A Wake-Up Call for Canada's Energy Sector

At the outset of the pandemic I was inclined to think that the tough economic realities of our post-prosperity world would diminish the environmentalist movement, as people increasingly recognized the importance of pro-work policies over and above green utopianism. Well, that hasn't happened, in part because the economic disaster hasn't been as catastrophic as it initially seemed it might be, and in part because massive increases in debt financed government spending -- most particularly on unemployment benefit top-ups and direct-to-taxpayer stimulus checks -- have obscured the rough shape the economy is actually in.

Consequently, environmentalist fantasies have continued unabated, with their most recent victory being Joe Biden's decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline project via executive order on day one of his presidency, a move which has already eliminated one thousand Canadian jobs and will shortly do the same to tens of thousands stateside. I've spent this past week hammering both Biden's decision and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's supine indolence in standing against it on behalf of Canadian workers.

Along those same lines, Dan McTeague, president of Canadians for Affordable Energy, has written a sobering blogpost which really is Must Read. McTeague, a longtime Canadian M. P. (he was elected as a Liberal, but don't hold that against him), knows more than anyone about Canada's resource industry and the effects burdensome regulations on it has on regular people.

After pointing out that Keystone XL was "one of the most sophisticated, innovative, job-creating, economy-stimulating, aboriginal-engaging, infrastructure projects in North America," McTeague rakes the Trudeau government over the coals for its totally inadequate management of the issue:

The response from Canada’s Environment and Climate Change Minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, to Biden’s decision was appalling. Minister Wilkinson said that he wasn’t going to dwell on this particular decision about a pipeline, but instead would focus on the new climate ally we have. Incredibly, he took the view that the new U.S. administration “offered a welcome dose of climate optimism.”

Climate optimism? Think about this, fellow Canadians. Climate optimism for Jonathan Wilkinson means having someone in charge of the biggest economy in the world ranting about a “climate crisis” just like Justin Trudeau does, while ignoring the real crisis. And what is the real crisis? It is the disaster of ideologically-driven environmental policy that raises the cost of living and kills jobs.

He goes on to warn Canada's oil and gas companies that they had better wake up.

Your customers are watching you trip over yourselves to show your green credentials and as you boast about your commitment to meet globally-imposed emission reduction targets such as the Paris Accord’s 30% reductions by 2030 target, or Canada’s “net-zero emissions by 2050” commitment.

Instead, those companies have to accept the fact that "the Trudeau government and their friends simply do not want your sector to exist," adding "Stop pretending that you do not know this!"

So, assuming that Canada's oil and gas industry takes McTeague's advice, what should they do in practice? He has several concrete proposals, including doing a better job of promoting the good work they do, both with the public and with politicians; and refusing to adopt the environmentalist language of the left, which has the effect of conceding their points (which are wrong).

Most important, he advises them to stand up for their customers, and "be a voice for their interests instead of the interests of environmental activists, their government friends, and the investment community sharks who feast off the green largesse of the taxpayer."

This should be a wake up call to all Canadians, McTeague says, demonstrating as it does "that Canada doesn’t matter to the U.S., and Justin Trudeau and his minions like Jonathan Wilkinson aren’t capable of changing that current reality." Canadians should respond accordingly.

Trudeau's Pipeline 'Weak Sauce'

Well, it looks like the Trudeau Government is throwing in the towel on the Keystone pipeline. On Wednesday evening the Prime Minister released a statement saying “We are disappointed but acknowledge the President’s decision to fulfil his election campaign promise on Keystone XL.” Ben Woodfinden is exactly right:

As I mentioned earlier in the week, Trudeau's initial approach was to argue that Biden's anti-climate change instincts were admirable but misguided, since the project had addressed the issues which most troubled environmentalists at the outset. It seemed as though Trudeau was attempting to employ his own green bona fides to give Biden cover to back down on Keystone, but to no avail. So, as in the case of Pfizer's failing to deliver Canada's contracted vaccine doses, Justin has decided to just put up his well-manicured hands and say, in essence, 'We're a small country, what can I do?'

Never mind that Canada's unemployment and labor participation rates are down, and the jobs Keystone XL generates for the resource sector are desperately needed.

Source: Statistics Canada

Trudeau would do well to remember the old saying, '[W]hen America sneezes, Canada gets a cold.' Both countries have weathered the lockdowns better than one would have thought back in March. That's why they are still going on (even if some of their most ardent apologists have started to back away from them).

But they've only done so well by taking on enormous amounts of new debt, the bill for which will begin to come due sooner than anyone thinks. This will no doubt cause serious problems for the U. S., but America's sheer size and its extremely diverse economy will provide a cushion that the smaller and resource-dependent Canada just won't have.

So what should Trudeau do? Well, some of the aggressiveness he showed when America's last president put a ten percent tariff on Canadian aluminum (part of a push which led Trump to drop the duty a month later) would be welcome. Of course, Trump was not a CBC-approved American the way Joe Biden is, and consequently Trudeau would have to expend real political capital -- perhaps more than he has -- to similarly fight for his nation's interests.

