Ghosts, Salem witches, and Nova Scotia snowstorms

Thomas Chandler Haliburton’s 1836 satirical collection The Clockmaker: or, The Sayings and Doings of Samuel Slick, of Slicksville, the first Canadian bestseller and a hilarious portrait of a gullible populace in pre-Confederation times, has never been more proleptically apt than in our present day. Haliburton’s hero, an American clockmaker, has little respect for the inhabitants of the British colony of Nova Scotia to whom he sells clocks at inflated prices. Sam Slick was Haliburton’s shrewd, perceptive and swaggering Yankee, a representative of American culture; indeed, Sam is thought to be the original Uncle Sam.

Haliburton was ambivalent toward the United States, admiring its "get up and go" attitude, intelligence, resourcefulness, and business acumen, while also regarding it as arrogant, brash and crude. But he was even harder on the colonists of Nova Scotia, whom he thought complacent, self-pitying, priggish, lazy, and self-righteous—easy marks.

I allot," said Mr. Slick, "that the Bluenoses [i.e., Nova Scotians] are the most gullible folks on the face of the airth—rigular soft horns, that's a fact. Politics and such stuff set 'em a-gapin', like children in a chimbley corner listenin' to tales of ghosts, Salem witches, and Nova Scotia snowstorms; and while they stand starin' and yawpin' all eyes and mouth, they get their pockets picked of every cent that's in 'em.

One candidate chap says 'Feller citizens, this country is goin' to the dogs… What's the cause of this unheerd of awful state of things… Why judges, and banks, and lawyers, and great folks, have swallered all the money. They've got you down, and they'll keep you down to all etarnity, you and your posteriors arter you. Rise up like men, arouse yourselves like freemen, and elect me to the legislatur'…I'll knock off your chains and make you free.' Well, the goneys fall tu and elect him, and he desarts right away.

Aside from the scourge of gullibility, one of Canadians’ most pervasive failings is an endemic smugness, in particular a holier-than-thou attitude toward the United States. Canadians on the whole tend to consider themselves morally superior to, and more peaceable, caring, and decent, than, our supposedly venal and huckstering neighbors to the south. I have encountered this attitude more often than I care to remember. The idea that Americans are demonstrably more adventurous, industrious, and blessed with a greater entrepreneurial spirit than their Canadian counterparts is a generally inadmissible concession. 

According to the myth, Americans are rude and blustering, Canadians civilized and polite. That we have done little, in decades, of collective value compared with an enterprising, risk-taking nation like the U.S. is a notion that rarely crosses our intellectual horizon. One recalls Northrop Frye’s analysis in The Bush Garden of Canada’s “garrison mentality,” the fear of “being swallowed by an alien continent” and the feeling that events and achievements of significance must be happening elsewhere. And as Margaret Atwood writes in Survival, Canadians have a will to lose as powerful as the American will to win.  

Of course, we need to recognize that the political Left is now malignantly powerful in the U.S., and if installed in government will drag the nation down the road to a Canadian terminal—which is why Donald Trump’s electoral victory is an absolute necessity. He represents the real, core-traditional America that Canadians tend to resent while at the same time condescending to.

Canadians would never have elected a mover-and-shaker like Trump, who in a few short years has created millions of jobs, righted trade imbalances, eliminated labor-strangling regulations, raised the GDP, sponsored international treaties in the heretofore insoluble Middle East, restored the military to fighting capacity, reined in the “climate change” boondoggle, and revived the energy sector via drilling, pipelines and fracking, thus rendering his country increasingly energy independent. But we Canadians are convinced Trump is a boor, and that’s all there is to it.

In contrast, we believe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a winner because he is a charming, ineffectual, and telegenic loser. The fact that Trudeau runs a scandal-plagued administration, has plunged the country into unsustainable debt, signed on to the farcical and utterly useless Paris Climate Agreement, imposed an onerous carbon tax adversely affecting small businesses and Canadian consumers, and virtually extinguished the oil-and-gas energy sector, the mainstay of Canadian prosperity, in  favor of dodgy wind farms and unproven solar arrays, is of no account. 

At least we're not them.

Indeed, Trudeau assures us that wind and solar—Canada’s post-Covid “Resilient Recovery” program—will save the planet and rally the economy, when all the reliable evidence shows that Green is the road to economic perdition, infrastructural debility, and environmental destruction. Tex Leugner, in a recent edition of the newsletter ActionAlberta, points out the irony of the Green agenda: “Wind and solar plants… use more power than they produce while generating more environmental problems than they prevent." After defeating Conservative PM Stephen Harper, Trudeau informed us that “Canada is back,” and we believed him. He was right in a way. Canada is back—to square zero. As Haliburton writes, "Well, the goneys fall tu and elect him, and he desarts right away."

The unfortunate fact is that Canada desperately needs a venturesome paladin to ride to its rescue since it will not help itself. The few political figures who might have made a difference, such as failed Conservative leadership candidates Derek Sloan and Leslyn Lewis or Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, have been effectively silenced, remorselessly mocked by the media and duly cast into outer darkness.

But wait. Irony of ironies, the deus ex machina might be none other than the American president, the presumably thuggish and disreputable Donald Trump, who has come to the relief of the landlocked province of Alberta where the country’s major energy reserves are located and which Trudeau has essentially bankrupted—Alberta’s GDP is estimated to drop by a whopping 11.3 percent in 2020, and as of this September, according to True North, 53 percent of Albertans “reported being either unemployed or under reduced hours or wages.” The province is also suffering an exodus of citizens. 

Issuing an executive permit allowing a $22-billion international railway, called the A2A Cross-Border Rail, to be built between Alaska and Alberta, Trump has opened a vast market potential for the Canadian oil industry and given a new lease on life to Alberta. This should not come as a surprise. Trudeau blocks the pipeline project, Trump clears the way for a railroad, creating, as A2ARail founder and chairman Sean McCoshen said, a project that

[C]ould serve as another important outlet for Alberta’s oil producers who have struggled due to lack of pipeline capacity…This is a world-class infrastructure project that will generate more than 18,000 jobs for Canadian workers at a time when they are most needed, provide a new, more efficient route for trans-Pacific shipping and thereby link Alberta to world markets.... The new rail line will create new economic development opportunities for a wide range of businesses, communities and Indigenous communities in Canada and Alaska. We estimate that A2A Rail could unlock $60 billion CAD in additional cumulative GDP through 2040 and lift household incomes by an average of 40 per cent.

And yet, in true Canadian fashion, while celebrating this unexpected festival of good fortune, the Financial Post cannot prevent itself from insulting the man who has given Alberta (and Canada) hope, gloating that “It may well be his last few weeks in office” and referring to “his increasingly-deranged conspiracy theory tweets.” If this is not an instance of Canadian smugness and ingratitude, I’m not sure what is. But it is entirely typical of a large swath of Canadian public opinion.

Coming to save the day?

