Carbon tax increases will cost workers income, jobs and shrink economy - "The federal government’s current plan to raise the national industrial carbon tax to $170 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 will cost the average Canadian worker $1,160 in lost annual income and result in 50,000 fewer jobs, according to a new study by the Fraser Institute. The report by the fiscally conservative think tank says it would shrink the Canadian economy by 1.3% compared to a scenario in which the industrial carbon price is frozen at its current level of $95 per tonne of emissions. It also predicts a $170 per tonne carbon price in 2030 would have a severe negative impact on capital earnings (interest, dividends, capital gains, etc.), resulting in reduced or cancelled investment plans, and “further long-run declines in Canadian living standards.”"
Left wingers want to destroy the economy, after all
Weird how the rest of the world outside the West hasn't been inspired to destroy their economies too. Clearly the West needs to spend another few decades commiting suicide, because surely that level of dedication and sacrifice will inspire the rest of the world to be equally daft
Meme - Based Jessica @RealJessica: "Thank you Germany 🇩🇪and Britain 🇬🇧 for sacrificing your economies to save the planet. China appreciates you exporting your manufacturing to provide jobs for their citizens."
"Annual CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels and industry. Land-use change is not included. *Germany and United Kingdom dropping, China skyrocketing*"
The end of the British salt industry could be apocalyptic - spiked - "Salt has been a major industry in Britain for centuries. The salt deposits in Cheshire, the West Midlands and Teesside are huge and still are – in fact, they could be viable for decades to come. Yet now the UK is on the verge of becoming a net importer of salt, for the first time in history. Inovyn, the company that produces roughly 50 per cent of Britain’s salt, has announced that it will likely have to close its facility in Runcorn, Cheshire, unless it receives government support. Like the rest of the UK’s manufacturing industry, Inovyn is struggling to cope with the UK’s breathtakingly high energy costs and crippling carbon taxes. In other words, Britain’s salt industry is to be sacrificed at the altar of Net Zero. The decline of salt would be an economic disaster. The chemical and pharmaceutical industry is one of the largest manufacturers in the UK. Salt, which is used in 90 per cent of pharmaceuticals, is a vital component in a surprising number of everyday products. Only the food industry contributes more to the domestic economy – and the food industry also needs high-quality salt, for taste and preservative reasons. Salt is integral to sectors that employ hundreds of thousands of people. The consequences of Britain becoming a net salt importer will have a huge impact on these industries. Salt is difficult to store and transport. That is the major reason why chemical plants are located very close to the point of production. Those chemical and pharmaceutical industries that depend on local supplies will, inevitably, either close down or relocate closer to salt sources. If Runcorn goes, don’t expect the chemicals industry or pharmaceuticals to survive in this country."
Meme - "HOW DO I KNOW THAT THE CLIMATE CRISIS IS A SCAM? HERE ARE FIVE REASONS
1. They preach sacrifice, but don't practice it. *private jet, SUV, oil barrel and gas pump*
2. They fly across the world to tell us how to reduce our "carbon footprint."
3. Wealthy alarmists still buy oceanfront property.
4. They rarely criticize China and India.
5. Their "solutions" always mean more government power and higher costs. Higher taxes. EV mandates. Restrictions & bans. More government power"
Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki on X - "This chart demolishes one of the central claims of the climate cult. It comes from Munich Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurance companies. Their entire business depends on accurately pricing risk. What does it show? Weather disaster losses as a percentage of global GDP from 1990–2025. Not raw dollars. Not media headlines. Losses normalized to the size of the global economy. And the trend? Flat… if anything slightly declining. If climate change were causing an explosion in extreme weather damages, losses should be rising faster than global wealth. They aren’t. What we see instead are occasional spikes (1993, 2005, 2017) surrounded by long periods of normal variability. Weather fluctuates. The long-term trend does not show escalating catastrophe. So why does the public constantly hear about “record climate disasters”? Because the climate industrial complex almost always cites raw dollar losses. As the global economy grows and more infrastructure exists, of course the total cost of disasters rises. That’s not climate. That’s propaganda. Normalize the data properly, and the panic narrative falls apart. The truth is simple: despite rising CO₂ and endless climate alarmism, weather disasters are not consuming a larger share of global wealth. The climate cult needs people to believe the world is spiraling into chaos. The data keep saying otherwise."
