That's the plan!In the face of resistance from provinces to its anti-fossil fuel agenda, and having endured several setbacks in the federal courts over some of its signature environmental policies, the Trudeau government has rolled out a new propaganda campaign to build greater support for its climate and energy policies.
View attachment 21139
According to the government’s new “Raising the Bar” campaign, manmade climate change has quickly evolved from a future threat to a real-time crisis where we’re experiencing more “wildfires, floods and droughts” that affect “our economy, our infrastructure, our health and our overall well-being.”
View attachment 21140
But is this true? Our government, which regularly claims to follow evidence-based policy, doesn’t provide much evidence to back up these claims — probably because there isn’t a lot of strong evidence that we’re seeing dramatic changes in extreme weather events.
The Trudeau government’s new campaign includes a slick video showing how Canadians are “Stepping Up” to the government’s ideas of the good life. We meet Charles, who now takes the bus twice a week, and Megan, who swapped her trusty gas-powered leaf blower for an electric one. Jade and Amina have taken government subsidies to swap out their reliable gas heating system for an electric heat pump. And the Nguyen family now dries its clothes on clotheslines. Of course, the video does not reveal that some of these virtuous acts will be fairly horrible in the cold winters that grip most of the country. One wonders how many tax dollars went to fund this little paean to Canadians who follow government dictates.
GREEN: Trudeau government ratchets up ‘climate’ propaganda — Toronto Sun
In the face of resistance from provinces to its anti-fossil fuel agenda, and having endured several setbacks in the federal courts over some of its signature environmental policies, the Trudeau government has rolled out a new propaganda campaign to build greater support for its climate and...apple.news
View attachment 21141(Interestingly, when the government posted the video on YouTube, it disabled the comments so Canadians can’t, well, comment.)
View attachment 21142
One might dismiss the latest climate propaganda campaign as just another government Public Service Announcement intended to help people live more climate-healthy and mindful lives, but that would be a mistake. Because this propaganda campaign doesn’t simply encourage people to get more exercise or eat less junk food, it seeks to create a public mindset that will convince Canadians to accept a raft of coercive regulations — such as the hard cap on greenhouse gas emissions or restrictions on fuel tankers and pipelines — which prevent the development of oil and gas resources across Western Canada and restrict the economy.
View attachment 21143
Rather than making our lives better, as the “Stepping Up” video suggests, the coercive regulatory regime that underpins these new ways of living will, in fact, leave Canadians less prosperous and force them to pay more for less of just about everything.
It's Climate Change I tell'ya!! IT'S CLIMATE CHANGE!!
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
I just watched a documentary on Netflix about the 72 most dangerous places to live. One thing that they kept repeating was the rising oceans. This documentary was made in the 1990's and yet the elites are still buying beach front properties & no, the oceans haven't risen to any extent. Erosion has taken its toll but not rising oceans. Kind of silly isn't it considering rising oceans would be really obvious.
Still no growing barley in Greenland like 1000 years ago.
The ocean is not really rising. Some land masses are sinking, which is not the same thing. The bulk of the sinkers are coral reefs that are subsiding due to a variety of problems, some manmade, like drawing down aquafres . Some are sandbars that come and go with the tides.
Plant high protein Lupens. More environmentally friendly than Soy.
Try a zoo. Polar bears/bears love em.What’s the market like for Lupins?
Lupin bean - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
WATCH: Trans Admiral Claims Climate Change Disproportionately Effects Black Communities
Transgender admiral, a man who says he is a woman, claims that climate change is having a disproportionate effect on black communities.
youtube.com
Australia seems to be the world leader at this time.What’s the market like for Lupins?
Lupin bean - Wikipedia
I don't know if it is something that is better for you or just something easier to grow. Less water demand than soy was a focus of the short news story I saw.
Seems reasonable to think it might grow well in certain areas of SK if a market was there.
Already growing several cultivars of peas and lentils and beans. SK helps feed India.
