Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
In recent days his administration has slammed the door on every possible avenue of global cooperation on the environment. At the same time, it is sending the message that it wants the world to be awash in fossil fuels sold by America, no matter the consequences.
In recent days his administration has slammed the door on every possible avenue of global cooperation on the environment. At the same time, it is sending the message that it wants the world to be awash in fossil fuels sold by America, no matter the consequences.
Under President Trump, the United States has become the only nation to renege on a pledge to try to keep warming to 1.5 degrees. Its actions will make the global fight harder, scientists said.
“Emissions will be higher,” warned Justin S. Mankin, an associate professor at Dartmouth College who researches climate variability. “Trump’s greenhouse gas emissions will cause Trump’s heat waves, Trump’s droughts, Trump’s floods, and Trump’s wildfires.”
…
“The science is clear that every action matters and every ton of carbon matters,” said Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist and professor at Texas Tech. “There’s a price to pay for every ton of carbon we produce, and that price is being added to our global debt.”
Witch hunts increased during the Little Ice Age The Aztecs had one advantage over our climate experts—they realized the sun was responsible for global warming A University of Cincinnati professor blamed the rise of Hitler on global warming.
Princeton Professor Emeritus of Physics William Happer in 2017 drew parallels to today’s man-made climate change claims. “I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the consensus on climate change and the consensus on witches. At the witch trials in Salem the judges were educated at Harvard. This was supposedly 100 per cent science. The one or two people who said there were no witches were immediately hung. Not much has changed,” Happer quipped.
[Note: According to The Salem Witch Trial judges: “Five of the nine judges had attended Harvard, though only William Stoughton, Samuel Sewall and Nathaniel Saltonstall had graduated.” — On 27 May 1692, Sir William Phips, the newly appointed royal governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, appointed nine of the colony’s leading magistrates to serve as judges for the newly created Court of Oyer and Terminer. When Phips sailed into Boston from London on 14 May, there were already 38 people in jail for witchcraft, and the accusations and arrests were growing daily. One of the governor’s first official acts was to create this special court to deal with the growing crisis…Governor Phips carefully chose men he described as “persons of the best prudence.”… All nine were members of the Governor’s Council, and most of them had served as judges for many years. Many had even been on panels that had heard previous witchcraft cases.]
Disabled people will benefit from new local powers being made available to local leaders across England to introduce pavement parking restrictions across their area, helping keep them clear and accessible for everyone who uses them, while allowing exemptions where needed.
A new announcement by the Department for Transport appears to rule out charging of EVs on the street outside your home:
Disabled people will benefit from new local powers being made available to local leaders across England to introduce pavement parking restrictions across their area, helping keep them clear and accessible for everyone who uses them, while allowing exemptions where needed.
Blocked pavements can create serious barriers for parents with pushchairs, wheelchair users, blind and partially sighted people and older people, limiting independence and making everyday journeys harder and less safe.
Following a public consultation, the Department for Transport has confirmed that local leaders will be given new and improved legal powers to make it easier to restrict pavement parking across wider areas, rather than relying on the previous approach, where action is often limited to individual streets and requires lengthy, complex processes.
Local leaders know their streets best and are best placed to respond to local needs. Under the new approach, local leaders will be able to decide to take action on pavement parking in their area, and they will retain flexibility where they deem pavement parking may still be acceptable.
Local Transport Minister, Lilian Greenwood, said:
Clear pavements are essential for people to move around safely and independently, whether that’s a parent with a pushchair, someone using a wheelchair, or a blind or partially sighted person.
That’s why we’re giving local authorities the power to crack down on problem pavement parking, allowing more people to travel easily and safely and get to where they need to go.
Guide Dogs’ Chief Executive, Andrew Lennox, said:
After years of campaigning, we welcome the announcement to give councils greater powers to tackle problem pavement parking.
Cars blocking pavements are a nuisance for everyone, but especially dangerous for people with sight loss, who can be forced into the road with traffic they can’t see. Pavement parking is also a barrier that shuts people out of everyday life. When pavements are blocked, people with sight loss lose confidence, independence and the freedom to travel safely. This stops people accessing work, education and social opportunities.
We look forward to working with the government and local authorities to ensure these changes are introduced quickly and consistently enforced so pavement parking becomes a thing of the past.
Although this applies to parking on pavements, it is hard to see why slinging an electric cable across said pavements to charge your EV when you have no off-street parking.
You may recall I wrote to my local MP in November about this specific issue and have still had no response, despite chasing it up.
I suspect the Government has real problems with this. If they admit charging in this way is not allowed, there will be an immediate pushback against their ban on petrol/diesel cars.