A more realistic hope might be for his making a sustained case for Keystone XL as beneficial for both of our countries at a time of real economic distress. The Heartland Institute's Steven Milloy has a good brief against Biden's Keystone cancellation which lays out many of the points that Trudeau could make. After establishing that the environmental effects of Keystone XL would be negligible, Milloy explains that,

According to the U. S . Chamber of Commerce, the Keystone XL will:

Consequently, for Milloy, "the revocation of the Keystone XL permit will be the exaltation of imaginary global climate benefits over real ones to U. S. workers and communities." Needless to say, the same could be said on the Canadian side.

Unfortunately, it seems as though Trudeau has officially folded. TC Energy -- which owns the pipeline -- have already announced a halt on construction and thousands of layoffs. More's the pity.

The Mask of the Red (Covid) Death

Just this morning I was looking out my window at the esplanade that borders the Fraser River when a couple strolled by and paused for a moment beside the guardrail. They were, of course, fully masked, though as a couple they were exempt from the Covid distancing rules. As they turned to leave, they embraced and exchanged a long kiss, mask to mask, which would have made a charming scene were it not so grotesque, two masks glued together in surreal intimacy.

Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam would have felt vindicated. “Like other activities during Covid-19 that involve physical closeness,” she advised, “there are some things you can do to minimize the risk of getting infected and spreading the virus.” The safest strategy is to “skip kissing, avoid face-to-face closeness, wear a mask that covers your mouth and nose.”

Of course, Tam’s counsels were meant for casual encounters, but why stop there? Safety first—and second, third, ad infinitum, the Covid way of life. In fact, you can’t be safe enough. According to this expert, the sexual activity with the lowest risk “involves yourself alone.” Talk about self-isolation! 

Be fruitful and don't multiply.

Similarly, the provincial Center for Disease Control advises people, among the “tips and strategies [and] protective steps” sexual partners should adopt, to “wear a face covering or mask,” which cuts down on “heavy breathing,” or to “use barriers, like walls (e.g., glory holes), that allow for sexual contact but prevent close face-to-face contact.”

One should also consider that “video dates, phone chats, sexting, online chat rooms and group cam rooms are ways to engage in sexual activity” without taking risks. Most important, recognize that “you are your safest partner.” Best to go it alone and avoid close contact with others. However, “If you’re feeling fine and have no symptoms of Covid-19, you can still have sex.” Permission has been granted. 

It is obscene that unelected officials in the sublimity of their wisdom can tell us how and when to perform intimacy. The idea is not only hideous, but on a human level fundamentally alienating, an antidote to the normal expression of human passion and romantic feeling—especially when the risk for younger and asymptomatic people is vanishingly low.

As the American Institute for Economic Research reliably reports, cutting through the panic and the hype, there is “a mortality rate of 0.01 percent, assuming a two-week lag between infection and death. This is one-tenth of the flu mortality rate of 0.1 percent.” Sucharit Bkakdi, a leading microbiologist at the University of Mainz and, unlike Tam, a genuine authority on the virus, gives an estimate “of 0.1 percent-0.3 percent, which is the range of moderate flu.”

No matter. When I venture out for my afternoon walk along the esplanade, I feel as if I’m entering a carnival horror arcade or a grade-C zombie flick. Nearly everyone is masked, not only the elderly who may be in the statistical danger zone, but the middle aged, families, bicyclists, joggers, younger people, children and even toddlers, who are effectively immune.

True, very few are kissing or engaging in indecorous activity, but that is no consolation. The sense of the eerie, of something morbid and freakish this way coming, is deeply distressing, no less than the abject compliance with government mandates in the absence of common sense or intelligent reflection.

A recent IPSOS Reid poll finds that 93 percent of Canadians “say they are doing their best to abide by public health recommendations regarding Covid-19.” The poll reports that more Canadians “are wearing a protective mask than was the case just a few months ago,” and that “support for safety measures remains high.” Support for critical scrutiny and independent inquiry into the facts does not.

Home sweet home.

We are living in the Age of Covid, enjoined or compelled to stay in our “bubble,” to practice “social distancing” (six feet is the officially designated distance, the same as the typical grave depth), and to wear those ghastly medical ornaments, multi-ply masks, over half our faces.

Over time, coercion has turned into willing consensus and self-enforced mutilation of the spirit; a fearful and pliable public has surrendered its autonomy of judgment to a statistical reign of terror practiced by ignorant and power-hungry politicians and their self-serving health officials. People have suffered a mental lockdown, a form of cerebral morbidity. As Stephen Kruiser writes:

The lockdowns ruined far more lives than they’ve saved—if they’ve saved any at all. The data on wearing masks has been kind of all over the place too. Those who’ve been spreading the pandemic panic porn for political purposes treat the masks as if they have super powers. We will more than likely find out that wearing them was all just so much useless theater too.

The mask has become the major symbol of a time when human relationships, what we used to call face to face contact, are relics of a receding past. Facebook was bad enough, when personal reciprocity was replaced by digital transmissions and friendship became “friending.” Now Facebook has become Facemask, eliminating the human smile, articulate speech, normal conversation and personal expressions while transforming sexual and romantic intimacy into a lurid caricature of communion, affection, affinity and warmth—the empty husk of human presence.