In The Flight from Truth French political philosopher Jean-François Revel remarks that “the average human being seeks the truth only after having exhausted all other possibilities.” Obviously, his insight also applies to the average Canadian, except that, judging from our two previous elections, his or her credulity may be practically inexhaustible and not all the possibilities may be exhausted before the boom is lowered. We cannot credit our American benefactor or accept the truth of both our dependence and our luck. 

Sam Slick may be an operator and so to some extent is Donald Trump. But, like the clockmaker, Trump is astute, far-seeing, dynamic and mettlesome—precisely what his Canadian counterpart is not. Trudeau is not mitigating climate change, as he claims; he is mitigating Canadian prosperity and national unity to a level that seems positively Luddite. He sounds cutting edge but what he is actually doing is replacing a 12-tappet engine with a horse and buggy.

Trudeau believes he is greening the future, moving the clock forward toward a better, more harmonious and enlightened time to come—under his stewardship, naturally. In reality, he is moving the clock backward toward environmental degradation, a depleted grid, economic collapse, national hardship and a disintegrating Confederation.

Donald Trump is doing for Canada what Sam Slick advised Canadians to do for themselves: build productive and remunerative industries, in particular to “facilitate conveyance, and above all things make a railroad.” If Trudeau won’t allow a pipeline—a “conveyance”— to exploit our enormous reserves—third largest in the world—Trump will give us a train. There is light at the end of the tunnel. A little gratitude and some humility may be in order.

Dwight Newman, the Carbon Tax, and Canada's 'Legal Monoculture'

Last week I wrote about the Carbon Tax Reference, a high-profile case before the Supreme Court of Canada that will decide whether the Trudeau government’s federal carbon tax is constitutional. As an addendum to that piece, I wanted to call your attention to an academic dispute which sheds some light on the case.

Back in August, the Centre for Law & the Environment at the law school of the University of British Columbia posted a paper by three Canadian law professors on its website, entitled “Responsible Scholarship in a Crisis: A Plea for Fairness in Academic Discourse on the Carbon Pricing References.” Their names are Stepan Wood, Meinhard Doelle, and Dayna Nadine Scott.

On its face, the paper seemed fairly straightforward and somewhat anodyne. The authors spoke of the importance of widely accepted academic standards in discussing this difficult topic, things like rigorous scholarly research, accurate citations to referenced sources, and conduct consistent with the highest standards of civility and integrity. 

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

But they also did something noteworthy and unusual in this paper. They pointed to another article, written by a professor named Dwight Newman from the University of Saskatchewan, as an example of how legal scholarship should not be practiced. 

That paper was “Federalism, Subsidiarity, and Carbon Taxes," published by Professor Newman in the Saskatchewan Law Review in 2019. His argument was fairly technical, but essentially he averred that the federal carbon tax poses a serious challenge to Canadian federalism and called for a disciplined application of the law to “clarify and confine” federal power in a manner that respects provincial autonomy.

He also suggested that there's a contradiction in the position of defenders of the law -- including the Trudeau government -- who hold that the carbon tax is a matter of "national concern," such that it allows the invocation of the federal governments constitutional “residual powers,” but also that the provinces can opt out if they come up with something even more rigorous. Consequently, Professor Newman maintained that the carbon tax is unconstitutional.  

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

This shouldn't be shocking to anyone -- a law professor has an opinion about the law, even if that position differs from the opinion of other scholars. That's what scholarship is all about. However, according to Wood, Doelle, and Scott, Professor Newman is also guilty of “distorting the published work of scholars with whom he disagrees, and portraying them in derogatory terms” as well as “selectively presenting the relevant case law to suit his purposes.”

They claim to “take no issue” with the arguments Professor Newman makes in his paper. Rather, their concern is “with how Professor Newman chose to make his argument and the implications of this choice for legal scholarship and informed public debate." 

These are grievous charges indeed. But the authors hardly make a case for their allegations. They do little more than assert their point, something which you would assume a group of lawyers would be sensitive to.

But, then, why write the article in the first place? Well, as Sean Spear recently pointed out in the National Post, Professor Newman’s paper was apparently influential in the Alberta Court of Appeal’s finding that the law is unconstitutional. Indeed, his paper is cited in the majority opinion several times.

Though the appellate courts of Ontario and Saskatchewan reached the opposite conclusion, albeit in split decisions, the timing of this article -- a draft was posted just under a month before the Supreme Court began hearing on the Carbon Tax Reference -- suggests that the authors were concerned that Newman's arguments might sway the Supreme Court as well. 

In a public reply to their paper, Newman dealt with several of the specific charges levied by Wood, Doelle, and Scott, such as they are (and reading his replies gives you a sense of how shallow they are:

"On p 7, Wood/Doelle/Scott suggest I should have read a particular article. I actually discussed that very article and showed how it had problems in its understanding of the relationship between the legal doctrines of POGG and interjurisdictional immunity." But he also dealt with the larger dimensions beyond this exchange, including that which related to the impending Supreme Court case: “accusations of irresponsible scholarship… have an even graver dimension when they give the appearance of being framed and timed so as to attempt to interfere with academic contributions to a major public debate.”

Newman rightly cautioned that “the publication of [this paper] threatens academic discourse through the intimidating effects it could have on [all] scholars.” 

Other scholars seem to agree, and defenses of Professor Newman were quick to surface. This is heartening, since the broadside against professor Newman was shameful, and the pretense of its authors that this was just about the integrity of legal scholarship, and was not politically motivated, only makes it worse. As Speer rightly put it,

The charitable read of professors Wood, Doelle and Nadine Scott’s article is that they’ve grown unaccustomed to alternative interpretations and analysis in the bubble of Canada’s legal monoculture. They’re not acting in bad faith per se. They just assume that anyone who reaches divergent constitutional views must necessarily be failing to live up to the standard of responsible scholarship.

A less charitable view is that the authors don’t like Prof. Newman’s article because it was influential with the Alberta court of appeal and contributed to a legal outcome that they don’t like. They’re determined to discredit him and his arguments before the Supreme Court’s upcoming hearings, so he doesn’t also influence its thinking.

Two ironies stand out in this whole affair, the more obvious one being that Professors Wood, Doelle, and Scott's article was purportedly about the standards of responsible scholarship, but in their quest to demonstrate those standards via negativa, as it were, by pointing to Newman's paper, they actually provided that example in their own writing. In their contention that Professor Newman had “crosse[d] a line,” they crossed one themselves.

The second irony is that their article might well have the exact opposite effect from the one intended. The controversy over Newman's essay makes it increasingly likely that everyone following the case will have read it, and even those Supreme Court justices reluctant to be seen siding with conservatives, the west, or so-called climate change deniers will have to contend with his arguments.

As the saying goes, you can't buy that kind of publicity.

Federalism On Trial in Canada

With all of the focus on the U.S. Supreme Court last week, it’s interesting to note that Canada’s top court found itself at the center of that nation's national drama at exactly the same time. The Supreme Court of Canada held a two-day hearing on the Trudeau Government's federal carbon tax scheme. And the stakes for the nation as a whole, and the nature of Confederation, are potentially quite high.