Danish pol defends guidelines limiting nursing home residents to 2.8 ounces of beef a week - "An eco-warrior politician has sparked outrage in Denmark after she defended guidelines limiting residents of government-run nursing homes to just 2.8 ounces of beef a week — which is less than one Big Mac. Birgitte Kehler Holst of the left-wing green Danish party The Alternative was also accused of saying old people in nursing homes should be “punished” by restricting their meat intake in comments made in a meeting of Copenhagen’s City Council on April 30. She was speaking against plans to exclude nursing home residents from guidelines in the Danish capital that restrict meals at government-run sites to just 2.8 ounces (80 grams) of beef, lamb, or veal per week. That is less than the amount of beef in a standard McDonald’s Big Mac, which contains two 1.6-ounce beef patties — for a total of 3.2 ounces. “Everyone, including the elderly, must contribute to achieving our climate goals,” Holst said at the city council meeting, adding, “It is precisely the generation that has screwed up the most.” Her comments sparked outrage among commentators in Denmark and elsewhere, with many accusing her of trying to punish the elderly and force through a vegetarian agenda... “No, we’re not saving the entire world by having our elderly eat only 11.4 grams of beef per day. Denmark emits 0.1% of the world’s human-caused CO2,” he added, taking aim at the hypocrisy of many climate activists. “Many of these climate fanatics who implement this kind of draconian climate measure have no problem flying back and forth to attend irrelevant climate conferences,” he said. Mona Juul of the center-right Conservative People’s Party also slammed the measure for punishing old people. “[Holst] apparently believes that nursing home residents should not be given meat because they have been ‘pigs’ their whole lives. Therefore, they should have lentils instead of meat”"
Old people need more protein too. The cruelty is the point
E&E News on X - "Greens mobilize against redistricting blitz"
Russ Greene on X - "the omnicause"
Jacob Shell on X - "Over the 2010s, the climate movement started gerrymandering their definition of "climate" to make it always actually about whatever the current thing was...a signal that deep down they lacked confidence in climate in and of itself as such an important issue."
Jacob Shell on X - "If you actually focused on climate rather than redefining it to allow fickle lurching from one Current Thing thing to the next, you'd have to confront the geographic complexity of climate change, where some regions will do badly and others will do well, and figure out what to make of this in terms of demands, politics, philosophy, etc. But by 2015, "climate" at the discursive level, whether in politics, media or academia, was not this -- it was a One Big Abstraction. "Climate" was either a Great Doom which was going to destroy the planet evenly and everywhere like a large asteroid (the metaphor of "Don't Look Up"); or if "difference" was acknowledged it was only through lens of race and gender...a lens which was supposed to follow a political formula and which made it impossible for someone to say that the rich, white Malibu coast is actually in a lot of trouble whereas the African Sahel is going to get greener."
tantum on X - "No one really believes in climate change. They believe in climate change in the same fashion the Soviets used to believe in the withering away of the state: useful insofar as it inspires loyalty to socialist world government, but not useful insofar as it has concrete implications, like “the cleanest, most advanced economies should do all the industrial production” or “liberal elites would be foolish to invest in beachfront property”"
This explains Greta Thunberg's move to other areas of the left wing omnicause
Meme - "Why isn't China concerned about global warming?"