Cabinet told Canadians have no taste for giving up meat to benefit climate
Author of the article:Kevin Connor
Published Feb 26, 2024 • Last updated 2 days ago • 1 minute read
The federal cabinet has privately polled Canadians to see how they feel about giving up meat for the sake of climate change.
The federal cabinet has privately polled Canadians to see how they feel about giving up meat for the sake of climate change.
The federal cabinet has privately polled Canadians to see how they feel about giving up meat for the sake of climate change.
The suggestion was unpopular, according to Blacklock’s Reporter, which cited documents obtained through access-to-information legislation.
“Among the suite of personal pro-climate mitigation habits assessed in this survey, efforts to eat a more plant-based diet are among the least common,” wrote researchers.
Food preferences were studied in a series of 2022 and 2023 questionnaires by the Privy Council called Climate Change Mitigation Behaviours.
When asked, “In the last two months, how frequently or infrequently have you made efforts to eat a more plant-based diet?” 36% said not at all, while 13% — mainly women — replied, “always.”
“Plant-based diets are more common among women than men, and among those with higher than lower levels of education,” said researchers.
“Plant-based diets also correlate with biospheric values, having a strong willingness to mitigate climate change and believing one’s personal actions can have a positive impact.”
Documents did not say who in cabinet asked for the polling.
Lynn Kavanaugh, campaign manager with World Animal Protection of Toronto, testified at a federal committee last Oct. 26 that her group encourages Canadians to eat less meat.
“There is global evidence. We are not alone in this point. We are simply echoing and supporting what the huge body of evidence is saying about emissions from animal agriculture and the need to reduce the amount of animal agriculture that is produced in Canada and globally to help meet our climate target,” testified Kavanaugh.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Kevin Connor
Published Feb 26, 2024 • Last updated 2 days ago • 1 minute read
The federal cabinet has privately polled Canadians to see how they feel about giving up meat for the sake of climate change.
The federal cabinet has privately polled Canadians to see how they feel about giving up meat for the sake of climate change.
The federal cabinet has privately polled Canadians to see how they feel about giving up meat for the sake of climate change.
The suggestion was unpopular, according to Blacklock’s Reporter, which cited documents obtained through access-to-information legislation.
“Among the suite of personal pro-climate mitigation habits assessed in this survey, efforts to eat a more plant-based diet are among the least common,” wrote researchers.
Food preferences were studied in a series of 2022 and 2023 questionnaires by the Privy Council called Climate Change Mitigation Behaviours.
When asked, “In the last two months, how frequently or infrequently have you made efforts to eat a more plant-based diet?” 36% said not at all, while 13% — mainly women — replied, “always.”
“Plant-based diets are more common among women than men, and among those with higher than lower levels of education,” said researchers.
“Plant-based diets also correlate with biospheric values, having a strong willingness to mitigate climate change and believing one’s personal actions can have a positive impact.”
Documents did not say who in cabinet asked for the polling.
Lynn Kavanaugh, campaign manager with World Animal Protection of Toronto, testified at a federal committee last Oct. 26 that her group encourages Canadians to eat less meat.
“There is global evidence. We are not alone in this point. We are simply echoing and supporting what the huge body of evidence is saying about emissions from animal agriculture and the need to reduce the amount of animal agriculture that is produced in Canada and globally to help meet our climate target,” testified Kavanaugh.
Cabinet told Canadians have no taste for giving up meat to benefit climate
The federal cabinet has privately polled Canadians to see how they feel about giving up meat for the sake of climate change.
Bring back 10 million bison and see what happens.
Just when you think leftards couldn’t get any stupider……
The World Economic Forum (WEF) is calling on governments to ban the general public from growing their own food at home by arguing that they are causing “climate change.”
According to so-called “experts” behind a recent WEF study, researchers apparently discovered that the “carbon footprint” of home-grown food is “destroying the planet.”