In a poem delightful for its insouciant humor, Canadian poet Michael Harris wished to be “among the essential kissers of all time.” The volume, New & Selected, appeared in 1998. He would have had another think coming had he written his poem today.

Canada’s Economic 'Great Reset,' Feminist-Style

Many western governments are promising to “build back better” from Covid-19 through heavy spending on green energy, equality, and Third World relief. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in a September address to the United Nations, echoed his friend Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, in calling Covid-19 “an opportunity for a reset” in the global effort to “reimagine economic systems.” Critics have warned that such re-imagining will require a grossly expanded state, onerous restrictions on freedom, and punitive taxation—but hey, it’s all in a virtuous cause.

To further demonstrate its good intentions, the Canadian government has added an emphasis on “feminist economic recovery,” promising to focus on women, and especially Indigenous, low-income, and immigrant women, for taxpayer funded programs, grants, and initiatives. That these are based on faulty premises and constitute an outrageous admission of sexist bias seems to have had little impact on their general popularity.

The Trudeau Liberals’ September 23 Throne Speech was carefully scripted to highlight women as uniquely hurt by Covid-19, uniquely deserving of reward for courageous service, and uniquely vulnerable to economic and social hardship in general. Governor-General Julie Payette used distinctly feminist rhetoric to describe the economic recession caused by Covid-related policies as a she-cession, and stated evidence-free that women “have been hit hardest by Covid-19.” 

Covid-19 hates the energy industry for hating women.

The stark fact is that with regard to death and serious illness, Covid has hit men harder than women, both in Canada and around the world. A scientific study in the journal Nature found that out of 3,111,714 reported global cases, male patients had almost three times the odds of requiring intensive care in hospital. Sadly, men have also died at a significantly higher rate than women.  

Such inconvenient facts are conspicuously absent from Payette’s feminist-compliant throne speech, which instead pinpointed women’s allegedly greater sacrifice for the common good, celebrating the many women who have “bravely served on the frontlines of this crisis” or have “shoulder[ed] the burden of unpaid care work at home.” Nothing is said in the speech about men’s particular service or sacrifices. 

The Speech from the Throne included the typical rallying cry of feminists, who have been warning since last March that the “hard-won” rights of women are under threat as never before. Undaunted by mixed metaphor, the speech pledges that “We must not let the legacy of the pandemic be one of rolling back the clock [sic] on women’s participation in the workforce, nor one of backtracking on the social and political gains women and allies have fought so hard to secure.” The government promises “an Action Plan for Women in the Economy to help more women get back into the workforce and to ensure a feminist, intersectional response to this pandemic and recovery.”

While it remains to be seen what precise forms a “feminist, intersectional” reset will take, the general idea is clear. Women must be the main focus. The Canadian Women’s Organization advises that “Recovery plans must centre women’s economic well-being and the experiences of diverse and marginalized communities of women” through increased spending on long-term care, childcare, and “gender-based” (i.e. for women only) violence services.

Moreover, according to the authors of A Feminist Economic Recovery Plan for Canada, government should mandate special training and funding for female businesses owners (as well as “racialized people, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, and immigrants”). It should “create minimum set-asides in public procurement spending (e.g., 15 percent) towards businesses led by women” and should “direct funding to businesses in women’s majority sectors.” White men suffering economic hardship may be shocked to realize that they are explicitly excluded from such reset initiatives.

Even if it were true that women as a group have shouldered the heaviest burden of Covid and have been most economically and socially harmed by lockdown and other measures, it would not stand to reason that baldly discriminatory measures should be taken to advantage women over (white) men. All Canadians who are experiencing economic hardship, regardless of sex or race, should be able to access stimulus monies and financial aid.

Moreover, it is not at all clear that women have been hardest hit (or have made the greatest contribution). More men than women are small business owners in Canada, and small-business owners have been cruelly harmed by onerous regulations and forced closures. The safest spheres of employment in the public sector tend to be female-dominated (at 71 percent female, according to StatsCan).

Beware the "she-cession."

Indeed, the very figures and estimates selected by the government for its Fall Economic Statement 2020 give the lie to its ‘women are most deserving’ motif. Throughout the Economic Statement, one can find various “Gender Equality and Diversity” items, framed by a rectangular border to stand out from the rest of the document. Presumably these exist to highlight the government’s special concern for women and to foreground the work being done on their behalf. But what many of these statements highlight is the government’s studious disregard for the economic suffering of men, and the many women who have secured well-paid jobs in a public sector largely insulated from Covid. The first of these Gender observations tells us:

In February 2020, women accounted for 75 per cent of employment in elementary and secondary schools that were suddenly closed and have since re-opened during the pandemic. According to the 2016 Census, visible minorities were underrepresented in elementary and secondary schools relative to their share of all wage earners (12 per cent versus 21 per cent). Immigrants were also underrepresented (15 per cent) compared to their overall employment share (24 per cent).