"Because they already have a communist government"
Canada’s costly climate gamble on food needs to end - "For years, Canadians were told that catastrophic climate scenarios justified virtually any policy imposed in the name of emissions reductions. In agriculture and food, this translated into mounting costs across the supply chain, escalating industrial carbon pricing, and a policy environment increasingly disconnected from affordability and competitiveness. Now, quietly, the scientific conversation is evolving. A recent paper published in Geoscientific Model Development, tied directly to the next generation of UN-backed climate modeling for the IPCC’s upcoming assessment cycle, suggests that some of the most extreme warming scenarios used for years are no longer considered plausible. The infamous SSP5-8.5 pathway, often portrayed publicly as a “business-as-usual” future, assumed an explosion in coal consumption, extraordinarily high fossil fuel dependence, and emissions trajectories that increasingly diverged from economic and technological realities. In plain English: some of the world’s leading climate scientists are now acknowledging that humanity is unlikely to follow the catastrophic path that dominated climate communication for much of the last decade. Yet Canadian policy, especially in agri-food, still behaves as though we are one harvest away from Mad Max. This matters because few sectors absorb policy costs more directly than food. Even after Ottawa effectively zeroed out the consumer carbon levy on fuels in 2025, the industrial carbon pricing regime remains firmly in place and continues to rise, reaching $110 per tonne this year. These costs ripple through virtually every segment of the food economy: fertilizer production, trucking, warehousing, refrigeration, food processing, packaging, greenhouse operations, grain drying, and cold-chain logistics. Food systems are extraordinarily energy intensive. Unlike many sectors, food has no pause button. Products perish. Refrigeration cannot stop. Trucks must move. Grain must dry. Livestock must eat. And while government officials often insist the carbon price has only a “minimal” effect on grocery bills, that argument misses the broader economic picture entirely. The real issue is not simply retail pass-through. It is competitiveness. Canada’s agri-food sector competes globally. When domestic costs rise faster than those faced by competitors in the United States or elsewhere, investment shifts. Processing capacity weakens. Domestic production becomes less attractive. Imports increase. Over time, consumers pay the price through weaker food sovereignty and higher structural costs. This is not theoretical anymore. Canadians are already visiting grocery stores more frequently in search of deals. Restaurant bankruptcies are accelerating. Food affordability remains the number one concern for households according to repeated national surveys conducted by Dalhousie University’s Agri-Food Analytics Lab. Families are adapting, trading down, and increasingly prioritizing price over virtually every other food value. Meanwhile, policymakers continue layering costs onto the supply chain as though affordability were a secondary concern. The irony is that the climate science itself is becoming more nuanced while public policy remains rigid. To be clear, none of this means climate change is fake, harmless, or irrelevant to agriculture. Canadian farmers still face drought risks, floods, extreme weather volatility, and shifting growing conditions. Agriculture has always been vulnerable to nature. It always will be. But policy should be proportional to realistic risks, not permanently anchored to worst-case scenarios that scientists themselves are now reassessing. Canada’s food strategy needs recalibration. Instead of obsessing over punitive cost mechanisms, Ottawa should focus on resilience and productivity: modernizing transportation infrastructure, investing in irrigation and water systems, accelerating precision agriculture, supporting genetics research, strengthening domestic processing capacity, improving trade logistics, and encouraging technological innovation throughout the food chain. Innovation reduces emissions. Efficiency reduces waste. Productivity strengthens food security. Punishing domestic production does not. The danger now is not climate denial. It is policy inertia. Governments built much of today’s climate framework around assumptions that are quietly being revised by the scientific community itself. Yet admitting that some assumptions may have been overstated has become politically difficult because too many institutions, activists, and even media organizations spent years presenting worst-case scenarios as inevitabilities rather than possibilities. The result is a dangerous disconnect between economic reality and policy ambition. Canada needs climate policy rooted in pragmatism, not ideology. Especially in food. Because in the end, no country can claim to care about sustainability while simultaneously making food less affordable, weakening domestic production, and eroding its own supply chains."
Clearly, Canada destroying its own economy and making food unaffordable will inspire China and India to do the same, and stop climate change. The fact that non-Western countries aren't doing the same proves that the West needs to double down to set an example, which will definitely be followed once they have impoverished themselves and China takes over the world. Only Dangerous Far Right Climate Change Deniers don't know that the Science is Settled
How ignorant. Why doesn't the Food Professor know that food is expensive worldwide and nothing Canada does has increased its cost?!