As a result, the WEF and other globalist climate zealots are now demanding that governments intervene and ban individuals from growing their own food in order to “save the planet” from “global warming.”
The research indicated that resorting to garden-to-table produce causes a far greater carbon footprint than conventional agricultural practices, such as rural farms.
This research, conducted by WEF-funded scientists at the University of Michigan, was published in the journal Nature Cities.
The study looked at different types of urban farms to see how much carbon dioxide (CO2) was produced when growing food.
On average, a serving of food made from traditional farms creates 0.07 kilogram (kg) of CO2, according to the study.
However, the WEF-funded researchers claim that the impact on the environment is almost five times higher at 0.34kg per portion for individual city gardens.
The paper’s first author Jake Hawes said:
“The most significant contributor to carbon emissions on the urban agriculture sites we studied was the infrastructure used to grow the food, from raised beds to garden sheds to pathways, these constructions had a lot of carbon invested in their construction.”
The study recruited 73 urban agriculture sites around the world.
Those farms included some in Europe, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
The researchers say they conducted a comprehensive life cycle assessment on the site’s infrastructure, irrigation, and supplies.
Hawes and his teammates grouped urban agriculture sites into three categories: individual or family gardens, including allotments; collective gardens, such as community gardens; and larger, commercial-orientated urban farms.
The researchers also found other factors that they claimed are “hazardous” when it comes to impacting the alleged “climate crisis.”
Poorly managed compost and other synthetic inputs contribute to “global warming,” they warned.
They further advised that fruit was 8.6 times more “eco-friendly” when grown conventionally compared to in a city.
Vegetables, meanwhile, were 5.8 times better for the environment when left to the professionals, they claim.
Moreover, two-thirds of the “carbon footprint” of allotments is created by the garden itself, as per their data.
Nevertheless, they insist that people should be limited when it comes to keeping plants inside their homes, as well as growing food in their gardens.
Urban gardeners used to have no qualms about greening their indoor spaces.
For one, this reduces city living anxieties and emotional stress.
Also, being able to take care of plants inside their offices and homes could be part of interior design and a slight improvement in air quality.
However, climate alarmists are not going to give city dwellers peace of mind.
According to the WEF researchers, greening indoor spaces can also come at an environmental cost.
Never heard of "Slay News" but I'm hoping this is all nonsense. What do you think?
According to so-called “experts” behind a recent WEF study, researchers apparently discovered that the “carbon footprint” of home-grown food is “destroying the planet.”
As a result, the WEF and other globalist climate zealots are now demanding that governments intervene and ban individuals from growing their own food in order to “save the planet” from “global warming.”
The research indicated that resorting to garden-to-table produce causes a far greater carbon footprint than conventional agricultural practices, such as rural farms.
This research, conducted by WEF-funded scientists at the University of Michigan, was published in the journal Nature Cities.
The study looked at different types of urban farms to see how much carbon dioxide (CO2) was produced when growing food.
On average, a serving of food made from traditional farms creates 0.07 kilogram (kg) of CO2, according to the study.
However, the WEF-funded researchers claim that the impact on the environment is almost five times higher at 0.34kg per portion for individual city gardens.
The paper’s first author Jake Hawes said:
“The most significant contributor to carbon emissions on the urban agriculture sites we studied was the infrastructure used to grow the food, from raised beds to garden sheds to pathways, these constructions had a lot of carbon invested in their construction.”
The study recruited 73 urban agriculture sites around the world.
Those farms included some in Europe, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
The researchers say they conducted a comprehensive life cycle assessment on the site’s infrastructure, irrigation, and supplies.
Hawes and his teammates grouped urban agriculture sites into three categories: individual or family gardens, including allotments; collective gardens, such as community gardens; and larger, commercial-orientated urban farms.
The researchers also found other factors that they claimed are “hazardous” when it comes to impacting the alleged “climate crisis.”
Poorly managed compost and other synthetic inputs contribute to “global warming,” they warned.