Damned. Lost. Done. President Joe Biden keeps saying the world as we know it will be gone if global temperatures rise beyond 1.5 degrees.
Which led Michael Mann (a leading climate scientist/activist) to complain that Biden’s pitch was “misleading and unhelpful.” Mann continued:
It indeed feeds doomerism since there’s a very real possibility that we will fail to limit warming below 1.5 C. If we miss that exit ramp, we don’t continue headlong down the fossil fuel highway. We get off at the earliest possible exit.
“Doomerism” Everywhere?
Mann’s critique of Doomerism re Biden (or his handlers) applies equally to all the leading lights of modern neo-Malthusianism. Begin with the long careers of Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren. Continue with Al Gore, since at least Earth in the Balance (1992). Not to mention John (“running out of time to avoid irreversible impacts”) Kerry.
Consider too the dark words of United Nations’ head António Guterres, who declared last year:
We are on a fast track to climate disaster. Major cities under water. Unprecedented heatwaves. Terrifying storms. Widespread water shortages. The extinction of a million species of plants and animals. This is not fiction or exaggeration.
Reacting to the latest findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN Secretary-General insisted that unless governments everywhere reassess their energy policies, the world will be uninhabitable.
Turning to the scientists, the father of the climate alarm, James Hansen, stated back in 2006:
We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.
Scientist/activist Andrew Dessler, an ally of Mann in the climate wars, tweeted something close to Biden’s doomerism five years ago:
If we want to protect ecosystems & keep the Earth looking pretty much like it looks now, I have some bad news for you. That boat has sailed.
A climate pundit much admired by Mann, Bill McKibben, stated: “[Climate] is not only a crisis, it is the most thorough and complete crisis our species and our civilizations have ever faced, one there is no guarantee that we will survive intact.” And: “If we don’t win very quickly on climate change, then we will never win.” That was six years ago….
Mann’s admonition to avoid Doomerism brings up the aforementioned IPCC’s latest climate assessment, which chose the worst-case, much-maligned RCP8.5 scenario for its base case, leading to dire forecasts which were then exaggerated in the Policymakers Summary and again by the mainstream media.
The fact is that climate alarmists walk a tightrope. They must exaggerate to grab the public’s attention and priorities but not exaggerate so much as to project hopelessness. Then the public might shift climate policies from (government) mitigation to (free-market) adaptation. That would all but disintegrate the mighty climate intellectual-industrial complex.
The high-wire act was acknowledged by climatologist Stephen Schneider in 1989 when he infamously stated that gaining “some broad based support” meant having “to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” In the same year, Paul Ehrlich (with Robert Ornstein) stated:
In the long run CO2-induced warming would melt the polar ice caps, thus flooding many areas, putting New York City, Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, California, under water…. Florida would largely disappear, and much of the lower Mississippi River Valley would become an inland sea (New World, New Mind, p. 77).
Decades later, the lapping waters are not yet in sight. But, as always, the goalposts are reset to issue the alarms anew.
Mr. Gore, addressing a hall filled with scientists in Chicago, showed a slide that illustrated a sharp spike in fires, floods and other calamities around the world and warned the audience that global warming “is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented.” … Mr. Gore removed the slide from his presentation after the Belgian research group that assembled the disaster data said he had misrepresented what was driving the upward trend…. A spokeswoman for Mr. Gore said he planned to switch to using data on disasters compiled by insurance companies.
Last year Trump successfully lobbied for deferral of a global carbon tax on maritime CO2 emissions. But with 10s of billions of dollars at stake, the fight isn’t over.
Last year Trump successfully lobbied for deferral of a global carbon tax on maritime CO2 emissions. But with 10s of billions of dollars at stake, the fight isn’t over.
China’s massive shipping industry is poised to lead green transition
UN treaty on emissions, now delayed, would provide a tailwind for the market
Later this year, member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) will resume negotiations on whether to adopt an agreed plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping.
China had originally supported the approval of the plan, known as the Net-zero Framework, at an IMO meeting in April 2025. However, about six months later, at talks on whether to sign off the framework formally, the country sided with the majority of member states to postpone the decision for a year.
…
Building readiness in China
Although China voted to delay adoption, it’s still in the country’s interest to prepare its domestic industry for the inevitable transition.
Internationally, China could directly benefit from becoming a refuelling, or “bunkering,” hub for future sustainable marine fuel. Not currently one of the world’s largest such hubs, it could leapfrog some of the competition by supplying sustainable marine fuel. China is especially well-positioned to supply the likes of methanol and ammonia, which require cheap renewable electricity to synthesize.
…
That said, leading ports in China — especially those that have already positioned themselves to become major bunkering ports — are already acting. In 2025, Shanghai’s port completed the nation’s first ship-to-ship methanol bunkering. And the port of Tianjin completed the first methanol bunkering for a car-carrier ship; while that ship was on its maiden voyage to Hong Kong, the government announced it will provide tax incentives for outbound ships using methanol as fuel.
US-led alliance wins a year’s delay in adoption of green shipping deal
The IMO’s Net-Zero Framework will be up for approval again in October 2026, after the US and Saudi Arabia persuaded countries not to vote on it as planned
In April 2025, governments provisionally agreed the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Net-Zero Framework (NZF), which would penalise high-emitting ships around the world and use the money to fund the transition to cleaner vessels and fuels.
…
The NZF was scheduled to set emissions reduction targets for ships starting in 2028. But this – and the rest of the framework’s timeline – have now been plunged into doubt. Although some technical work can continue, political progress will have to wait until October 2026 when delegates will next take up the issue of whether to adopt the NZF.
…
Trump’s threats
Ahead of the meeting, the US government had threatened a series of measures targeting government officials who supported the NZF and threatening to make it difficult and expensive for those countries’ ships to call at US ports.
And on Thursday, President Donald Trump tried to intervene directly in the IMO process, urging countries to vote against what he called “this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping” and “a Green New Scam Bureaucracy”. In a post on his Truth Social platform, he suggested that the NZF would lead to higher prices for American consumers, adding that the US “will not adhere to it in any way, shape, or form”.
If this treaty passes, ships will be forced to either pay a carbon tax, or convert to “climate friendly” fuels such as synthetic methanol or ammonia.
If ships choose to pay a carbon tax, China wins – as an officially designated developing nation China receives a slice of that carbon tax, which it could legally use to help capitalise its methanol and ammonia business.
If ships choose to convert to methanol or ammonia as fuel, China will be the major supplier of those new fuels. As a developing nation, China will be allowed under the Paris Agreement to increase coal use to cover the industrial inputs and energy required to produce synthetic fuel, a privilege which is not extended to “developed” nations like the USA.
Either way, Effectively China will receive a tithe on all global shipping, regardless of whether ships convert to using Chinese synthetic fuel. All they need to do is keep a few hundred million of their own people in abject poverty, so they can cling on to their “developing nation” status, while Party apparatchiks and Chemical Industry CEOs get rich by convincing the world to pay tribute to China for the passage of all global trade.
Despite President Trump winning a one-year deferral, last year this plan is still a threat to US prosperity. Trump won a reprieve last year, but with this kind of money at stake, the plan is still very much on the drawing board and will be a key agenda item in this year’s IMO meetings. Let’s hope more people wake up to what is really happening.
The EPA will no longer include monetized health benefits from reduced PM2.5 exposure (specifically claims of prevented premature deaths) in cost-benefit analyses for certain air quality regulations. Milloy describes this as removing “fraud” or “imaginary deaths,” arguing that the science linking typical ambient PM2.5 levels to premature mortality is “junk science” dating back to the Clinton-era EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 standards. These benefits have inflated regulatory justifications for decades, making rules overly burdensome without real-world evidence.
The EPA will no longer include monetized health benefits from reduced PM2.5 exposure (specifically claims of prevented premature deaths) in cost-benefit analyses for certain air quality regulations.
Milloy describes this as removing “fraud” or “imaginary deaths,” arguing that the science linking typical ambient PM2.5 levels to premature mortality is “junk science” dating back to the Clinton-era EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 standards.
These benefits have inflated regulatory justifications for decades, making rules overly burdensome without real-world evidence.
The Trump Environmental Protection Agency just decided to no longer inflate the monetized benefits of EPA air quality regulations with imaginary deaths prevented. This has put the greens into orbit.
The New York Times headline blared “EPA to Stop Considering Lives Saved When Setting Rules on Air Pollution.” The article continues: “In a reversal, the agency plans to calculate only the cost to industry when setting pollution limits, and not the monetary value of saving human lives, documents show.”
EPA chief Lee Zeldin responded on X: “Yet another dishonest, fake news claim courtesy of the New York Times. Not only is the EXACT OPPOSITE of this headline the actual truth, but the Times is already VERY WELL AWARE that EPA will still be considering lives saved when setting pollution limits. The Times’ unyielding commitment to destroying journalism is second to none.”
The evaluation of a proposed rule’s costs and benefits has been a commonsense administrative requirement before setting new regulations since the Reagan administration. Until the Clinton administration, so-called cost-benefit analysis was an effective tool in stopping costly overregulation, particularly at the EPA. But the Clinton EPA figured out how to game the cost-benefit analysis process in order to issue its most expensive regulations – air quality rules that were eventually used by the Obama EPA to destroy half of the U.S. coal industry.