MAZE on X - "2016. Guy McPherson (a climate change expert, scientist, and professor from the University of Arizona) says that there will not be any humans on the planet by 2026 due to the effects of climate change. Trust the scientists. 😜🤣"
Trust the Science!
Meme - "The left blamed climate change for the Palisades fire. It turns out, the arsonist was a leftist who worshipped Luigi Mangione and wanted to punish the rich. 12 people paid for it with their lives."
Consumer groups criticise energy companies charging solar panel owners for exporting power - "A new tariff that will charge solar panel owners for exporting their energy during the middle of the day could discourage solar uptake, consumer groups say. Ausgrid, which has about 280,000 customers in New South Wales with rooftop solar panels, has introduced a two-way tariff system to incentivise solar panel owners to export their power into the grid in the evening, when it is most needed. This will include a charge to solar panel owners of 1.2 cents a kilowatt hour to send electricity to the grid between 10am and 3pm once exports hit above a free threshold... Other energy distributors in NSW and the Australian Capital Territory proposed similar plans last year, including Essential Energy, Endeavour Energy, and EVOenergy, according to the consumer group Solar Citizens. Solar Citizens’ chief executive, Heidi Lee Douglas, said the groupbelieved the tariff was a roadblock to solar uptake, given that few solar panel owners would benefit from the return... This was due to a low uptake in batteries among solar panel owners, she said, which would allow consumers to benefit from the change by storing their power during the day and selling back to the grid during the evening when the return is high. Price was the main inhibitor to uptake, Douglas said, with batteries costing upwards of $10,000. About 12% of homes with solar panels have a battery, according to figures by SunWiz. In NSW it’s 13.5%. Douglas said the change could lead to consumers installing smaller solar power systems so they were not penalised for exporting energy during the day. “We actually need the government to be removing the roadblocks for those people to get the cost of living benefits of solar energy,” she said. Douglas said governments should be doing more and urged the NSW government to follow Queensland’s lead by increasing battery uptake via financial support... Reeve said the change had been triggered by problems caused by the flood of power exported by solar systems during the day rather than at night when it was needed."
Clearly, this is the fault of 'capitalism' which says free power is a bad thing, because left wingers think prices are fake and arbitrary with no informational value
The "cost of living benefits of solar energy" are just government subsidies
Naturally, the Guardian doesn't talk about grid stability, devoting more space to people condemning this move
Students say Humber Polytechnic’s net zero rollout less than ideal - "When Etobicoke’s Humber Polytechnic announced plans to not only greatly reduce its carbon footprint but do so in record time, many students celebrated... In 2024, the college moved its target to achieve net-zero emissions from 2050 to 2029. The move included transitioning from natural gas to advanced electric heating systems, a multi-phase project called “SWITCH,” which a spokesperson says is aimed at reducing natural gas use and carbon emissions. But students who live in residence on the north campus say the changeover has left them in the cold on many days. “It’s greatly reduced the hot water in our bathrooms,” the student told us. “Some days there’d be no hot water for 12 hours. Some days the shortage would last three hours. But the biggest thing is there was no communication.”... “I work for the college and I am about two weeks shy of graduating, and I worry any kind of negative attention might interrupt that,” one of the students told us. The students say they’ve experienced hot water problems since they moved into the dorms this fall. “It started in September with sporadic hot water outages. This was a new system so most of us understood at the time there might be glitches but then it just continued and has been ongoing ever since,” said one student. Students most upset are those who paid extra to live in the suite style dorms equipped with private bathrooms. “But it’s no good when you can’t even shower,” one of the students said. “The options they left us with is to go and shower in other buildings that had hot water but that’s not what we paid for.”"