Here is clear evidence of the curious tensions and omissions determined by the feminist intersectional approach. On the one hand, the first sentence appears to take up the ‘women are hardest hit’ narrative by focusing on the large number of female teachers who experienced the sudden closing of their schools. What a shock for them, the message seems to be; in fact, of course, the shock has been largely confined to the perceived (and in the main marginal) health threat. Teachers’ pay cheques never stopped rolling in, a fact that placed these female workers in a far more secure position than the workers whose suspended employment also included the cutting off of all pay, benefits, and future prospects. 

On the other hand, the next sentence changes tack by suggesting that there is something wrong—likely a ‘systemic’ injustice—in Education hiring given that “visible minorities” and “immigrants” are under-represented in education in relation to their overall presence in the workforce. Racism must be the cause, denying visible minorities and immigrants the opportunity to be teachers.

Putting aside the fact that there might be good reasons why immigrants, in particular, might not be well represented in the profession of teaching—perhaps because they immigrated too late to attend university to acquire a teaching degree—the obvious omission in the analysis is the minority presence (at 25 percent) of men as a group. Teaching is a well-paid, secure profession with many benefits. If gender and racial equality are government goals, why is the paucity of male teachers not mentioned here? Men could be forgiven for concluding that gender inequality is only a problem worth mentioning by the Canadian government if it can be seen to disadvantage women. In the next box, we learn:

In October 2020, women represented 57 per cent of biologists and related scientists, which includes such occupations as virologist, microbiologist, and immunologist, among others. Women also represented 61 per cent of biological technologists and technicians, up from 51 per cent in February 2020, reflecting strong employment growth in this occupation, likely related to testing activity.

Presumably this fact of female over-representation in biology-related fields is presented as a “win” for women, something that government boasts about and that readers of the report are expected to applaud. It is difficult to see what it has to do with justice or “gender equality,” unless—as has long been suspected by non-feminists—feminism is actually about female supremacism rather than equality, and will applaud any evidence of female advantage. At the very least, the box fails to demonstrate women’s greater suffering under Covid-19.

Other highlighted statements push the ‘women most affected’ theme more vigorously, emphasizing that female workers are “overrepresented in many frontline settings, including hospitals and long-term care homes.” The clear implication is that such work deserves recognition and recompense. Men’s contributions “on the frontlines” are never likewise highlighted, though men have also been risking themselves and contributing to public safety in their (majority male) work as police officers, paramedics, long-haul truckers, janitors, and delivery drivers.

In general, men have always held down—and continue to do—the most dangerous jobs in our societies, making up more than 90 per cent of those who are seriously wounded or killed on the job. Perilous work in necessary occupations, including commercial fishing, logging, roofing, and construction—unglamorous, poorly paid, often insecure, and almost entirely unheralded—is still almost exclusively male despite 50 years of feminist activism around so-called employment equity. The implication in the government’s economic report that only women suffer and only women deserve public recognition for their work is egregiously dishonest and serves no good purpose. 

In the end, most men don’t care about such things. They’re happy enough to see women’s caregiving work celebrated, and they don’t expect thanks for their own labor, whether dangerous or not. No matter. The inequality in emphasis of the government’s economic update, and the determination to channel men’s tax dollars into services and programs exclusively to benefit women and some racial minorities is a serious injustice, whether men perceive it as such or not. Moreover, it constitutes a profound threat to our future social order. Any society that consistently under-values, over-taxes, and under-employs its men will not be a prosperous society in the long term. 

The Trudeau government’s emphasis on a feminist-style “reset” assumes that most government spending should focus on women (and ignore men) under the banner of “gender equality” even when the facts on the ground show many areas in which men are experiencing economic disadvantage.  Such bias contributes to unnecessary polarization between men and women at a time of national crisis, and diverts funds that could be helping all Canadians to wasteful (and often vicious) feminist organizations. For how much longer will Canadians tolerate such shameful bigotry?

If At First You Don't Secede... Wexit

The idea of secession seems almost inevitably to surface in times of national turmoil, political disarray, ideological and ethnic pillarization and economic resentment. In the wake of the Great Fraud, aka the 2020 American election, there is a whiff of secession in the air.

Rush Limbaugh worries that America is “trending toward secession.” Texas GOP chairman Alan West suggested that law-abiding states should “bond together and form a union of states that will abide by the constitution.” Though he asserted “I never say anything about secession,” the implication was certainly present. Texit is in the wind. Rep. Kyle Biedermann (R-Fredericksburg) said “I am committing to file legislation this session that will allow a referendum to give Texans a vote for the State of Texas to reassert its status as an independent nation.”

Canada has undergone two secession movements originating in the province of Quebec, based on a founding schism between two distinct peoples—which novelist Hugh MacLennan called the “two solitudes” in his book of  that title—culminating in a clash between two legal traditions, Quebec’s Napoleonic civil code and the ROC’s (rest of Canada) common law, and two languages, French and English.

Two referenda were held, in 1980 and 1995, the second defeated by the narrowest of margins, 50.58 percent to 49.42 percent. It is hard to say if separation would have been a “good thing,” whether Quebec would have prospered and Canada grown more coherent. I would hazard that the first prospect would have been enormously improbable, the second at least remotely possible.

Sunrise in Calgary? Or sundown?