You’ll recall that Trudeau’s Liberals, appealing to Canada’s Paris Agreement commitments to drastically reduce the nation's carbon emissions, passed a law nearly two years ago which forced a carbon tax on provinces that didn't already have one of their own. The law has been described as a “backstop," which is to say it requires provincial and territorial governments to put a price on carbon that meets minimum standards. Provincial governments can choose how to meet this benchmark, but they have to do something, and if their proposals are deemed insufficient, Ottawa will impose one on them directly.

From the beginning, Canadian conservatives -- especially Brad Wall and Scott Moe of Saskatchewan, and Alberta premier Jason Kenney -- have stood firmly against the law. They've argued, first, that the carbon tax is bad for Canadian consumers and industry, and second, that it is an unconstitutional usurpation of provincial authority.

The first of these points was put before the voters in last year's election, contributing to the Liberal's losing the their majority (along with, for what its worth, the popular vote), while maintaining a minority government. Meanwhile, the second point has been put to the test before three provincial appellate courts thus far, those of Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan. In split decisions from each, the courts of Saskatchewan and Ontario found the law to be constitutional, while that of Alberta held that it was not. The appeals of those decisions is what is now being considered. 

Carbon pricing is not the only available option.

Unlike the American Constitution, whose 10th amendment stipulates that any power not specifically delegated to the federal government automatically falls under the purview of the states, Canada's Constitution Act of 1867 details which "matters" fall under federal jurisdiction (s. 91) and which under provincial jurisdiction (s. 92). Of course, constitutional grey areas arise when the “matter” wasn't an issue at the time of Confederation (carbon taxes, for instance) and is therefore not assigned to federal or provincial power.

Moreover, Canada's constitution does grant the federal government “residual powers” to pass laws for peace, order, and good government, in emergency situations or for matters of national concern. Supporters of Trudeau's carbon tax argue that it falls under the latter.

Consequently, the court must classify this matter as falling under either federal or provincial jurisdiction, and in so doing answer the question of whether the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions qualifies as a matter of national concern such that it justifies the implementation of a federal carbon tax, and in the way the Trudeau government has chosen to implement one.

Interestingly, counsel for both sides admitted that carbon pricing is not the only available option. A suite of pricing and non-pricing policy measures is at the provinces’ disposal to address this issue.  Several provinces have already put their own carbon pricing measures into place, which lends support to the argument that the federal carbon tax intrudes on provincial jurisdiction. In fact, one of the criteria of the national concern doctrine is "provincial inability," which holds that if the provinces don't have the jurisdiction to act in a matter that has extra-provincial effects, then the door is open for the feds to step in.

But the limiting factor of provincial inability is an important part of this debate. Does it refer only to constitutional inability -- that the jurisdiction to act is lacking; or is it a practical inability -- that is, that the political will to act is lacking. My reading of the relevant jurisprudence and Canadian history suggests that it is the former. As you would expect, however, counsel for the government took the opposite position, while arguing that precedent was split between the two. Even so, common sense seems to land on the constitutional side. Not acting on an issue can be an intentional choice. If the federal government can step in and legislate simply because a province has not done so -- in the case of a carbon tax --  this turns our whole understanding of federalism on its ear.

And -- a related point -- the very fact that the law is structured as a backstop, both implies that it is firstly the prerogative of the individual provinces to act, and makes a farce of federalism by penalizing provinces who act contrary to the will of the federal government.

And, listening to the hearing, it is clear that fear of being seen to support climate skeptics weighed on the justices. Justice Russell Brown made it a point to stress the issue is not whether the federal government can regulate greenhouse gas emissions but whether how it has chosen to do so is constitutional. Justice Rosalie Abella noted that the provinces “do not have plexiglass at their borders” to keep out greenhouse gas emissions. Justice Michael Moldaver expressed concern that if one province “goes rogue” and takes no action that would moot the efforts of the others.

At the same time, Justice Malcolm Rowe voiced serious concerns from the other side of the spectrum. Throughout the hearing he reiterated the danger of the law creating “winners and losers," punishing industries that use larger amounts of energy. Counsel for the appellants agreed with this view, suggesting that the law gives undue discretion to the federal cabinet to set sector-by-sector emissions costs, and thereby represents an unprecedented "federal power grab." 

The hearing has now concluded, and we will probably have to wait several months to find out which way the Court will rule. Its decision will likely affect the relationship between federal and provincial governments going forward, and at a time when the tension between them is shakier than its been in decades. I'm hesitant to guess which way they will go, though I often have occasion to think of the wise words of a professor of mine, speaking in an American context: "Never trust the Supreme Court to make the right decision."

But the justices would do well to remember two things. First, that their role is simply to faithfully interpret the constitution, and not to meddle in political questions or ensure particular policy outcomes. And second, that federalism cannot be a fair-weather friend. It is the bedrock of Canada’s constitutional structure and the courts must weather this commitment through any storm. We might not always like the outcome these two require, especially in hard cases. But as the appellants' counsel put it, “That’s federalism and that’s democracy.”

Canada: Minorities Should Be Seen But Not Heard

Considering their obsession with race, liberals everywhere have a tendency to stumble into racist territory at least as often as the "normies" they so despise. This is principally because, for all of their mockery of Republicans for having "token" black friends (Dick Durban memorably used the word to describe Senator Tim Scott), many of them only know of minorities what they learned from outdated activist playbooks.

We're seeing this phenomenon play out in the U.S. election, as when Joe Biden proclaimed that African Americans "ain't black" if they haven't yet decided whether to vote for him. Similarly, many Hispanic voters were alarmed by Biden's declaration that he would "go down as one of the most progressive presidents in American history," remembering, as they do, that "progresivo" is the preferred self-description of the regimes many of them fled. (Quinnipiac recently even had Trump leading outright with likely Hispanic voters in the crucial state of Florida).

Though they don't like to say it out loud, liberals tend to think that they're owed the votes of racial minorities, and that they should be seen -- especially at campaign rallies -- but not heard. Specifically, that their actual opinions about contentious issues, from defunding the police, to  immigration, to job killing regulations, just complicate the narrative.

Native groups, of course, are frequently used this way, especially on environmental issues. In a feature I wrote back in July, after retelling the story of Canada's Wet’suwet’en nation, who were supportive of a pipeline project on their territory that protesters were boycotting on their behalf (something I'd written about before), I commented:

Activists and their friends in the media don't want us to hear that side of the story [i.e. that Natives supported a pipeline], as it undercuts the Rousseauvian depiction of indigenous people that they want haunting our imaginations. They would prefer we think of Natives exclusively as victims... still in a state of mystical harmony with nature, disinterested in all worldly concerns. But this is an embarrassing caricature of natives, both historically as well as in the present day.

Writing at the Calgary Herald, Stephen Buffalo and Ken Coates have an op-ed that looks at the struggles Canada's Liberal Party has along these same lines. As they explain:

Since its election in 2015, the Trudeau government cancelled the Northern Gateway Pipeline, banned oil and gas exploration in the Arctic and oil tankers off the British Columbia coast, brought in complex environmental assessment processes, and appeared to actively discourage investment in the industry.