Leopards eating people's faces is only when you defy the left wing agenda
'Fighting' climate change about expanding government power - " There is nothing as absurd as claims by former environment minister Steven Guilbeault and other green ideologues that Prime Minister Mark Carney has made it impossible to meet Canada’s greenhouse gas emission targets because of his energy policies. It’s absurd because Canada was never going to meet the targets under former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s government... Carney’s energy policies so far have been more realistic than Trudeau’s, which is somewhat surprising given Carney’s previous life as the world’s leading corporate shill for higher carbon taxes... In December 2023, Guilbeault said the Trudeau government was “projected to exceed Canada’s interim objective of (reducing emissions to) 20% below 2005 levels by 2026” while remaining “firmly on track to meet our ambitious but achievable 2030 target” of 40% below. In fact, exceeding the 2026 target would have required the Trudeau government, if it was still in power, to shut down the equivalent of Canada’s heavy industry sector by the end of this year. To meet the 2030 target (40% below 2005) would have required the Trudeau government to shut down the equivalent of Canada’s entire oil and gas sector in four years. Trudeau’s emission targets were purely aspirational. Their real purpose as the lynch-pin of Trudeau’s program for fighting climate change was to expand the reach and power of the federal government, redistribute income and interfere in the marketplace by picking private sector winners and losers. The cost to federal taxpayers, as of April 2023 in a statement by Guilbault, was more than $200 billion, with 13 government agencies administering 149 programs. Add in provincial and territorial spending estimated at $303 billion for 364 programs (excluding municipal ones) and the total taxpayer-funded cost comes to over $500 billion or $12,000 per Canadian. Thomas Sowell described in his 1995 book, The Vision of the Anointed – Self Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, how interventionist governments repeatedly create massive and costly programs, regardless of whether they will work, ostensibly to address society’s ills, but really to extend the reach and power of government. Written 20 years before Trudeau became PM in 2015, see if it reminds you of Trudeau’s approach to addressing climate change. First, Sowell wrote, there are “assertions of a great danger to the whole of society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.” Second, the government asserts there is “an urgent need for action to avert impending catastrophe.” Third, the government claims “there is a need … to drastically curtail the dangerous behaviour of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.” Fourth, is a “disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible or motivated by unworthy purposes.” This is how the Trudeau government convinced the Canadian public for a decade of their moral responsibility to address climate change by spending hundreds of billions of their tax dollars on programs that not only failed to achieve the government’s stated goals, but that everyone who could add using the government’s own data knew were failing, year after year, while they were being imposed. Even if they had succeeded, they would have failed because Canada’s emissions are too small to globally impact climate change. Sowell noted the anointed’s response to these failures is to argue things would have been worse if they had not acted. This is exactly what the Trudeau government did by blaming the previous Stephen Harper government for failing to meet its emission targets – ignoring the fact that the previous Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney governments also failed to meet their targets."
The left wing agenda is all connected
The White House on X - "“GOOD RIDDANCE! After 15 years of Dumocrats promising that “Climate Change” is going to destroy the Planet, the United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!” - President DONALD J. TRUMP 🇺🇸"
Steve Guest on X - "President Trump just called out the so-called experts who based litigation as well as reporting on WRONG PROJECTIONS. For those keeping track at home, RCP8.5 was cited 150,000 times according to Google Scholar and was the standard that was used “across global climate modeling and impact assessment literature for over a decade.”"
Weird. We were told that the science was settled.