The independence movement is alive today, but in another province. Alberta, which is Canada’s energy breadbasket, has suffered egregiously under the rule of Eastern Canada’s Laurentian Elite, beginning in modern times with Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s low-pricing, high taxing National Energy Program (NEP) in 1980, which devastated Alberta’s oil industry.

According to the BOE report, “Economic disaster quickly followed. Alberta’s unemployment rate shot from 4% to more than 10%. Bankruptcies soared 150%.” Home values collapsed by 40 percent and the province plunged into debt. The debacle has climaxed with son Justin’s Green-inspired economic destruction and effective shutdown of the province’s energy sector. Unemployment has risen to more than 11 percent, thousands of residents are leaving the province, debt is soaring and cutbacks have severely impacted daily life.

As a result, a potent secession movement, known as "Wexit," has gathered momentum and solidified into a new political party. In addition, the Wildrose Independence Party of Alberta registered as a political party on June 29. Its platform includes asserting the independence of the province, redefining the relationship with Canada, developing natural resources, and creating a Constitution of Alberta.

After having increased the job-killing carbon tax during—of all times!—the COVID pandemic and lockdown that had already pulverized the nation’s economy, prime minister Justin Trudeau has announced he will raise the tax almost sixfold to $170 per tonne by 2030, thus breaking the Liberal government’s promise “not to increase the (carbon) price post-2022.” According to the Toronto Sun, “That will increase the cost of gasoline by about 38 cents per litre, plus the cost of home heating fuels such as natural gas and oil.”

And according to Kris Sims at the Sun, “Based on the average annual use of natural gas in new Canadian homes, it would cost homeowners more than $885 extra in the carbon tax.” Filling up a light duty pickup truck will cost a surplus $45 per tank, and an extra $204 for the big rigs that deliver dry goods and comestibles. But that “won’t be the end of the increased cost the Canadians will face, starting with a $15 billion government investment in other climate change initiatives.” 

All Canadians will be hard hit, but Albertans, who once fueled the engine of Canadian prosperity and who have the resources to do so again, will feel the provocation and injury even more profoundly. As Rex Murphy writes in the National Post, it is “the province that carries most of the weight, bears the most pain and has the least say in this mad enterprise.” The tax, he continues, will “injure the very farmers who have been stocking the supermarket shelves during COVID, put oil workers (at least those who still have jobs) out of work, increase the cost of living for everyone, place additional strain on the most needy and antagonize a large swath of the Canadian public.”  

Kyle Biedermann is on the money when he says that “The federal government is out of control.” This is as true of Canada as it is of the United States, at least with respect to the major agencies of government. For this reason, I support the secession movement in Alberta. The province has no alternative if it is to survive a faltering and repressive Confederation saddled with an out-and-out Marxist prime minister, a de facto alliance with Communist China, an infatuation with an unworkable and unaffordable tax-subsidized Green technological program, a $400 billion deficit, a national debt exploding past the $1 trillion mark, and, in short, nameplate disasters like Trudeau’s A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy cabaret. 

Alberta’s survival depends on restoring its energy sector to full capacity and shucking off the federal burden of over-regulation, crushing taxation, Green fantasy-thinking and unpayable debt. Murphy again:

This new carbon tax will throw a spike in the heart of the oil and gas industry. Keep in mind that it is but the most recent in a long string of policies designed to hamstring the industry, block its exports and drive investment out of the province.

For Alberta, it’s leave or die. Other provinces may eventually have to follow the same route as Canada disintegrates under the brazen incompetence and global-socialist doctrines of the current administration, with no relief in sight.

As oil executive Joan Sammon writes, Inexpensive energy is imperative for a thriving economy, manufacturing excellence, economic mobility, job creation and a future of prosperity.” Clearly, there must be citizen pushback against the economy-killing decrees of a myopic and virtue-signaling government. People must put pressure on their elected representatives to resist the deliberate dismantling of the free market that will cost them the life of material abundance and comfort they take for granted. They must rid themselves of their infatuation with leftist memes, policies and hypocrisies.

I have a neighbor, a staunch adherent of our high-taxing, socialist administrations, who drives across the border to the U.S. to fill up her car at around one third the domestic price of fuel. She remains oblivious of the cognitive dissonance that governs her practice. Such thinking and behavior are what qualify as ultimately “unsustainable.” 

It's now or never.

The industry, too, Sammon writes, “needs to take back control from the preaching class and remind them that their lifestyles have been brought to them by the men and woman of the oil and gas industry.” The “green zealotry” that drives their anti-market efforts will destroy Alberta and lead eventually to the economic collapse of the entire country. Alberta, however, is at present the only province with a robust secession movement and, given its resource-rich milieu and the independent character of a large segment of its inhabitants, the only province in a position to save itself.

In any event, the message to Alberta is simple and straightforward. If at first you don’t secede, try and try again. The Overton Window is closing fast.

What's that Carbon Tax Gonna Cost?

Last week the Trudeau Government announced their brand new anti-climate change initiative, which included a significant hike in the carbon tax. As we discussed at the time, the plan is to increase the current tax of $30 per ton by $15 per year until settling (for now) at $170 per ton.