They further advised that fruit was 8.6 times more “eco-friendly” when grown conventionally compared to in a city.
Vegetables, meanwhile, were 5.8 times better for the environment when left to the professionals, they claim.
Moreover, two-thirds of the “carbon footprint” of allotments is created by the garden itself, as per their data.
Nevertheless, they insist that people should be limited when it comes to keeping plants inside their homes, as well as growing food in their gardens.
Urban gardeners used to have no qualms about greening their indoor spaces.
For one, this reduces city living anxieties and emotional stress.
Also, being able to take care of plants inside their offices and homes could be part of interior design and a slight improvement in air quality.
However, climate alarmists are not going to give city dwellers peace of mind.
According to the WEF researchers, greening indoor spaces can also come at an environmental cost.
Never heard of "Slay News" but I'm hoping this is all nonsense. What do you think?
New carbon fee on restaurant bill may be 'legal' but it's tough to swallow
The 2% fee is invested in carbon capture to help offset the eatery's carbon footprint – so I guess we're just expected shut up and pay it
Author of the article:Joe Warmington
Published Mar 02, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 4 minute read
The bill from a recent meal at Goodfellas Wood Oven Pizza on Old Mill Dr. in Toronto shows a 2% carbon fee.
The bill from a recent meal at Goodfellas Wood Oven Pizza on Old Mill Dr. in Toronto shows a 2% carbon fee. PHOTO BY SUPPLIED /Toronto Sun/Postmedia Network
These friends didn’t realize that not only were they enjoying a great meal in the city’s west end, they were also helping grow back a forest destroyed by fire.
Everything served went down well, except for one charge on the bill that no one had seen before. The Lasagna Bolognese at $24 was as first class as the Scaloppine di Vitello at $34. The service at the Goodfellas Wood Oven Pizza on Old Mill Dr. was outstanding – hence the $34.96 tip.
Joe Cristiano said the experience with two pals last month was terrific and the bill for $209.76, including tax and tip, was reasonable since also they had wine and dessert. No complaints.
But at the bottom of the bill they noticed a 2% “Carbon Fee” for $3.04. No one had ordered it – and it certainly didn’t taste as good as everything else listed.
“I wasn’t upset,” the Newstalk 1010 producer of the Moore in the Morning radio show said.
Just curious.
“I hadn’t seen a carbon fee before,” said Cristiano, who talked about it on John Moore’s show.
We both reached out to Goodfellas but received no response.
However, in fairness, at the bottom of the bill it states: “What we eat fuels climate change. Adding 2% to every restaurant bill to invest in carbon capture will help offset our carbon footprint. Please visit www.goodfellaspizza.ca to learn more.”
This restaurant bill included a new carbon fee of 2% which the establishment claims will go toward fighting climate change.
This restaurant bill included a new carbon fee of 2% which the establishment claims will go toward fighting climate change. PHOTO BY SUPPLIED /Toronto Sun/Postmedia Network
On their website, the restaurant group – which brings in flavours from “south of Rome” – explains “what we eat fuels climate change. Goodfellas uses certified D.O.P products from Italy to remain true to the brand, and it’s not always possible to buy local. Adding 2% to every restaurant bill to invest in carbon capture will help offset our carbon footprint.”
In essence, it’s a carbon offset fee.
“In 2023, Canada experienced record-breaking wildfires due to climate change and the impact of global warming. The proceeds from the carbon capture fee will be used to support Tree Canada’s National Greening Program which plants trees in areas that need reforestation.”
So it turns out, oblivious to them, this table of diners was not just enjoying an amazing meal, they were also fighting back against forest fires, some of which led to people charged with arson.
I reached out to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to see if we could learn more about this carbon fee charge and whether people have to pay it.
