Activists storm Canada finance minister's office demanding climate laws for banks
Storming government buildings to coerce them into bending to your agenda is only wrong when it's the right doing it
Liberals like to complain about living in an oligarchy, not a democracy, because policies most people support aren't enacted (when they're looking at things like gun control). But they also want to push through their own unpopular policies
Berlin demands €142,000 from Brandenburg Gate paint attackers - "Around five months after a paint attack on the Brandenburg Gate, the state of Berlin is demanding some €142,000 ($152,170) in compensation from the climate activists responsible... the climate demonstrators had initially agreed via the media to pay for the cleaning of the Brandenburg Gate. However, the activists had not complied with the request for an initial payment totalling €115,000... "Vandalism has consequences," said Berlin Finance Senator Stefan Evers. Berliners should not have to foot the bill for the costs of "criminal activities"... "Wilful vandalism is not a form of democratic dissent," he added. Evers had previously announced his intention to ask the climate activists to pay. Members of Last Generation had sprayed the landmark with orange-yellow paint on September 17. The action made headlines - and caused outrage. The cleaning work was time-consuming and was only completed at the beginning of December... They have charged the climate demonstrators with criminal damage to property and some with resisting law enforcement officers. Around two months after the first paint attack, the landmark was once again smeared with orange paint by members of Last Generation."
The left are going to complain about "censorship" and "fascism"
Chris Martz on X - "Eight years ago, WIRED was worried that California is becoming too dry because of climate change. WIRED is now concerned that California is becoming too wet because of climate change. I guess “the science” changed. 🤡"
Thanks El Niño, But California’s Drought Is Probably Forever | WIRED
California’s Atmospheric Rivers Are Getting Worse | WIRED
Weird. I thought the science was "settled"
It’s not a conspiracy theory – there really is a war on the car - "the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, has expanded ULEZ to include all of London’s boroughs. As of this week, every inch of the capital is an Ultra Low Emission Zone where those who drive the wrong kind of vehicle – petrol or diesel vehicles that do not meet minimum emissions standards – will have to pay £12.50 on every single day they get in the driver’s seat and go somewhere. Let’s be clear about what the rollout of ULEZ represents: it’s an entirely regressive tax that will punish the poor most severely. It is an eco-toll that will have little impact on the wealthy of Greater London who drive ‘polluting’ vehicles, for whom £12.50 is small fry, or who can afford a brand new EV and are exempt from the charge. But it will devastate the freedom of movement of the less well-off who drive old cars. This is a cruel levy enforced by an out-of-touch mayor on a citizenry already struggling to make ends meet. The expansion of ULEZ is justified in the most apocalyptic terms. Where the rulers of England in the 1370s enforced a punitive poll tax on the peasantry on the basis that ‘the security of the realm was under threat’ – primarily from war with France – today the rulers of London impose a regressive eco-tax on certain motorists on the basis that the security of the entire planet is at risk. ULEZ is necessary because ‘the planet is burning’, commentators madly claim. As if bleeding pensioners with creaking cars of £12.50 a day is going to make any dent in global pollution. ‘People are dying, this will save lives’, says Green peer Jenny Jones. It reeks of emotional blackmail. Bristle at ULEZ and you’re in cahoots with death itself; you’re an enabler of respiratory disease and the much prophesied, but little evidenced, heat death of the planet. The facts, as is so often the case these days, tell a different story. Far from being a smog-ridden hellhole, London’s air is cleaner than it’s been for decades. Levels of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and other pollutants have fallen dramatically since the 1970s. There’s been a staggering 98 per cent drop in sulphur. The idea that there’s an ‘air-pollution crisis’ and that it’s the fault of ‘dirty’ drivers – in the Guardian’s telling words – is nonsense. One might even call it misinformation, the thing that ULEZ’s critics are usually, and unfairly, accused of promoting. Dirty drivers – that phrase exposes the rank moralism and snobbery behind the ULEZ expansion. This is not a scientifically sound initiative, necessary for the protection of life. It’s yet another outburst of the upper middle classes’ motorphobia, their bourgeois contempt for the freedom that cars afford to the masses. Nothing horrifies this bicycle-riding, Uber-using, Whole Foods-patronising layer of society more than the vision of a family of five driving their 4×4 to a giant Morrison’s for processed bread and cheap meat. That’s ‘dirty’ in their minds, which is a PC way of saying ‘morally inferior’. The elite hostility to cars is at root a hostility to modern society and the masses who inhabit it. The ULEZ expansion shines a harsh light on the hypocrisy of Sadiq Khan and the Labour left. Khan made great play of providing London’s primary-school kids with free school meals