However, that same government is committed, at least rhetorically, to supporting indigenous communities. The problem is that the economic well-being of First Nations in Canada

[I]s closely associated with the natural resource economy, particularly mining, oil and gas. Government policy is putting at risk the impressive gains supported by government policy in recent decades.

As in the Wet’suwet’en situation, oil and gas projects often occur on or near the lands of First Nations communities. Having title to that land is an asset to them. It also provides jobs for members of their communities. The authors make clear that these groups care about responsible environmental stewardship, and don't want to see their lands polluted or spoiled -- who does? But if that can be managed while also bringing wealth and employment to the communities, where's the problem?

Indigenous communities engaged with the oil and gas industry for solid reasons: to build prosperity, employment and business, to gain autonomy from the government of Canada, to secure a measure of influence over project decision-making, and to assert a prominent place in the national and international economy.

Read the whole thing.

In Canada, Between a Sponge and a Soft Place

Ottawa’s orchestrated vendetta against Canada’s energy sector, located primarily in the province of Alberta, is an instance of sublime indifference to the laws of physics, the math behind energy realities, Canadian living standards and the national welfare. It is part and parcel of the campaign to bring Canada in line with the U.N.’s anti-capitalist, globalist wealth-transfer program advantaging the Third World—in actual fact, benefiting only the ruling class of these nations.

And it is, of course, a scheme for enriching investors and "green" industrialists for whom the Green Technology adventure has become a government-fed cash cow, abetted by public gullibility and self-righteousness. Conservative Alberta is now at risk of bankruptcy. 

(Wikipedia).

Canada’s great conservative thinker, George Grant, wrote in Lament for a Nation that "Canada was predicated on the rights of nations as well as on the rights of individuals.” He might also have written “the rights of provinces.” The book’s subtitle, The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, bespeaks Grant’s abiding fear that the country had forgotten its conservative origin in communal solidarity and had sold its future to a managerial elite wedded to the notion of unmitigated “progress.”

A devout traditionalist, Grant was skeptical of unrestrained capital markets and of what he called, in Technology & Justice, “technological ontology.” Liberals—and some Conservatives—consider him out of touch with modernity, a throwback to a pre-modern age. But his emphasis on individual responsibility and commitment to the values of truth and justice remain the core of conservative thinking. In the “Afterword” to Lament, his widow recalls one of Grant’s “simplest statements: ‘It always matters what each of us does.’”

Modern Canadian conservatism owes much to Alberta-born Preston Manning, founder of the Reform Party, which was succeeded by the Canadian Alliance and ultimately by the Conservative Party of Canada. As articulated in his The New Canada, Manning believed in fiscal prudence, the need to control the deficit and to live within our means, in doing away with redistributive economics and progressive taxation and relying instead on market forces and job creation. He believed in the reduction of federal power and in the provincial management of political and economic responsibilities. For advocating such ideas, Manning said, “We were called everything under the sun, from fascists to traitors to racists.” How such a sensible and mature platform can be condemned as “far right,” extremist, or as some sort of nascent fascism boggles the mind. 

Preston Manning (Wikipedia).

Manning understands energy and its crucial importance to priming the engine of prosperity, facilitating job creation and strengthening the Canadian economy across the board. He urges provincial cooperation to “put enormous pressure on the Federal government to get pipeline rights of way to both the Pacific and the Atlantic.” In his new book Do Something!: 365 Ways You Can Strengthen Canada Manning writes: “[W]e need unobstructed transportation corridors to the Atlantic, Pacific and the Arctic to move our resources to tidewater and world markets. We need a federal government that’s supportive of these kinds of measures rather than one that obstructs.”

Manning is also deeply concerned about the corrosive prospect of growing Western alienation. “The problems with the energy sector,” which he lays at Ottawa’s door, “and the inability to get resources to tidewater and world markets are all fueling Western alienation.” He is right. Wexit is picking up momentum and Wexit Canada is now an official political party.

Former Conservative PM Stephen Harper (aka “Harperman,” as the socialist rabble and environmental scientist Tony Turner maligned him) was often tarred as “far right” for his fiscal prudence (which steered us through the 2008 financial meltdown) when, to be accurate, he was a “conservative centrist” some of whose policies—maintaining high immigration rates from Muslim countries, or refusing to re-open the abortion debate—consorted with Liberal positions. Some have criticized him, too, as being somewhat ambivalent on the oil patch, neglecting to build a sufficient pipeline distribution network. Harper did not govern as effectively as he could have, but as a trained economist he understood the industry that contributed massively to the country’s prosperity.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who is leading Canada to an Argentinian-type default and economic collapse, setting his sights on net-zero in more ways than one, is no friend of George Grant, Preston Manning or Stephen Harper; he is much closer to his father’s socialist influence Harold Laski, who was Pierre Trudeau’s mentor at the London School of Economics. Laski held that capitalism inevitably led to internal contradictions, economic crashes and depressions, and proposed the socialist control of natural resources and property to be shared by all of society’s stakeholders.

Harold Laski (1893 - 1950), circa 1940.

The predictable irony, of course, endemic to all socialist regimes, is the splintering of society into warring interest groups, the eventual imposition of top-down single party rule, and the disintegration of a common culture once based on historical precedent and loyalty to one’s neighbor. As we see in the Western world today—Canada is no exception—the sense of unity has been replaced by entitlement categories like ethnicity, race, gender, creed, class and selective political persuasion.

Indeed, in opposition to Grant’s sense of national unity, which inspired both Manning and Harper, Trudeau has stated that Canada is a “post-national state” that has no “core identity.” A country that has no core identity is not a country preoccupied with issues of national unity and the economic foundation on which it rests. Trudeau is not interested in the oil patch but in the national patchwork. He is an outright socialist—perhaps Marxist is a better term—and an aspiring globalist who lusts for a seat in the United Nations’ bloated hierarchy

Notwithstanding his sentimental effusions about the country he leads, Trudeau is, to put it bluntly, anti-Canadian, and his animus against the energy sector and the economic stability it provides is par for the course. Like a good Marxist, he is busy steering the nation into monumental debt and abject penury. Tex Leugner, one of the lay leaders of the Wexit movement and editor of the ActionAlberta newsletter, is very clear on this. “Each day,” he writes, “Canada loses between $80 and $100 million because of the failure of our Federal Government to allow pipelines to be built. At this rate, over the next 12 months that amount could balloon to as much as $36.5 billion lost to the Canadian economy! As this money is lost, our Federal debt continues to increase.” And that’s only for starters. Statistics Canada reveals that the “poverty gap” under Trudeau has grown—in figures for 2018, two years before he had a chance to do even more damage. 

The question now, following the election of the waffly Erin O’Toole to the Conservative Party leadership, is whether the Conservatives can be counted on to pursue a sane, nation-restoring agenda. O’Toole is committed to net-zero emission by 2050; if he ran an online journal, it might be called The Pipedream. Indeed, he has just signed on to the Paris Climate Agreement in a doomed attempt to out-Trudeau Trudeau. Considering that there is no hard scientific evidence that the globe is warming, that the U.S. as major signatory has pulled out of the Accord, and that, in any case, China and India, the world’s largest polluters, have no intention of reducing emissions, the Agreement is not worth the paper it is written on, though it will cost its adherents dearly. O’Toole is merely virtue-signaling for electoral purposes. 