This is a big increase, but to most people those numbers seem entirely theoretical. A ton of carbon emitted sounds like a lot, and the average Canadian probably sees those numbers and figures that, since his car and furnace together don't emit that much, this doesn't affect him. Of course, this is exactly how Trudeau wants people to approach the issue.

But to set the record straight, Kris Sims of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has helpfully scaled those numbers down to the individual level. Here's what she came up with:

Right now, the federal carbon tax is at $30 per tonne, resulting in a tax of 6.6 cents per litre for gasoline and 8 cents per litre for diesel.... At those rates, filling up a minivan costs nearly $5 extra in the carbon tax, filling a light duty pickup truck costs $8 more and a super duty diesel pickup costs $14 more.... So, now that the feds are going to increase the carbon tax to $170 per tonne, what happens to these everyday costs?

This hike will put the carbon tax up to more than 37.5 cents per litre for gasoline, 45 cents per litre for diesel and 32.8 cents per cubic metre for natural gas. That means that very soon it will cost you $27 extra to fill up a minivan, $45 extra for a light duty pickup truck and $204 extra to fill just one diesel fuel cylinder on those big rig trucks that deliver everything from furniture to food across the country. Remember: this is just for the carbon tax. This doesn’t include the cost of the fuel, other taxes, the GST or the incoming second carbon tax that Trudeau’s government is creating. How many people have an easy extra $45 to fill up their trucks to go to work?

What, me worry?

And that's just for your vehicle. What about keeping your house warm? Sims lays that out as well:

When it comes to heating a home with natural gas, the carbon tax often costs more than the actual fuel being used. Homeowners in British Columbia sent the Canadian Taxpayers Federation their natural gas bills to show the costs. One of the bills showed an average-sized home in Gibsons using 466 cubic metres for one winter month last year, resulting in a carbon tax bill of $35. The homeowners had only used $27 worth of natural gas....

With a carbon tax of 32.8 cents per cubic metre of natural gas, it would cost that homeowner in Gibsons $150 extra in the carbon tax for just one winter month’s worth of natural gas. Based on the average annual use of natural gas in new Canadian homes, it would cost homeowners more than $885 extra in the carbon tax.

Canada is, of course, one of the most northerly nations in the world, but Gibsons, B. C., the town she uses as an example, is hardly one of the coldest areas in the country. In places like Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; Winnipeg, Manitoba; and Arnprior, Ontario, those numbers are going to look at lot worse.

Trudeau Announces Massive Carbon-Tax Hike

Back in April we reported on the Trudeau government's odd decision to go ahead with their plan to double the federal tarbon Tax in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic that had wreaked havoc on the Canadian economy. Why, we wondered, would they push forward with a plan that would make the lives of regular Canadians more expensive at a time when so many people were losing their jobs? Why add a further layer of uncertainty to an already unstable market?

Unfortunately the prime minister's instincts haven't improved in the past nine months. While we have a much clearer picture of the virus than we had at the time, and improved treatments as well, the Canadian economy has been slowly strangled by government imposed lockdowns.

Justin Trudeau has attempted to counter this by increasing spending, which he's financed by massively increasing public debt. According to the Fraser Institute's Livio di Matteo, "federal net debt for 2019-20 was close to $800 billion and for 2020-21 will likely exceed $1.1 trillion." Provincial debt too has significantly increased, from $700 billion to over $800 billion, and the two combined are nearing 90 percent of GDP, a level not seen since the debt crisis of the early 1990s. Just as in that crisis, Canada has already seen its credit rating downgraded.

But even as things get increasingly desperate, the Trudeau government has refused to tap the breaks on his disastrous climate agenda even slightly.

Just the opposite, in fact. For the most recent example, today the government released its newest climate plan, entitled "A Healthy Environment and A Healthy Economy." Its goal is "to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030," and it proposes to do this by, first, increasing (debt-financed) spending by $15 billion, and second by dramatically increasing the carbon tax.

The tax had been projected to increase from its current level of $30 per ton to $50 by 2022. According to the new plan, however, that amount will jump by $15 every year until it reaches $170 per ton in 2030, with the object of "wean[ing] consumers off fossil fuels in favour of cleaner energy sources." Of course, those cleaner energy sources don't yet exist, at least not in forms that would allow them to replace fossil fuels. (Also they aren't really cleaner).

It is interesting to note that even the CBC, Trudeau's cheerleading news organization that it is, does mention the impact this will have on Canadian consumers:

The tax hike will result in higher costs for consumers when they buy gasoline. The price at the pump will increase by 37.57 cents a litre by 2030 as a result of this new plan, and the cost of light fuel oil for home heating, natural gas and propane will rise as well.

The current average gas price in Ontario is $1.19 per liter, so a 38-cent increase is massive. And of course the price for heating homes and businesses in one of the most northerly nations in the world will also increase significantly.

Right now Canada is being crushed under the weight of the pandemic and the lockdowns. The Trudeau government is insisting on increasing the load. Will Canadians ever say, enough?

Thanks Again, Fracking!