Ontario Director Julie Kwiecinski, a straight shooter who I have known for 30 years since her days of working with cabinet minister and senator Bob Runicman, said there is nothing improper about a business transparently adding a carbon cost fee as long as it is not presented as a tax. The information is on the restaurant’s website and on the bill, so a patron would be obligated to pay it, she said.
“Businesses can do this,” Kwiecinski said, adding it’s like a “cleaning fee, eco fee or fuel surcharge.”
While perfectly legal, these hidden in plain sight fees are draining people’s already empty pockets and could result in people not being able to go out at all.
People are being crushed by fees and taxes – like the ludicrous, George Orwell Nineteen Eighty-Four-style new bylaw that sees coffee shops fined up to $100,000 if they don’t let people use their own mugs. They also are demanding restaurants ask customers if they really need that napkin or cutlery.
And don’t forget the City of Toronto getting around foreign real estate speculators leaving floors of condos empty at a time when the city needs housing. Instead of going after them directly, under the threat of a fine, they come after every homeowner to sign up with the government, communist-style, to declare the occupancy situation on their own homes.
And on the latest Enbridge gas bill you can see how we are paying more for fees now than for the actual gas. One example of a recent gas bill shows a $22.88 customer charge, $28.74 delivery charge, $12.33 for transportation to Enbridge, $4.25 cost adjustment, a “federal carbon charge” of $32.21, and don’t forget $17.03 for HST.
The actual gas supply portion of the bill was $30.57, which means out of a $148.01 bill, almost $118 of it is for fees and taxes.
And now Torontonians are going to pay a minimum of $380 million to host some World Cup soccer games and millions more to change the name of Yonge-Dundas Square because of “woke” lobbying. Torontonians are already charged two land transfer taxes on a housing sale and Ontario taxpayers are spending hundreds of millions to “revitalize” Ontario Place and the Gardiner Expressway. Taxpayers also lost millions on the ArriveCan app.
Could there be a looking up at the CN Tower fee next?
What’s the tipping point?
This game of monopoly is a good (legal) racket for those who get all this money and not so good for those struggling to pay it.
But there is a way to turn the tides. As a collective, perhaps let the companies, and or restaurants, know, if they want the public’s business that there will be a customer participation charge, so they would pay you a fee to order their pizza or products because without that, there would be no tax collection, no mansions or flying on jets, or re-forestation.
I know, time to be quiet now – and, for the good of the environment, just shut up and pay.
jwarmington@postmedia.com
torontosun.com
The 2% fee is invested in carbon capture to help offset the eatery's carbon footprint – so I guess we're just expected shut up and pay it
Author of the article:Joe Warmington
Published Mar 02, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 4 minute read
The bill from a recent meal at Goodfellas Wood Oven Pizza on Old Mill Dr. in Toronto shows a 2% carbon fee.
The bill from a recent meal at Goodfellas Wood Oven Pizza on Old Mill Dr. in Toronto shows a 2% carbon fee. PHOTO BY SUPPLIED /Toronto Sun/Postmedia Network
These friends didn’t realize that not only were they enjoying a great meal in the city’s west end, they were also helping grow back a forest destroyed by fire.
Everything served went down well, except for one charge on the bill that no one had seen before. The Lasagna Bolognese at $24 was as first class as the Scaloppine di Vitello at $34. The service at the Goodfellas Wood Oven Pizza on Old Mill Dr. was outstanding – hence the $34.96 tip.
Joe Cristiano said the experience with two pals last month was terrific and the bill for $209.76, including tax and tip, was reasonable since also they had wine and dessert. No complaints.
But at the bottom of the bill they noticed a 2% “Carbon Fee” for $3.04. No one had ordered it – and it certainly didn’t taste as good as everything else listed.
“I wasn’t upset,” the Newstalk 1010 producer of the Moore in the Morning radio show said.
Just curious.
“I hadn’t seen a carbon fee before,” said Cristiano, who talked about it on John Moore’s show.
We both reached out to Goodfellas but received no response.