The only leadership candidate reliably true to the tradition of Grant and Manning was Derek Sloan, who may find himself cast into outer darkness for, among other things, voicing justifiable suspicion of Canada’s chief health minister Theresa Tam’s loyalties. Hong Kong-born Tam was all over the map in her COVID recommendations, hewing closely to the China-inspired line of the World Health Organization while sitting on one of its prestigious boards.  

Justin & son.

The fact that she happens to be Chinese was (and is) irrelevant, but it was enough to generate accusations of racism from the Asian community and from Conservative MPs Gordon Chong and Pam Demoff. “[T]he Conservative Party that I know does not stand for this kind of garbage,” Chong blustered. Demoff for her part accused Sloan of “racism, misogyny, and bigotry.” The attempt to “cancel” Sloan and destroy his political career is evidence, once again, of how easily people can be duped into taking offence at reasonable skepticism—or how cynical they can be in trying to score political points. I have indicated in a previous article for The Pipeline that Tam’s behavior was highly dubious, lying about the mode of viral transmission and even removing vital information from airport message screens regarding flights from China into the country. O’Toole has not come to the defense of Sloan and is cannily playing the popularity game, which seems to make him, at best, a Diet Conservative. 

Clearly, the Conservative Party has some trouble aligning itself with true-blue conservatism represented by a genuinely conservative politician like Sloan, an upholder of traditional usages and institutions, a stringent anti-socialist, a Canadian patriot, and a vigorous supporter of the energy industry. Alberta is where the country’s energy resides. Sloan is where the Party’s energy lies. It is by no means surprising that both have come under the shadow of repudiation. 

Erin O'Toole (left).

There can be no doubt that a mushy O’Toole would make a better Prime Minister than a spongy Trudeau, but this does not change the fact that Canada’s two major energy fields have been suffering catastrophically and, barring a miracle, will likely continue to do so. One field is obviously the oil/gas/pipeline sector, which is in process of being phased out. The other is Canada’s political energy zone, presumably a national endowment, which has been going increasingly woke. With these two sources of revivifying energy—generated power and political intelligence-and-integrity—seemingly moribund, Canada would have little future to speak of.

Environmentalist Science: Anti-Development, Anti-Western, Anti-Science

In March of this year, an Open Letter signed by 265 Canadian academics urged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau not to provide an economic bail-out to Alberta’s oil and gas industry, instead allowing it, along with its many energy and economic benefits, to die out in favor of “sustainable economies.” Alleging that the oil industry is already over-subsidized and will soon be out-competed by “climate-friendly energy sources,” the letter advised the federal government to retrain fossil fuel workers and invest in renewables.

The letter was written by two University of Alberta professors: Laurie Adkin, Professor of Political Science, and Debra Davidson, Professor of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology. One can only hope that, if their plan for gutting Alberta’s major industry comes to fruition, these two social scientists will be some of the first redundant employees to have a taste of their recommended “retraining.” 

It may seem bizarre that so many academics are reflexively opposed to oil and gas development despite having little or no scientific background, little knowledge of the industry, and only a passing acquaintance with the presumed viability of alternative sources. 

But what these academics have in common is immersion in radical environmentalism, which opposes the oil industry as a white male technology seeking to “dominate” the earth. The extent of the takeover of environmental studies by presuppositions that are explicitly anti-development, and actually anti-scientific, deserves to be taken very seriously.

Feminist eco-criticism is a major framework of environmental studies that claims to chart a more sustainable and socially just future. It rejects much of traditional science in favor of a feminist, anti-colonial approach not because feminist theories are more reliable or objective but because they are avowedly feminist. It stresses the need for “indigenous knowledges, local perspectives, or alternative narratives,” not because these are more trustworthy or replicable but because they are “indigenous” and “alternative.” The anti-science bias is overt and unashamed.

A few years ago, an article funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation called “Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research,” was published in the journal Progress in Human Geography. Though it caused much hilarity in the wider non-academic community, few people took the time to read it in full as a window onto an influential pseudo-science with wide academic appeal. The article proposes that feminist science (more specifically “feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology”) is necessary to achieve a “more just and equitable science.”

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

According to authors Mark Carey, M. Jackson, Alessandro Antonello, and Jaclyn Rushing, feminist science sees story-telling as equally important as the gathering, collection, and interpretation of measurable data. In the specific context of glaciers, but with relevance to science overall, the authors tell us that scientists must place new emphasis on “knowledge that has been marginalized or deemed ‘outside’ of traditional glaciology." 

The assumption throughout the article is that scientific knowledge is never arrived at in a neutral or objective manner. All scientific processes and results are political, formed through systems of “power, domination, colonialism and control—undergirded by and coincident with masculinist ideologies." This is by now a familiar feminist assertion, a respectable part of what passes for academic truth: that science is untrustworthy because it is white and male.  

The answer to the alleged “masculinist” (and colonialist) bias of science is not to attempt greater objectivity, transparency, or openness. Rather, it is to surrender objectivity altogether in favor of female and non-white perspectives, which are asserted to be “crucial” to the scientific enterprise. Why are they crucial? In an act of classic circular reasoning, the authors state that they are “crucial” because they have historically been “marginalized.” In their words,

The feminist lens is crucial given the historical marginalization of women…. Additionally, the feminist perspective seeks to uncover and embrace marginalized knowledges and alternative narratives, which are increasingly needed for effective global environmental change research.

In other words, what has been typically excluded from science must be included for no other reason than that it has been typically excluded.

Marginalize this.

The article’s authors do not deem it necessary to show specifically how white male science has failed us—they simply point to the alleged “climate crisis”—or how women and non-white peoples will bring something to environmental science that white men lack. We are simply told, for example, that white male science has achieved a false authority, with “credibility… attributed to research produced through typically masculinist activities or manly characteristics, such as heroism, risk, conquests, strength, self-sufficiency, and exploration." Additionally, the authors claim in an astoundingly simplistic caricature that:

[T]he Baconian view of knowledge engendered a strong tendency in the environmental sciences to classify, measure, map and, ideally, dominate and control nonhuman nature as if it were a knowable and predictable machine, rather than dynamic, chaotic, unpredictable, and coupled natural-human systems. 

It is arresting to see authors criticizing science for its interest in knowing nature (!) and alarming to sense the sneering objection to human attempts to “dominate and control nonhuman nature.” Do these authors believe that it is better not to know nature—or that human beings will be better off if, instead of seeking to control nature, we allow ourselves to be controlled by it?

This question is never explicitly answered, but readers are invited to consider projects that explore “how ice may be meaningful and significant beyond common efforts of control and domination." The article describes the goal of feminist environmentalism to be “the unsettling of Eurocentric knowledges, the questioning of dominant assumptions, and the diversification of modes and methods of knowledge production through the incorporation of everyday lived experiences, storytelling, narrative, and visual methods." In other words: not much actual science, and a lot of sentimental puffery about women, stories, and folk wisdom.