this year, yet he then nabs £12.50 every day from any parent who drives a ‘bad’ car. The Corbynista left wrings its hands over the cost-of-living crisis, yet they’ve been out in force this week defending this regressive tax that will price the poorest off the roads... The Khan regime has erected hundreds of fixed cameras to monitor the movements of the ‘dirty’ citizens of Greater London. What a perfect metaphor for his time in power. The city turned against the citizenry. Infrastructure deployed to spy on us and punish us for our eco-sins. Sadiq has turned a great city into his personal fiefdom, where all must bend the knee to his ideological obsessions or find themselves branded dirty, deniers, bigots, conspiracy theorists – there is a ‘far-right’ vibe to the public protests against ULEZ, as Khan says. It isn’t only the eco-ideology that Khan is foisting on the capital. He’s introduced the rule of identitarianism, too. Witness the recent scandal of the mayor’s official website advising that a photo of a white family ‘doesn’t represent real Londoners’ and it might be better to use more ‘diverse’ images instead. Or Khan’s frequent utterances of the neo-religious mantra ‘Transwomen are women’, with no regard for the vast numbers of women in London who disagree... Or, more sinisterly, his use of a recent stabbing outside a gay club in Clapham to reprimand those who criticise aspects of the LGBTQ ideology. ‘Your culture war has real-life consequences’, he cynically said, as if opposing men in dresses going into ladies’ loos leads directly to knife attacks in South London. Khan treats London less as a bustling city that it is his privilege to represent, than as a soapbox from which he can bark his bien pensant views. Then there’s his Remainerism, where he’s forever juxtaposing London’s ‘progressive’ love for the EU with what he presumably views as the un-progressive Europhobia of the low-information throng Up North... how about his penchant for social engineering, for saving dumber Londoners from their own worst instincts? Consider his stringent ban on any depiction of ‘junk food’ on buses and trains. Even an ad for a West End play fell foul of his deranged censorship because it contained an image of a wedding cake... We can now see what woke does to a city – it destroys it. Cities can only thrive if they’re open, risky, free, democratic. In Khan’s one-man principality, all these virtues of the metropolis have been trampled under the boot of control, restriction and ideology. And then he has the nerve to damn his critics, especially critics of ULEZ, as ‘conspiracy theorists’."
Posthaste: How analysts say Canada could wipe out the CO2 emissions of its entire economy - "“According to our latest calculations, we estimate that partially replacing India’s coal-fired power generation with Canadian LNG would have a more profound impact on the planet than shutting down the Canadian economy entirely,” said Sidhu and economist Stéfane Marion... “If our policymakers are serious about limiting the impacts of global warming and promoting economic reconciliation with our First Nations, there is a compelling and pragmatic business case for Canada to help the planet by working with India to limit its carbon emissions, given that renewable energies will not be easily deployed there by 2030,” said Sidhu and Marion."
Too bad virtue signalling means what "feels" right is more important than what actually works
Scott Lincicome on X - "Vast reforestation a major reason for ‘warming hole’ across parts of US where temperatures have flatlined or cooled"
John Ekdahl on X - "Southern forest management is vastly superior to the west. Even NPR agrees!"
California Copying Florida To Stop Huge Wildfires
Meme - Ryan Brooks: "Did you know that Bill Gates' primary residence in Seattle boasts 7 bedrooms, 24 bathrooms, a 60-foot pool with an underwater music system, a 2,500-square-foot gym, a 1,000-square- foot dining room, six kitchens, and a trampoline room with a 20-foot ceiling? And let's not forget the 2,100-square-foot library, a home theater that seats up to 20 guests, and a massive 300-square-foot reception hall with room for 200 guests. And there's also a spacious guesthouse, a garage that fits 23 cars, and an artificial stream stocked with fish. Depending on the source, its value is estimated at $127 to $170 million. But wait, there's more! Gates also owns homes in Del Mar, California at sea level ($43 million), Indian Wells, California ($12.5 million), Wellington, Florida ($8.7 million), and a ranch in Wyoming ($8.9 million). A fun little tidbit about his Florida property: In 2016, he paid $13.5 million for the neighboring house. Rumor has it he's also bought four other properties on the same street, making him the sole resident of the entire block. While Bill doesn't own a mega-yacht, he regularly charters them for his vacations. He also has a penchant for spending big on luxury cars, and let's not forget his four private jets. In interviews, he's mentioned that purchasing private jets is his "guilty pleasure." Now, isn't it ironic that one of the main proponents of reducing our carbon footprint lives like this? With such an expansive estate and luxurious lifestyle, we can't help but wonder how much his own carbon footprint is ballooning. If the people who are urging us to reduce our carbon footprints are living lives of excess, how can we trust their motivations and the validity of their claims about man-made climate change?"