In a recent article in the Toronto Sun, Lorrie Goldstein comments on a surprising fact: that Justin Trudeau, the dream political leader of the environmental lobby, is going to have to concede that Canada has missed the emissions reduction target it agreed to in 2009, while America -- after four years under Donald J. Trump -- will actually exceed that target. Says Goldstein:

This despite the fact Trump, unlike Trudeau, never imposed a national carbon tax on the U.S. Nor has any American president done so. Also, despite the fact Trump, unlike Trudeau, announced he was withdrawing from the 2015 Paris climate agreement in 2017, saying it was contrary to the economic interests of the U.S.

The 2009 targets, negotiated by the prime minister and the president's respective predecessors as part of the Copenhagen Accord, informally committed both nations to reduce emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. While America's emissions projections for 2020 are about 20 percent below 2005 levels, Canada's projections are down only 0.14 percent. For Canada to meet its commitments for 2020, Goldstein points out, "we would have to cut our current emissions by 123 million tonnes — the equivalent of the annual emissions from our entire agriculture sector and most of our electricity sector — in less than a month."

How could this be? Well, part of the story of America's success (if you could call it that) is the government imposed Covid-19 lockdowns. Goldstein mentions that U. S. emissions for 2020 are down roughly 10 percent from where they otherwise would have been without the lockdowns, which sounds great until you consider the economic devastation they also wrought. The cure in this case was far worse than the disease.

Of course, Canada also locked down and had an equivalent emissions drop. Which is to say, the pandemic doesn't even begin to tell the full story.

What actually happened is that, while the Trudeau government dove deep into virtue signaling environmentalist rhetoric, the U. S. allowed "market forces, innovation and [smart] energy policy" to do their work. Among other things, the U. S. leaned in hard to hydraulic fracturing, allowing us to gradually transition away from our reliance on coal towards natural gas, which "burns at half the carbon dioxide intensity of coal."

Meanwhile in Canada, Goldstein points out, "several provinces have banned fracking," bowing to anti-fracking sentiment in the green movement, while the Trudeau government has imposed a national carbon tax (and doubled it mid-way through a global pandemic), and put real political capital into transitioning away from oil and natural gas, which accounts for roughly 10 percent of the nation's GDP.

It'd be nice if more environmentalists started recognizing (as Michael Schellenberger has) that their preferred methods of addressing these issues are mostly hokum and started advocating for policies which actually work. Both don't hold your breath. Most of them are just hypocrites who mindlessly condemn President Trump as a Captain Planet-style villain, while lauding all of the Trudeaupian fluff.

Canadian Ecopoets' Dream Is Albertan Nightmare

 Seamus O’Regan, Newfoundland pseudo-nonce-poet, Canada’s natural resources minister and all-round “weightless politician” (as Rex Murphy dubs him), has turned to poetry, offering a homiletic assessment of Canada’s bright Green future once Canada’s oil-and gas giant, the province of Alberta, has been economically destroyed. In a poem, or rather, a piece of anaphoric doggerel, entitled ALBERTA Is, the poet- minister informs us

Obviously, Alberta is, and can be, none of these. Hydrogen, batteries, geothermal, and electric vehicles are all dead letters. They are unworkable. The evidence is incontrovertible. Moreover, in a cramp of logical thinking, if Alberta is everything O’Regan says it is, then capture technology has no place in his catalogue. The Twitter post capping this feeble attempt at poetic afflatus, Alberta is vital to [Canada's] clean energy future, is an emblem of perilous inanity. As Michael Shellenberger has shown in article and book, clean energy is remarkably dirty. A functioning Alberta is vital not to a non-existent “clean energy future” but to Canada’s energy independence, industrial survival and national prosperity. O’Regan’s Alberta is a radical environmentalist’s baleful fantasy.

O’Regan may not be a poet in any meaningful sense of the word, anymore than he is an effective minister, but he has the backing of Canada’s poetic community. Acclaimed Canadian versifiers like Dionne Brand, Michael Ondaatje and George Elliott Clarke have signed on to an ecological movement known as The Leap Manifesto: A Call for a Canada Based on Caring for the Earth and One Another, which has targeted Alberta for destruction by transitioning Canada away from fossil fuels.

A poetically influential school known as ecopoets or wilderness poets have added their collective voice to the call for deep-sixing the energy sector and replacing it with abortive renewables like wind and solar, which are known to be unaffordable, inadequate and environmentally disastrous.

For example, in “At the Center, A Woman” from Tourist to Ecstasy, voluminously published ecopoet Tim Lilburn revives an indigenous fable enjoining us to return to the feminine source of unspoiled existence and the spirit of nature— 

Her voice is black water under wheat’s erect earth.
Uh.    Uh.
Her teeth are armies.   Uh.
Her throat’s flex, tree, flowing mass. Cottonwood, beech.
She songs the forest. Energy mezzos.
Mmho  Mmho  Mmho  Ho Ho Ho Ho

Apparently, the time for a new understanding has arrived. We have come to “the edge of the known world,” he informs us, “and the beginning of philosophy.” The beginning of philosophy entails the end of the energy sector and the apotheosis of water, wheat and forest. O brave new world that has such poets in it. 