However, in fairness, at the bottom of the bill it states: “What we eat fuels climate change. Adding 2% to every restaurant bill to invest in carbon capture will help offset our carbon footprint. Please visit www.goodfellaspizza.ca to learn more.”
This restaurant bill included a new carbon fee of 2% which the establishment claims will go toward fighting climate change.
This restaurant bill included a new carbon fee of 2% which the establishment claims will go toward fighting climate change. PHOTO BY SUPPLIED /Toronto Sun/Postmedia Network
On their website, the restaurant group – which brings in flavours from “south of Rome” – explains “what we eat fuels climate change. Goodfellas uses certified D.O.P products from Italy to remain true to the brand, and it’s not always possible to buy local. Adding 2% to every restaurant bill to invest in carbon capture will help offset our carbon footprint.”
In essence, it’s a carbon offset fee.
“In 2023, Canada experienced record-breaking wildfires due to climate change and the impact of global warming. The proceeds from the carbon capture fee will be used to support Tree Canada’s National Greening Program which plants trees in areas that need reforestation.”
So it turns out, oblivious to them, this table of diners was not just enjoying an amazing meal, they were also fighting back against forest fires, some of which led to people charged with arson.
I reached out to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to see if we could learn more about this carbon fee charge and whether people have to pay it.
Ontario Director Julie Kwiecinski, a straight shooter who I have known for 30 years since her days of working with cabinet minister and senator Bob Runicman, said there is nothing improper about a business transparently adding a carbon cost fee as long as it is not presented as a tax. The information is on the restaurant’s website and on the bill, so a patron would be obligated to pay it, she said.
“Businesses can do this,” Kwiecinski said, adding it’s like a “cleaning fee, eco fee or fuel surcharge.”
While perfectly legal, these hidden in plain sight fees are draining people’s already empty pockets and could result in people not being able to go out at all.
People are being crushed by fees and taxes – like the ludicrous, George Orwell Nineteen Eighty-Four-style new bylaw that sees coffee shops fined up to $100,000 if they don’t let people use their own mugs. They also are demanding restaurants ask customers if they really need that napkin or cutlery.
And don’t forget the City of Toronto getting around foreign real estate speculators leaving floors of condos empty at a time when the city needs housing. Instead of going after them directly, under the threat of a fine, they come after every homeowner to sign up with the government, communist-style, to declare the occupancy situation on their own homes.
And on the latest Enbridge gas bill you can see how we are paying more for fees now than for the actual gas. One example of a recent gas bill shows a $22.88 customer charge, $28.74 delivery charge, $12.33 for transportation to Enbridge, $4.25 cost adjustment, a “federal carbon charge” of $32.21, and don’t forget $17.03 for HST.
The actual gas supply portion of the bill was $30.57, which means out of a $148.01 bill, almost $118 of it is for fees and taxes.
And now Torontonians are going to pay a minimum of $380 million to host some World Cup soccer games and millions more to change the name of Yonge-Dundas Square because of “woke” lobbying. Torontonians are already charged two land transfer taxes on a housing sale and Ontario taxpayers are spending hundreds of millions to “revitalize” Ontario Place and the Gardiner Expressway. Taxpayers also lost millions on the ArriveCan app.
Could there be a looking up at the CN Tower fee next?
What’s the tipping point?
This game of monopoly is a good (legal) racket for those who get all this money and not so good for those struggling to pay it.
But there is a way to turn the tides. As a collective, perhaps let the companies, and or restaurants, know, if they want the public’s business that there will be a customer participation charge, so they would pay you a fee to order their pizza or products because without that, there would be no tax collection, no mansions or flying on jets, or re-forestation.
I know, time to be quiet now – and, for the good of the environment, just shut up and pay.
jwarmington@postmedia.com
WARMINGTON: New carbon fee on restaurant bill may be 'legal' but it's tough to swallow
These friends didn't realize that not only were they enjoying a great meal, they were also helping grow back a forest destroyed by fire.