The basis of the article’s claims—that people have knowledge that is inseparable from their particular identity categories as European, non-European, Indigenous, non-Indigenous, male or female, and that knowledge is valuable mainly when it contests dominant assumptions and is produced by black, female, or Indigenous people—is embarrassingly retrograde, scientifically untenable, and asserted rather than logically defended. The authors of the article even lament that in a particular study of climate change in Tibet, female Tibetan herders consistently refused to be interviewed, “citing their own lack of knowledge." For the authors, it seems, these women who did not want to be interviewed about climate change were crucial sources of “alternative knowledges,” if only they had recognized the fact, and if only their male-dominated culture had celebrated them for it. 

In another part of the article, the authors write with evident respect of a study of Indigenous women’s climate knowledge in Canada’s Yukon, in which the Indigenous women spoke of local glaciers as “willful, capricious” beings, warning the researcher “about firm taboos against ‘cooking with grease’ near glaciers that are offended by such smells” and explaining that “[c]ooked food, especially fat, might grow into a glacier overnight if improperly handled."

No cooking with grease, the glaciers don't like it.

Don’t laugh. This is dead serious.

Like the feminist, anti-white, and postcolonial theories from which it springs, feminist environmentalism relies on many such non-scientific, unproven and unprovable ideas. It accepts that women and non-white peoples have been excluded from western science due to its white and masculinist biases; furthermore, it accepts that “subjugated knowledges”—including fanciful notions about fat and glaciers—are crucial for improving scientific research. It seems that science itself is far less important than the political claims that can be made on its behalf.  

The authors’ willingness to rely on anecdotal and experiential rather than scientifically replicable studies is particularly concerning here. At one point, referring to a video project that explored Indigenous perceptions of climate change, the authors celebrate the project’s focus on women’s voices despite the apparent banality of the women’s observations. They report that “Knowledge about changing climatic conditions and glaciers varied among the women involved, with one participant appreciating the warmer weather at high elevation, another lamenting the loss of a glacial lake for its hydrologic impacts, and another who inhabited an urban area being largely unfamiliar with nearby environmental changes." These non-scientific observations are acclaimed as “divergent local voices” that significantly “diversify” and “localize” so-called “scientific” information. 

Carey et al. thus enthusiastically propose an alarming future for climate change research in which political correctness is valued more than sound, usable science. The anti-male and anti-western animus on display here is so profound that one suspects nearly any regressive outcome would be acceptable so long as the methods are ideologically pure. No wonder so many academics can blithely call for the destruction of the oil industry, with its enormous benefits to Canadian health, security, and energy production. Ultimately, the anti-scientific basis of the feminist strand of environmental research poses a threat to civilization itself.

Conservative Energy, or Canada at the Crossroads

Now that scandal-prone Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s approval rating has taken something of a hit, placing the Conservatives at least potentially within striking distance of forming the next government, the question that confronts Canada is whether a Conservative administration could honestly face the shambles that the Liberal government has made of Canada’s most important resource industry, energy production. Would it rescue the energy sector, located primarily in the province of Alberta, from its dormant condition and, at the same time, render unnecessary the budding secessionist, or Wexit, movement in a justifiably resentful Alberta, thus saving Confederation? 

The platform of the newly-elected leader of the Party, Erin O’Toole, seems at first blush encouraging for the energy sector and Alberta’s future prospects, but O’Toole is a noted flip-flopper—not particularly good news for either energy or Alberta. As John O’Sullivan writes in The Pipeline:

O'Toole has been all over the place on the resource sector, initially calling for an end to fossil-fuel subsidies…before backing away from that pledge.

How O’Toole can claim in his platform that “Climate Change is a global problem, that requires a global solution,” while at the same time stating that “Domestic energy production – including oil and gas – is an important part of making our country more self-reliant and more resilient in future” remains a conundrum. Which is noise and which is information? In other respects, his platform seems promising, but the jury will be out for some time. 

A pumpjack in a canola field keeps the lights on.

Leslyn Lewis, whose strong finish in the leadership sweepstakes may earn her a shadow cabinet position, has a Master’s degree in Environmental Studies from York University in Toronto—one of the country’s notoriously woke institutions with little professional stature—where actual climate science yields to a highfalutin iteration of cultural studies. It is, according to its mission statement, “a community that respects and values insight, creativity, justice, and diversity,” but leaves real science at a discount. Although lauded for her environmental expertise, Lewis, as a graduate of Environmental Studies, is a mere dilettante in the field. She has taken many principled social and political stands, but regrettably understands neither energy nor economics.

With the exception of failed leadership candidate Derek Sloan, who is pro-life, a believer in family and parental rights, emphatically anti-socialist, and a muscular supporter of the energy industry—and who is in danger of being expelled from the Caucus on the ludicrous grounds of  “racism, misogyny, and bigotry”—the Conservative Party as a whole, to this point in time, has been more or less devoid of positive initiatives.

Indeed, it appears to have forgotten its founding principles, as adumbrated by Canada’s great conservative thinker George Grant in Lament for a Nation: love of country, the rule of law, civil responsibility, an enduring moral order, freedom of speech, economic prudence, and restraint upon the sweeping exercise of government authority. Unfortunately, conservatism and the Conservative Party in its current incarnation do not always speak the same language. Whether O'Toole represents an answer to the Party’s dilemma remains to be seen.  

Erin, go bragh.

Meanwhile, Alberta is still holding the short end of the stick. It is for the first time in living memory a have-not province. After sending $630 billion in transfer payments to Quebec and the other provinces since 1961, it has received a federal transfer supplement (or so-called equalization payment) of $22 billion for 2020, misnamed as a “net gain.” This is total nonsense.

To begin with, in the current economic context $22 billion is a mere sop; moreover, the supplement is borrowed money that will have to be repaid with interest as part of the $350 billion Canada is borrowing for this year.

Ottawa is not re-distributing domestic wealth to disadvantaged provinces, as envisioned in the national Equalization Formula, but transferring borrowed wealth. Things need to be called by their proper names. Alberta’s $22 billion does not qualify as a “net gain” but a net liability. Wexit does seem to be the only hope for Alberta, whether as a bargaining chip or a realized outcome, but the trouble is that there are too many Canadians and not enough Albertans in the province. 

A sane reclamation of the energy sector will be a difficult slog—not least because an acceptable conservative in leftist Canada, as geologist John Weissenberger writes in The Laurentian ‘Elite’: Canada’s Ruling Class, is “one who can be counted on to lose gracefully”—but Canada will reap the whirlwind in scuppering the energy industry and bankrupting Alberta in the process. Energy is gold and it resides mainly in Canada’s west. 