Ecopoetry’s most famous Canadian practitioner, award-winning Don McKay, argues in an essay for Making the Geologic Now, "[T]he intention of culture… has been all too richly realized, that there is little hope for an other that remains other, for wilderness that remains wild.” In order to assure a revivified nature, we must cease “digging up fossilized organisms and burning them, effectively turning earthbound carbon into atmospheric carbon, drastically altering the climate.

Rather we must affirm “the visionary experience of wilderness as undomesticated presence”—though domesticated, it turns out, by much scarred terrain where “rare earths” are mined and featuring landscape-devouring and soil-poisoning solar panels, 285 feet high wind turbines, unrecyclable blades and masts, bird hecatombs and, as Jean-Louis Butré writes in Figarovox/Tribune, lamenting the despoliation of the French countryside, “new concrete blockhouses to maintain these monsters.” The result is “le déversement de tonnes de bétons dans nos campagnes.”

O nature, pleine de grace.

The costs of eventual land reclamation will be, as he says, “pharaminous” and an insupportable burden on municipalities. How this fact consorts with McKay’s environmentally-conscious urging to “amend our lives, to live less exploitatively and consumptively,” and to honor spirit of place remains an open question.

Indifferent poets have also contributed to the wilderness-inspired trashing of reliable energy production. To take one example, in Regreen: New Canadian Ecological Poetry, Mari-Lou Rowley presents us with “Tar Sands, Going down”:

Look up! look way up-
nothing but haze and holes.
Look down!
bitumen bite in the
neck arms thighs of Earth
a boreal blistering,
boiling soil and smoke-slathered sky.

Environmental Catharism is now the name of the game. As Abraham Miller explains, lamenting the deterioration of California’s infrastructure, the Green mandate has shifted state expenditures to providing renewable energy rather than maintaining power lines. Rolling blackouts are the result. In addition, the environmental lobby has prevented prudent clear cutting in order to ensure “nutrients for the soil,” creating forests of highly combustible underbrush and dead trees. The trouble is, Miller warns, “What happens in California never stays in California.”

Very true. Once Alberta is decommissioned, California Dreamin’ is Canada’s future. So much for wilderness, the virgin bride of Canada’s poetic suitors. Unfortunately, Mmho  Mmho will not take us very far.

Just ask a real poet.

In his celebrated essay, A Defence of Poetry, Percy Bysshe Shelley, among the great Romantic poets of the early 19th century, claimed that “Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” Shelley was determined to refute the thesis of his friend Thomas Love Peacock, who in The Four Ages of Poetry had argued that poetry had become useless in the era of the Enlightenment. Rather, Shelley asserted, poets are innovators, revolutionaries, visionaries of the “highest order,” and the source of “those social sympathies [and] elementary laws from which society develops.” The true poet runs counter to the shibboleths of the time, rejecting the modish fancies and social trends that imbue the culture. His mandate is skepticism and critique.

Regrettably, our poets no longer challenge the fads and superstitions of the day. Like the politicians, journalists, and academics who have plunged headlong into Green, they have become supine followers of the climate mandarins, lobbying for renewable energy and the abolition of the oil and gas industry. Alberta bad. Energy disaster good. They have become Seamus O’Regan.

There may yet be hope. W.H. Auden, one of the best and most intelligent poets of the modern era, wrote that “Poetry makes nothing happen.” Alberta has a mighty struggle on its hands but, if Peacock and Auden are right, it need not worry about its poetic adversaries—except when, like O’Regan, they happen to be politicians.

Child Soldiers of the Revolution

Despite her best efforts, all's been quiet on the Greta Thunberg front during the Covid-19 pandemic. The problem is that her I'm-sacrificing-my-education-to-travel-around-saving-the-world schtick doesn't go down so well when international travel is restricted and lots of kids are locked out of schools by government order, not to mention selfish teachers unions.

Even so, Greta has pioneered a practice which we can expect to see more of -- using children as human shields in the climate war. The idea is that their emotional appeals will tug at the heart, and fog the mind, until any attempt to engage their arguments is met with horror and reproach.

For just one example of Greta's progeny at work, see this report about a judge in Ontario who defied recent federal court precedent to allow a lawsuit brought against the province by two minors (and five "youths") to go forward. The suit alleges that "the Ontario government’s 2018 reduction in its climate-change target by 15 per cent violates their constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of the person."

Retired litigator Andrew Roman comments,

The exploitation of children to front a lawsuit in this way is ethically troubling. If this case goes to trial and sets this dangerous precedent, why not have children in Calgary sue to set aside the carbon tax or the Clean Fuel Standard or Ottawa’s hyper-regulatory Bill C-69 because they kill any prospect of their employment in the oil industry and thereby infringe their constitutional rights? It does not take a lot of imagination to invent such misuse of children for numerous future cases that are essentially political theatre.

Of course, as the mainstream media has a near monopoly on framing cases like this in the popular mind, you can imagine how they would portray any child who brought forth an anti-Carbon Tax lawsuit on these grounds -- as a poor dupe being cynically manipulated by some adult with an ideological ax to grind. And they might well be right. It's just unfortunate that they promote such cynical manipulation of children when it's their own ideology on the line.