Even if you ignore the irrationality of buying beachfront properties when climate change supposedly means they will be underwater soon, hypocrisy is a big issue and makes it clear that climate change hysteria is just to push through modern sumptuary laws
Meme - "100% Renewables Grid
Soyjak: When can I turn on my air conditioning?
Soyjak renewables: The batteries have to charge!!
100% Nuclear Grid
Normal person: I'm going to use my air conditioning
Normal person nuclear: I don't care."
Meme - "*Private Jet* ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED
VISIT 1000 CLIMATE CONFERENCES"
Meme - "IMAGINE IF YOU WILL A GROUP OF PEOPLE EATING A5 WAGYU FILET MIGNON ABOARD THEIR PRIVATE JETS, ON THEIR WAY TO A MEETING TO DISCUSS HOW TO TAKE AWAY YOUR CARS AND FEED YOU BUGS"
Guilbeault: Sask. premier 'immoral' for breaking carbon-price law
New environment minister faces questions about past activism, says he has no 'secret agenda' - "In 2001, Guilbeault was arrested after scaling Toronto's CN Tower to raise awareness of climate change."
If you are on "the right side of history", breaking the law is not immoral
EDITORIAL: Carbon tax a bust despite ‘rebranding’ - "A survey released Monday by Leger for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation found almost seven in 10 Canadians (69%) oppose hiking the carbon tax on April 1, with only 31% in favour. A majority oppose the planned hike — a 23% increase from $65 per tonne of industrial greenhouse gas emissions to $80 per tonne — in every province, in every age group, whether they live in cities, suburbs or rural areas. Even most residents in B.C. and Quebec, which don’t pay the federal carbon tax because they have federally-approved provincial plans, oppose the hike... Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux says when the negative impact of the carbon tax on the economy is factored in, 60% of households pay more in carbon taxes than they receive in rebates, rising to 80% in Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. by the time the tax is fully implemented in 2030... The carbon tax raises the cost of 22 types of fossil fuel energy in all, increasing the cost of almost everything because almost all goods and services use fossil fuel energy."
I still see left wingers claiming most people get more back in rebates than they pay
Trudeau ally joins Poilievre to say no carbon levy increase - "Newfoundland and Labrador's Andrew Furey — an ally of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — added his voice Tuesday to Poilievre's demand the Liberals pause the planned increase, a request also made in the last week by Ontario's Doug Ford, P.E.I.'s Dennis King and New Brunswick's Blaine Higgs, all conservatives. They all argue going ahead with the scheduled increase to the levy asks too much of Canadians already feeling the pinch from higher living costs."
Justin Trudeau ally joins Pierre Poilievre to demand a halt to the April 1 carbon levy increase - NFLD and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey says Canadians cannot afford the increase. : canada - "When the increase goes through, the cost of everything - including groceries - is going to jump significantly within a month. The usual suspects on this subreddit will then be out to decry "price gouging corporations" over it to deflect from the fact that its their fault... AGAIN"
"And then they will tell you PP wont change anything. I know for a fact he is gonna cancel the carbon tax day one. Thats enough reason to to vote for him next election."
Canada's proposed oil and gas emissions cap sends wrong message to allies in Asia: analyst - "Canada’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap sends a conflicting message to allies in Asia, according to a prominent energy policy analyst. The plan for the cap – widely seen as a cap on production – is being put together just as Canada nears its first large-scale access to Asia’s growing oil and gas demand, notes Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. “Our allies in Asia, particularly Japan and Korea, are waiting for the LNG and the oil,” says Exner-Pirot... The federal plan to cap emissions in 2030 at up to 38 per cent below 2019 levels would require production cuts, according to the Business Council of Canada. That could threaten world energy security by opening the door to Russia as a bigger supplier instead of Canada, Exner-Pirot says. “We want to fill those pipelines and help Japan and Korea get off Russian supply and get off OPEC supply, frankly. We want them to have an option,” she says. “We still haven’t been able to get off Russian oil and gas, and now we want to put in policies that will limit our ability to replace it. Our number one priority should be to replace it.” Capping emissions from Canada’s oil and gas sector would come at great economic cost while having negligible impact on the environment, according to analysis by the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI). “Each time Ottawa forces the Canadian energy sector to contract, it is foreign producers who win,” said MEI public policy analyst Gabriel Giguère. “Ottawa does not have the means to affect global demand, so reducing local supply will only end up exporting jobs and tax revenues.” MEI estimates the proposed cap would cost Canada’s economy upwards of $6 billion per year if fully implemented. Exner-Pirot argues that through initiatives like the Pathways Alliance in the oil sands, Canada’s energy sector already has credible plans reduce emissions and achieve net zero. “By forcing this abstract date of 2030, you’re making it far more difficult and more expensive, where it will [already] occur within a reasonable timeframe,” she said."