Lauren Chen on X - "I just filled up at $4.40/gallon. So of course green activists in Louisiana have launched FORTY different lawsuits against the energy industry. OF COURSE"
Time to blame Trump for pricey gas
Don't double-down on net zero again - "In 2021, the world promised to phase-down coal. Since then, global coal consumption has only gone up. Though virtually every climate summit has promised to cut emissions, they’ve increased almost every single year, with 2024 marking a new high. Long before the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol was also sold as a key part of the solution to global warming. Yet studies show it achieved virtually nothing for climate change. In the preamble to the Paris Agreement, world leaders loftily declared they would keep temperature rises “well below 2°C” and perhaps even under 1.5°C. That was never on the cards — it would have required the world’s economies to effectively grind to a halt. The truth is that the “net-zero” green agenda, based on massive subsidies and expensive legislation, will likely cost more than C$38 trillion per year over this century, making it utterly unattractive to voters essentially everywhere. The awkward reality is that emissions from Canada, the EU and other countries pursuing climate policies matter little in the 21st century. Canada only produces about 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions. Using the UN’s “middle of the road” forecast, the OECD countries combined account for only about one-fifth of global emissions this century. The other four-fifths come mostly from China, India and Africa. Even if wealthy countries like Canada impoverish themselves, the result is tiny. Run the UN’s standard climate model with and without Canada reaching net zero in 2050 and the difference is less than two one-hundredths of a degree Celsius in 2100. (If you can see two lines on the chart, you have good eyes!) And much of the production and emissions just move to the Global South — meaning even less is achieved. Like Justin Trudeau’s governments, the United Kingdom has leaned into climate policies, suggesting it would lead the efforts for strong climate agreements. British families are paying a high price for their government going farther on climate than almost any other. Weighted across households and industry, the inflation-adjusted electricity price tripled between 2003 and 2023, mostly because of climate policies. Over the same two decades, U.S. electricity prices were virtually unchanged. The effect on families has been devastating. At 2003 prices, an average family of four would be spending C$3,380 on electricity, including indirect industry costs. Instead, it’s bill is C$9,740. And rising electricity costs also make investment less attractive: nearly two-thirds of European companies say energy prices are now a major bar to investment. The Paris Treaty approach is fundamentally flawed. Carbon emissions continue to grow because cheap, reliable power, mostly from fossil fuels, drives economic growth. Wealthy countries like Canada, the U.S., and EU member-states have started to cut emissions — often by shifting production elsewhere — but the rest of the world is still focused on eradicating poverty. Poor countries will rightly reject making carbon cuts unless there is a huge flow of “climate aid” from rich nations — trillions of U.S. dollars per year. Without these huge transfers of wealth, China, India and many other developing countries will disavow expensive climate policies. But it’s not going to happen. The Trump administration won’t pay, and a rag-tag group of progressive countries, including Canada, can scarcely afford their own policies let alone pay off everyone else. By doubling down on the Paris Treaty after the U.S. withdrew in 2017, Canada in effect told the world it should spend hundreds of trillions of dollars over the rest of the century to make no real difference to global temperatures."
The meetings are nice junkets for the climate industry though
European energy crisis is ‘good’ – Bill Gates - "Europe’s gas supply and affordability crisis is actually “good for the long run,” Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates told CNBC on Tuesday. He explained that it would ultimately force the continent to embrace renewable energy, adding that “people won’t want to be dependent on Russian natural gas.” Gates acknowledged that the public “did get a little optimistic about how quickly the transition [to renewables] could be done,” admitting the need to find “non-Russian hydrocarbon sources.” Elaborating on the matter, the founder of climate-oriented venture capital fund Breakthrough Energy Ventures published an essay titled ‘State of the Energy Transition’ on his blog on the same day. Speaking about global greenhouse gas emissions, Gates noted that the ultimate goal of going “from 51 billion tons a year to zero” should be achieved “in the next three decades.”"
The cruelty is the point
China coal plant building surges despite record renewable energy additions - "China is doubling down on building new coal-fired power plants to meet growing energy needs even as it maintains record investments in renewable energy , a study released on Feb 3 shows... China has the world’s second highest number of nuclear plants, after the United States, and is expanding its nuclear fleet."
Time for climate change hystericists to lie again about how China is embracing renewables unlike countries that are not eliminating fossil fuels, so Western countries need to build renewables and dismantle fossil fuels and nuclear
Coal – Global Energy Review 2025 – Analysis - IEA - "In China, coal demand grew by 1.2% (43 Mtce) in 2024, reaching a new all-time high. The country now consumes nearly 40% more coal than the rest of the world combined, largely for power generation. Over one-third of all the coal consumed globally is burned by power plants in China. China’s influence in global coal market trends is unparalleled by any country for any type of fuel, with China’s share of global coal consumption now standing at 58%."
