31.380 Yeah, it's a shame because, you know, the ones in the Native community who are against the oil sands 1.00

00:30:36.480 and other fossil fuel projects, they get lots of publicity through the press. And you get the impression

00:30:41.640 from a distance that Natives are all against this, but they're not, you know, I mean, it makes a lot of

00:30:46.840 sense. And Mr. Buffalo is not trying to suggest that we ignore the environment. In fact, he's saying

00:30:52.160 the opposite. He's he's basically making really solid points about how we do protect the environment

00:30:57.560 and that this is the way to go. You know, like killing that pipeline was ludicrous. I mean, you know,

00:31:03.900 obviously shipping things by pipeline is the environmentally responsible thing to do. But yeah,

00:31:09.780 sadly, environmentalists, unfortunately, are not terribly well informed. And in many cases,

00:31:14.660 it's largely because of mainstream media just focusing on Natives who oppose fossil fuels

00:31:19.560 instead of those like Mr. Buffalo. Yeah, it's funny. One of the people who work in our office,

00:31:25.220 Margaret, she pointed out the fact today that, you know, we never get shipping containers stuck

00:31:31.120 in a pipeline. There's a big thing, a big boat of shipping containers stuck in the Suez Canal right now.

00:31:37.800 Yeah, that's a mess. Now, Tom, tell us about this new Canadian branch of the International Climate

00:31:46.100 Science Coalition. So International Climate Science Coalition Canada. What are you guys planning

00:31:51.800 to do? Because I heard the word lobbying politicians, and I kind of like that.

00:31:56.180 That's right. Well, we've contracted a specialist in political affairs, and he's giving us advice as to

00:32:03.740 how do we really change policy in Canada? You know, for it's funny, because when he was working

00:32:09.220 on his strategy, he went around and interviewed various people. And he asked us, he said, Oh,

00:32:15.080 yeah, what are you doing? They said, Oh, we got 400 newspaper articles published or something.

00:32:19.180 And he says, And how's that been for you? Have you changed policy? I had to admit, well, no.

00:32:27.160 And so what he's advising is that we should act and we're going to do this, actually,

00:32:31.280 we're going to register properly and everything else. But we should meet with policymakers right

00:32:35.760 here in Ottawa, where I live, and explain to them, Look, we're not asking you to be, you know,

00:32:41.060 questioning climate change. I mean, great if you did, but we're not asking you to do that.

00:32:45.300 What we'd like you to do is focus on doing things that are good for Canadians, which, of course,

00:32:49.740 is adaptation, inexpensive, clean energy, things like that. So we're going to really focus hard on

00:32:56.720 showing the public, of course, through articles like we had in the sun, but also through meeting

00:33:02.140 with policymakers, senior bureaucrats, politicians, and I don't care any party, because the liberals

00:33:07.220 too, can make real hay with this, if they point out that look across the world, 19 20s of the 1 billion

00:33:16.020 a day that's spent on climate finance is going to stop climate change, only 5% is going to help real

00:33:21.980 people today. And that's a point that liberals should care about. The fact that people in Somalia

00:33:28.220 and northern Canada, all kinds of places where there is climate change, of course, natural climate

00:33:32.860 change, they're suffering because they don't get the proper support. When I was at the Copenhagen

00:33:37.860 Climate Conference in 2009, many of the Africans were outraged. They were saying, Look, you people are

00:33:44.260 all focused on what might happen in half a century. We need help now. So yeah, I think, in fact,

00:33:50.480 I'm very open to talk to the liberals, too. In fact, my local MP is liberal, and I hope to meet

00:33:55.520 with her, because this is a sensible approach that can be used across the political spectrum.

00:34:02.160 Yeah. And as you say, they don't actually have to concede anything about whether or not humans are

00:34:08.000 causing this. If they're, if they agree that the climate is changing, and apparently the conservatives

00:34:13.400 do, and the liberals definitely do, then why is there just this one focus on mitigation,

00:34:19.300 as opposed to adaptation?

00:34:21.480 Yeah, that's right. And we incorporated this new group as a not for profit, because, you know,

00:34:26.740 coming into an MP's office, it does look better if you're a not for profit. And so for people who

00:34:32.140 are concerned about that, we in fact are accepting donations to this new not for profit group,

00:34:36.980 icsc-canada.com.

00:34:39.160 Great. Tom, thanks so much for taking the time today. I always feel like I learned a lot

00:34:43.520 anytime that I discuss anything with you. And one last thing, can you just plug your podcast one more

00:34:50.180 time? Because that's a very interesting kind of a free speechy podcast in that you are hearing

00:34:56.460 discussions of things that you just won't hear in the mainstream media.

00:34:59.360 Yeah, it's great fun to do that. If people go to icsc-canada.com and you click on resources,

00:35:05.940 the second one down, I believe it is, is called Exploratory Journeys. And it takes you to our

00:35:11.420 podcast. We've run it for over a year now. And we've had experts from all over the world,

00:35:16.040 polar bear experts, Susan Crockford, you know, all kinds of people. And it's really quite fun,

00:35:21.480 actually. If people listen in, they'll also hear a discussion just this past week between our

00:35:26.920 our consultant, Joseph Benamy and myself about the problems with the conservatives approach and

00:35:33.020 what they should do instead. So there's a full half hour discussion on that if people want to

00:35:37.640 learn more. Yeah, that's great. I didn't even subscribe through your website. I just found it

00:35:42.320 on, I think I found it on Spotify. I mean, so if anybody wants to find your podcast on Spotify,

00:35:47.820 it's there too. It's called Exploratory Journeys. And I really enjoy it. It'll kill a lot of time

00:35:52.660 on the treadmill. Tom, thanks for coming on the show. And thank you for always

00:35:56.900 being so informative and so generous with your time. Okay, it's great to be on, Sheila. Bye-bye.

00:36:10.100 Aaron O'Toole once advertised himself as firmly opposed to cancel culture, but he's

00:36:15.120 a proponent of cancel culture when stifling debate and ideas within his own party, ideas that he might

00:36:23.480 disagree with. It's a bold strategy. And I think it's going to work out terribly for him. You don't

00:36:29.780 win elections by making enemies of your most reliable friends. Well, everybody, that's the show

00:36:36.960 for tonight. Thank you so much for tuning in. I'll see everybody back here in the same time in the same

00:36:41.240 place next week, or maybe not. Who knows where I'll be. But remember, don't let the government tell you

00:36:47.180 that you've had too much to think.

Rebel News Podcast - April 01, 2021

Tackling the Conservative Party's self-made climate crisis

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript