“Net-Zero Tyranny”

Germany’s climate advisory body has called for new policy measures to slash greenhouse gas emissions, warning that the country looks set to miss its 2030 climate change targets.

In a report published on Monday, the Council of Experts on Climate Change said Germany was unlikely to reach its goal of cutting 65% of emissions by the end of the decade compared to 1990 levels.

The panel, which is appointed by the government and has independent authority to assess the country’s climate performance, said sectors such as transport and construction in particular were struggling to decarbonize.

Shutting down their Nuclear Power Stations was a great idea.

If we ‘just stopped’ using fossil fuels billions of people would die. We need to balance the benefit of reducing emissions against its cost

We constantly hear that because climate change is real we should “follow the science” and end fossil fuel use. We hear it both from politicians who favour swift carbon cuts and from natural scientists themselves, as when the editor-in-chief of Nature insists “The science is clear — fossil fuels must go.” The assertion is convenient for politicians because it allows them to avoid responsibility for the many costs and downsides of climate policy, painting these as inevitable results of diligently following the scientific evidence. But it is false. It confounds climate science with climate policy.

A recent poll by Leger, commissioned by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), reveals that 70% of Canadians support a carbon tax exemption on propane and natural gas for farmers.

The findings come as MPs debate Bill C-234, which seeks to extend the carbon tax exemption to these essential farm fuels.

“The poll is clear: the vast majority of Canadians want the government to get farmers relief from the carbon tax,” said Gage Haubrich, CTF Prairie Director.

The Polish trade union famous for helping to bring down Warsaw’s Communist regime has now turned its fire against the EU’s green agenda.

Solidarność (Solidarity) was founded in 1980 by trade unionists and workers at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdańsk, Poland. At its peak in 1981, one-third of working-age Poles were members – a total of roughly 10million people. What began as a campaign for workers’ rights soon transformed into a broad, anti-authoritarian social movement. Solidarity’s acts of civil resistance, supported financially by the Vatican and the United States, are widely recognised as having played a significant role in the collapse of Poland’s Communist government in 1989.

OTTAWA – It was supposed to do the heavy lifting for Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions targets.

And it was supposed to remain a major part of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s legacy, both at home and abroad — part of an urgent global push to fight climate change.

But instead of fulfilling those Liberal hopes, carbon pricing has become a significant political liability.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s crusade against the consumer carbon price and his promise to “axe the tax” should he win the next election has resonated with many Canadians amidst an affordability crisis.

The theme of “Axe the Tax” for the carbon tax has become pervasive, but sadly, citizens have no idea of the far greater climate monkey sitting on their backs.

Robert Lyman, a retired energy economist and former federal public servant of 27 years, has written three new reports showing the staggering costs of Canada’s climate policies.

We’ve all heard of liberal logic or leftist logic—but what about Bill Gates logic? An individual can pollute the environment at an absurdly exaggerated rate compared to the average person because he or she is a pseudo-elite, and entitled to do so because they have the money to “invest” in mitigation schemes…commonly known as “carbon offset” technologies.

Canada and other developed countries have committed to achieving “net-zero” carbon emissions by 2050. Yet here at the midway point between the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the first international treaty to set binding targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and the looming deadline of 2050, there is good reason to doubt the feasibility of this ambitious transition.