It will take a surge of conservative energy to restore the country to its former viability. If Erin O’Toole remains true to his commitment to revive domestic energy production, without equivocation, the future may not be entirely dismal. Perhaps we will see a strong pushback by patriotic organizations intent on restoring the energy sector. The threat of Wexit may help to awaken a sleepy Canadian electorate, who may also be galvanized by mounting unemployment, rocketing prices, extortionate taxes, social anarchy and a failing power grid. But by then it may well be too late.

Dance with the One That Brung Ya

As John O'Sullivan has mentioned, the Conservative Party of Canada has just selected a new leader: Durham, Ontario M. P. Erin O'Toole. O'Toole succeeded in edging past former Progressive Conservative leader Peter MacKay, as well as the more right-wing candidates, Leslyn Lewis and Derek Sloan.

O'Toole himself ran as essentially the "Buckley Rule" candidate, referring to the founder of National Review's mid-'60s proclamation that his magazine would support "the rightwardmost viable candidate" in a given election. Despite his not-particularly-conservative voting record, O'Toole leaned hard on his military service during the campaign to sell himself as "True Blue O'Toole," manly patriot, not like progressive pretty boy like MacKay (who was famously named 'Canada's Sexiest Male MP' by The Hill Times in the early oughts, a fact which should have disqualified him from the start), who can actually hold Justin Trudeau to account in opposition (unlike Lewis, who doesn't yet have a seat in parliament) but is moderate enough (unlike, according to some, Sloan) to win a general election.

There's a lot of balancing going on in that pitch, one that sticks close to the political consultants' standard playbook: right-wing enough to win out west, centrist enough to pick up a few more seats in Ontario and then form a government.

That is, of course, a tenuous balance. That playbook also advises conservatives to go all-in on green initiatives to win in the Greater Toronto Area, and offer Western Canada... well, nothing. Except not being Trudeau that is. But western Canadians have a fiercely independent streak, and they've acted on it before, breaking off from the Progressive Conservative Party in the '80s (in rebellion against a Tory leader who they felt was unresponsive to their interests) to form the Reform Party, which supplanted the the P. C. Party within five years.

The "unite the right" movement of the early 2000s healed that divide and led to the creation of the modern Conservative Party, but it would be foolish for O'Toole to assume that's the end of the story. Consequently, O'Toole made it a point to launch his leadership campaign in Calgary, and he's racked up western endorsements, including from Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, who proclaimed that O'Toole is "committed to a fair deal for the West and a strong future for our resource industries."

Only time will tell whether that is an accurate assessment. O'Toole has been all over the place on the resource sector, initially calling for an end to fossil-fuel subsidies -- a questionable description of industry-specific tax deductions for one of the largest contributors to Canada's economy, especially since the so-called renewable energy industry against which it is competing wouldn't exist without massive government subsidies -- before backing away from that pledge. He's also advocated repealing the Liberal's carbon tax, which he pledged to replace with "a national industrial regulatory and pricing regime," essentially a carbon tax by another name.

Alberta's support was definitive in O'Toole's beating out MacKay, and as much as he's likely being told to break left right now to appeal to the Toronto suburbs, he should heed the advice of a fellow Ontarian, and "dance with the one that brought" him. Because Alberta's economy has been hit harder by Covid-19 and the lockdowns than any other, and western discontentment have the potential to tear the party and the country apart.

May on Venus: Portrait of a Canadian Climate Zealot

As in many other countries, climate science in Canada has become both heavily politicized and cognitively polluted. Our government, like our science community, has grown thoroughly infected with faddish assumptions about climate change, the nature of greenhouse gasses, the presumed disaster of energy extraction and delivery, and the impending fate of the planet.

Though not alone in the propagation of error and pro-forma panic, former leader of the Green Party and still parliamentary leader of a caucus of two MPs, Elizabeth May has become Canada’s most prominent doomsayer. She is not only a climate zealot but a typically aspiring political autocrat who, according to CBC News, has been accused “of consolidating her power within the party through her position as parliamentary leader, and through her husband's new position on the party's federal council.” But as her husband suggests, nothing to see here, move on.

May seems to act with a self-assurance bordering on sanctimonious disregard. She had no compunction about violating a court order against blocking access to a pipeline site, for which she was charged with criminal contempt. Equally, her kookiness seems to have no bounds. May tweeted warnings about the possible dangers of WiFi which, she alleged, might be related to the “disappearance of pollinating insects.”

Venus: surface temperature 932 Fahrenheit.

With a degree in law and studies in theology, May has a provocative knack for the lectern and the pulpit, lecturing the lost and the fallen with pontifical fervor, whether in speech or screed. Writing in Policy: Canadian Politics and Public Policy under the rubric “Climate Apocalypse Now: Venus, Anyone?” May informs us that “The alarm bells are ringing ever more loudly: We are in a climate emergency.” A brief overview of her sources and authorities will help us put her deposition in a wider, evidentiary perspective.

May relies on what she dubs “a clear and compelling warning from the world’s largest peer-reviewed science process,” the United Nations IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and summons the prestige of the UN’s General Secretary Antonio Guterres, who claims that “we are running out of time” to address an imminent climate cataclysm by reducing carbon emissions. 

Following Guterres, she worries about the “low-lying island states for whom failing to meet that goal is an existential threat”—a charge that has been thoroughly rumbled, although neither Guterres nor May seem to know that—or if they do, they’re not letting on. Even the pro-warmist site ResearchGate (Global and Planetary Change) admits to the contrary that “the average change in island land area has so far been positive.”

Coming in for an underwater landing at Malé.

The presumably sinking Maldives have just built four new airports and propose to build even more to accommodate the expanding tourist trade and the presumptively sinking atolls and reef islands of Tuvalu are actually growing larger. As Energy Research Institute founder and CEO Rob Bradley Jr. writes, “[The alarmist temperature and sea-level predictions] constitute yet another exaggerated Malthusian scare.” We recall the Club of Rome’s prediction of resource exhaustion, Paul Ehrlich’s population bomb and M. King Hubbert’s Peak Oil scare.

All in all, I’m not sure Guterres is the best advocate to call upon. There’s enough wind in the man to power a wind turbine all by his lonesome. Guterres, who gives the impression of believing in “climate change” with holy zeal, is a Davos stalwart, an apologist for the corrupt, China-friendly W.H.O., and a China hack to boot.

Investigative journalist Matthew Russell Lee points to China Energy's proven bribery at the UN, and bid to buy an oil company linked to Guterres through the Gulbenkian Foundation.Indeed, Guterres' 2016 online disclosure “omits… his listed role through 2018 in the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.” The arrangement is being concluded via Partex Oil and Gas, of which the Foundation holds 100 percent of the share capital. Despite his melodramatic public pronouncements, Guterres is clearly untroubled by the (ostensible) impact of oil extraction on the environment. 

As for May’s beloved IPCC, it is another apocryphal gospel. In The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert, Donna Laframboise shows that the IPCC “has been recruiting 20-something graduate students” as lead authors, many of whom had not even earned their degrees and some of whom were majoring in non-climate disciplines. The IPCC relies heavily on non-peer reviewed material (so much for May’s erroneous contention regarding IPCC peer-reviewed authenticity), including newspaper items, press releases, magazine articles, unpublished graduate theses and Green activist sources. It is nothing less than a privileged lobbying organization for vested financial interests, and anyone who consults its findings for fiscal or ideological purposes is either venal or ignorant.