Clearly, the costly policies the left demand can be funded by "taxing" the rich
Meme - "Taylor Swift on her way to the other side of the room *Great Fox jet from Super Smash Bros*"
Stop Obsessing With Taylor Swift, These Are the 30 Celebrities That Pollute the Most - "Travis Scott: More than 6 million Kg of CO2
Kim Kardashian: 5 million 857 thousand Kg of CO2
Elon Musk: 4 million 564 thousand Kg of CO2
Beyoncé and Jay Z: 4 million 317 thousand Kg of CO2
Bill Gates: 3 million 771 Kg of CO2
Steven Spielberg: 3 million 661 thousand Kg of CO2
Tyler Perry: 3 million 319 thousand kg of CO2
Leonard Blavatnik: 3 million 130 thousand kg of CO2
Kylie Jenner: 3 million 73 thousand Kg of CO2
Celine Dion: 2 million 826 thousand Kg of CO2
Alex Rodriguez: 2 million 668 thousand Kg of CO2
George Lucas: 2 million 600 thousand Kg of CO2
Floyd Mayweather: 2 million 484 thousand Kg of CO2
Robert Kraft: 2 million 480 thousand Kg of CO2
Jim Carrey: 2 million 398 thousand Kg of CO2
Marc Cuban: 2 million 287 thousand Kg of CO2
Paul Allen: 2 million 271 thousand Kg of CO2
James Dyson: 2 million 173 thousand Kg of CO2
Tom Cruise: 1 million 711 thousand Kg of CO2
Mark Verstappen: 1 million 693 thousand Kg of CO2
Jack Nicklaus: 1 million 603 thousand kg of CO2
Mark Wahlberg: 1 million 514 Kg of CO2
Blake Shelton: 1 million 437 thousand Kg of CO2
Jeff Bezos: 1 million 266 thousand Kg of CO2
Drake: 1 million 140 thousand Kg of CO2
Dan Bilzerian: 808 thousand Kg of CO2
Kenny Chesney: 801 thousand Kg of CO2
Suleyman Kerimov: 653 thousand Kg of CO2
Tiger Woods: 635 thousand Kg of CO2
Harrison Ford: 616 thousand kg of CO2"
This is stupid, because not all of them bang on about climate change (in fact it looks like most don't) - the point is to criticise her hypocrisy (plus, she often takes her private jet short distances)
“Good luck with that”: Taylor Swift Goes to War Against User Trying to Expose Her Massive CO2 Emissions Despite Elon Musk’s Previous Attempt - "Taylor Swift sent a cease and desist letter to a user who exposed her CO2 emissions."
Of course, the people who mocked Musk are now complaining about Swift's privacy and safety. In this case it's even more justified due to her hypocrisy. And it's even more hilarious, since it's the same person - Jack Sweeney - behind both projects
Meme - Dr Eli David: "This is Taylor Swift. Taylor is concerned about climate change. Her private jet emits more carbon in a single trip than your car in your entire lifetime (and that jet flew several hundred times last year), but it's your car that's causing climate change"
Weird. Another non-left wing Jew. I thought they didn't exist
Meme - Zack Bornstein @ZackBorns...: "She did it. She got Fox News to care about carbon emissions"
Fox News: "Touchdown: Taylor Swift lands in Baltimore ahead of AFC Championship, jet belches tons of COP emissions"
By this logic, left wingers who rag on "homophobic" conservatives for doing gay stuff are hypocrites since they are condemning gay sex
Meme - "ME WATCHING MY PAPER STRAW DISSOLVE IN MY ICED TEA AS Taylor Swift produces her 138th ton of emissions in 3 months to see her 13th soulmate Travis Kelce"
The left claim the right get upset over Taylor Swift because they are misogynistic. But of course hypocrisy is only wrong when calling it out helps the left
Meme - Brett Barlow: "Taylor Swift running home real quick at halftime because she forgot something *plane taking off*"
NDP bill would prescribe jail terms for speaking well of fossil fuels - "An NDP bill is seeking to criminalize the “promotion” of fossil fuels, and prescribe jail time even for Canadians who say scientifically true things such as how burning natural gas is cleaner than burning coal. C-372, also known as the Fossil Fuel Advertising Act, was tabled Monday as a private member’s bill by Charlie Angus, the MP for Timmins-James Bay and a longtime member of the NDP caucus... C-372 goes well beyond merely banning advertising by oil and gas companies. As a private member’s bill introduced by the member of a party with only 25 seats in the House of Commons, Bill C-372 has almost zero chance of passing. But as written, the act would technically apply to any Canadian who is found to be speaking well of the oil industry, or of oil generally. “It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel, a fossil fuel-related brand element or the production of a fossil fuel,” reads the act. Violate this as a regular citizen, and the act prescribes summary conviction and a fine of up to $500,000. Violate it as an oil company, and the punishment could be as strict as two years in jail or a fine of $1,000,000. Angus defines “promotion” so broadly that it could technically apply to something as simple as a Facebook post or even an “I Love Canadian Oil and Gas” bumper sticker. Promotion, according to Bill C-372, means “a representation about a product or service by any means … that is likely to influence and shape attitudes, beliefs and behaviours about the product or service.” The act also criminalizes a laundry list of common pro-oil and gas arguments, even ones that have a reliable basis in fact. Section 8 of the act makes it a crime for “a person” to argue that a fossil fuel is “less harmful than other fossil fuels.” Natural gas, for instance, generates energy with far fewer emissions or pollutants than diesel, coal, bunker fuel or any number of “dirtier” fuels. This is why the federal government taxes natural gas at a lower benchmark than higher-emission fuels. Nevertheless, according to C-372, anybody making such an argument should face a jail term of up to two years or a “fine not exceeding $500,000.” Section 8 also criminalizes any “promotion” which argues that fossil fuels are beneficial to “the health of Canadians, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or the Canadian or global economy.” As such, the section could conceivably prescribe jail terms for anybody arguing that the oil and gas sector is a key funder of the Canadian health-care system, or even that oil and gas is needed to operate ambulances and MedEvac flights. Similarly, Canadians would face sanction for saying that the extraction and selling of oil is a net contributor to the country’s economy — a claim that is actually made quite often by the federal government itself. “Oil and gas extraction is an important contributor to the Canadian economy,” reads a recent report by Statistics Canada. The bill would also bring the hammer down on the ability of Canadian gas stations to hold contests or issue loyalty cards... Although the Trudeau government often uses catastrophic language to refer to the unchecked effects of climate change, Angus’s bill goes beyond the federal government’s usual messaging by claiming in a preamble that warming temperatures are an “existential threat” and that “protection of the environment is a valid use of the federal criminal law power.”"
Naturally, some left wingers defended it and claimed it wouldn't threaten freedom of speech since it wasn't aimed at private individuals and only targeted "misinformation"
Some left wingers still claim the NDP is a workers' party
NYC at war with pizza: Controversial green plan backed by Eric Adams forces restaurants to slash oven pollution by 75 percent - "Democrat Mayor Eric Adams has approved a new green plan that requires facilities using wood- and coal-fired stoves to cut their smoke by 75 percent. More than 130 businesses will be impacted by the law, including many famed pizza joints. Businesses can apply for an exemption from the mandate - which goes into effect on April 27 - but they must prove they can not financially meet the requirements. Still, business must then cut their emissions by 25 percent. 'Get the people doing crack on the corner of the street away from me and leave my wood-burning ovens alone,' Alejandra Sanchez, a professional chef, told DailyMail.com. 'We want health care. Leave our pizza alone.'... 'I think the ones that will suffer the most is probably Neapolitan pizza.'... Some of NYC's most iconic pizzerias have already coughed up a pretty penny to install the required air-filtration system to comply with the mandate, including Grimaldi's Pizza where co-owner Anthony Piscina told the New York Post one unit cost $50,000 to install. 'We have to do it. We can't cook pizza any other way,' said Piscina. Piscina explained coal-fired ovens are the only stoves that can reach 1,200 degrees, which is the temperature needed to properly cook a pizza. Grimaldi's is not the only famous New York Pizzeria that has spent tens of thousands of dollars... Mayor Adams has vehemently defended his green plan. 'Everyone likes pizza! You see that pie in front of you, you start to get happy,' Adams said in a press conference. 'But let's be clear - every toxic entity that we remove from our air is adding up to the overall desire to deal with shrinking our carbon footprint.' 'We don't want to hurt businesses in the city and we don't want to hurt the environment. So, let's see if we can find a way to get the resolutions we're looking for.'"
Damn greedy big businesses driving poor small businesses out of business!
Global warming may be behind an increase in the frequency and intensity of cold spells
When the only tool you have is a hammer...