Elizabeth May is a member in high standing of this troupe of contemporary climate fanatics. But she has good company in our deeply uneducated prime minister Justin Trudeau and our new finance minister, the incompetent Chrystia Freeland, who argues that “the restart of our economy has to be green”—no surprise from the political maladroit and “social justice” evangelist who bungled our NAFTA negotiations with the U.S.

Many of the major figures in the Conservative Party are also Green missionaries. They may be her competitors but they are also Elizabeth’s children, all playing the dangerous game of climate politics. As Charles Rotter writes introducing the new documentary film Global Warning, “Canada is fast becoming the leading global example for what can happen when climate politics meet traditional energy industry. It has the third largest known reserves of oil and gas on the planet and could provide affordable, reliable energy to many parts of the world… It is a country living a potentially tragic story of climate politics.”  

May is far from finished in her climate scaremongering. She next informs us, parroting a host of predictions, that 2020 “is on track to be the hottest year on record.” The hottest year on record was, it appears, 1934—although the inevitable margin of error renders such predictions suspect. 

May is also, as expected, a big fan of wind farms, urging the country to “accelerate the rapid deployment of wind turbines.” She would be better advised to consult the Members of the Ohio General Assembly, who have thoroughly exploded the wind turbine scam. After having reviewed the Icebreaker wind turbine project, placed before the Ohio Power Sitting Board, with a view to its costs, massive job losses and multiple negative environmental effects, they affirm that they “do not want this project to move forward in any form.” To mention some of their concerns: The leakage of industrial lubricants from the 404 gallons per gearbox, the tendency to catch fire, the absence of full Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) (which neither government nor industry is keen to furnish), and the inability to provide permanent jobs.

May’s glib deceptions, appeal to authority, and cynical indifference to indisputable facts is scrupulously anatomized in an email exchange with a knowledgeable opponent on the health problems associated with turbines, including sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, exhaustion and various forms of “sick building.” May, of course, does not live in the vicinity of a wind farm and need not worry about this Aeolic species of neurological radiation.

In her conclusion, May insists that “We cannot cave into [sic] Alberta and the oil sands” but must instead follow “the brilliant lead of TransAlta’s new solar investments using Tesla batteries. We have a sustainable future within our grasp.” Here May’s ignorance is truly staggering. As The Manhattan Institute’s senior fellow Mark Mills enlightens us, “the annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.” The ground contamination is off the charts.

Nonetheless, we are apprised that CO2 must be dramatically reduced before Armageddon strikes. Perhaps this is not such a great idea. In Oh, Oh, Canada, William Gairdner, basing his estimates on the scientific research conducted by the Fraser Institute’s 1997 publication Global Warming: The Science and the Politics, reminds us that CO2 levels during the Ordovician Age of 440 million years ago were ten times higher than they are at present. And that the Ordovician happened to coincide with an ice age. Princeton physicist William Happer also highlights the fact that “Life on earth flourished for hundreds of million years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today.” CO2, he writes, “will be a major benefit to the Earth.” Something to ponder.

As Laframboise writes in Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize, “The climate world is one in which kernels of truth are routinely magnified, amplified, and distorted—by scientists, activists, public relations specialists, and reporters—until they bear almost no resemblance to empirical reality.”

A perfect example of this strategy is May’s rhetorical question, “Venus anyone?” The surface temperature of Venus is more than 900 degrees Fahrenheit; on Earth it is approximately 58 degrees. The atmospheric mantle of Venus consists of approximately 97 percent carbon dioxide, Earth’s approximately 0.4 percent, lower by a factor of around 245.

But then, who knows what may happen in another trillion years or so. Elizabeth May and her ideological cronies might well be vindicated.

Total's Grade-A Corporate Slacktivism

Woke Capital is very "on trend" at the moment, with major corporations (once considered, if not always accurately, natural allies of the political right) pumping money and influence into fashionable social causes. As John O'Sullivan has pointed out (a few times actually), it is sometimes the case that signing on to such causes actually runs counter to the interests of these corporations. When that happens it is both an attempt to achieve a gold medal in virtue signalling as well as act of dishonesty that violates the trust between shareholders and management, the latter having been entrusted with the former's money.

It should be noted, however, that quite a lot of corporate virtue signalling is of the "slacktivist" variety, where nothing is actually risked in supporting some elite-approved cause, as the proffered support requires no actual commitments or policy changes. Often it even serves as rhetorical cover for a move which the company was planning on making anyway.

For just one example of this, the French oil and gas giant Total recently announced that, "consistent with [its] Climate Ambition" plan, "which aims at carbon neutrality," it would be withdrawing from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) because of a "misalignment between their public positions and the Group’s," and would be stranding its Canadian oil sands assets at Fort Hills and Surmont in Alberta, meaning that the "overall reserves [at those sites] may therefore not be produced by 2050."

Now, even within the press release linked above, Total acknowledges that this decision is at least partly financial. In response to the pummeling oil prices have taken in the wake of COVID-19, they have revised their oil price projection for the years to come, and now believe that those projects won't be profitable enough to justify their financial outlay. Fair enough -- while I might question the wisdom of the decision and worry about what it means for Canadian workers, that's the kind of calculation a company is supposed to be making on behalf of its shareholders.

But the multiple references to their Climate Ambition plan and to "carbon neutrality" are rather strange. Particularly since, in 2019, Total was involved in the effort to lobby the Trudeau government over the implementation of Bill C-69, dubbed the “No More Pipelines Bill” by Alberta premier Jason Kenney. Bill C-69 expanded Ottawa's involvement in the review process for oil and gas projects, did away with hard caps on project review timelines, and required regulators to take into account climate change and public health when assessing all major infrastructure projects. In CAPP's write-up on the bill, they laid out their concern that its main effect would be "driving away investment into Canada by making it extremely difficult to approve major projects like pipelines in the future."

Total's own lobbying record specifies their interest in ensuring "consequential amendments... focusing on ensuring certainty of timelines" are made to Bill C-69 and, after an obligatory reference to "environmental stewardship" (something which everyone supports), mentions the necessity of "encouraging foreign investment and ensuring Canadian energy exports are competitive and reach global markets."

Much to the disappointment of Conservatives, the majority of amendments to Bill C-69 were defeated by the Liberal majority, and it became law in June of last year. Of course, a lot has happened in the industry and the world since then. But is it crazy to think that Total's removing itself from Canada is an example of exactly what it, and CAPP, warned the Trudeau government about, with red tape and regulatory uncertainty making the country a less attractive place to do business, and driving companies out of the Canadian market?

So ignore the media and activist class parroting Total's environmentalist bromides, and proclaiming that this is the beginning of the end for Canada's oil sands. That is just Grade A slacktivism on Total's part, meant to score some brownie points with the media while obscuring what this really is -- a dollars and cents decision based on the present state of the market and the regulatory reality in Canada.