After failing in its first effort to implement an anti-fossil fuel agenda through a “BTU tax,” the Clinton EPA moved to issue more stringent air quality standards for ozone. The problem is that the monetized benefits of the tighter ozone standard (possibly fewer asthma attacks triggered by outdoor air) paled in comparison to the economy-wide compliance costs of the regulation (tens of billions of dollars).
The Clinton EPA’s solution was to pair the ozone proposal with another proposal to regulate, for the first time, a newly invented air pollutant called “fine particulate matter” or “PM2.5,” which is microscopic dust, soot or pollen in outdoor air. As described in great detail in my 2016 book “Scare Pollution,” the Clinton administration developed the false and junk science-based notion that normal levels of PM2.5 in outdoor air could cause people to die prematurely.
How did this help the ozone proposal?
The EPA claimed that regulating PM2.5 would prevent 20,000 premature deaths per year. Each prevented death, the EPA claimed, provided economic benefits of $5 million. When you multiply 20,000 premature deaths prevented by $5 million dollars, you get $100 billion in economic benefits, which the EPA claimed would be much greater than any possible compliance costs. So, the EPA’s proposed air quality rules passed the required cost-benefit test since the benefits outweighed the costs.
The main conduit for much of this funding is the Climate Emergency Fund (CEF), a Beverly Hills-based nonprofit founded in 2019. It supports groups engaging in direct action and civil disobedience to highlight climate urgency. CEF has received significant donations from Hollywood figures and has granted money to organizations like Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, and Climate Defiance.
The main conduit for much of this funding is the Climate Emergency Fund (CEF), a Beverly Hills-based nonprofit founded in 2019.
It supports groups engaging in direct action and civil disobedience to highlight climate urgency.
CEF has received significant donations from Hollywood figures and has granted money to organizations like Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, and Climate Defiance.
A fund backed by Hollywood stars including Jeremy Strong and Chelsea Handler provided nearly all of the funding for Climate Defiance, the far-left group that carries out illegal demonstrations like storming the field at the Congressional Baseball Game to “defeat” what it calls “fossil fuel fascism,” tax filings reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon show.Free Beacon has the story.
The Hollywood-based Climate Emergency Fund (CEF) gave $250,000 to Climate Defiance’s political action arm and another $243,292 to its charitable arm in 2024, according to the filings. That means the CEF provided more than half of the two groups’ combined grant revenue and the entire revenue for the charitable arm, the Climate Defiance Foundation.
The records provide the most complete view of Climate Defiance’s finances since it was founded in 2023 for the purpose of pressuring officials to fight climate change, which it says is “an existential crisis that threatens every fiber of every being in every corner of the world.” It also comes shortly after the IRS formally granted the group tax-exempt status in July 2025.
The nearly three-year-old organization has emerged as one of the most extreme protest groups in the nation, regularly disrupting public events and speeches in an effort to force lawmakers to rapidly abandon fossil fuel power in favor of green energy. It accuses oil executives and other officials who support fossil fuels of “mass murder.” One of their activists once went viral for calling former West Virginia senator Joe Manchin a “sick fuck” and “hideous fiend” to his face over his support for a large natural gas pipeline.
Perhaps its most high-profile protest came during the annual Congressional Baseball Game in July 2024 when Washington, D.C., police arrested eight of its members after they stormed the field demanding an end to fossil fuels. “Make no mistake: It’s the Members of Congress who should be locked up,” the group wrote afterwards.
The group regularly protested former Biden administration officials, including then-energy secretary Jennifer Granholm and then-transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, yet still earned a private meeting with White House clean energy czar John Podesta in late 2023, where it urged him to block proposed gas export facilities. A few weeks later, in late January 2024, former president Joe Biden ceded to those demands. The White House touted Climate Defiance’s support for the action.
In addition to its climate activism, since the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel, Climate Defiance has deviated from its usual climate activism and vigorously protested against Israeli military actions. “There is no climate movement without moral clarity. And there is no future on a dying planet where we normalize the mass killing of children,” the group said after disrupting an event featuring liberal commentator Van Jones, who it accused of supporting “genocide.”
The CEF, for its part, was founded in 2019 and has since received millions of dollars from Hollywood elites including actors Strong, Handler, and Thomas Middleditch; Walt Disney heiress and filmmaker Abigail Disney; director Adam McKay; producers Shannon O’Leary Joy and Geralyn Dreyfous; Getty Oil heiress Aileen Getty; and Rory Kennedy, the daughter of former attorney general Robert F. Kennedy. Strong, McKay, Joy, and Kennedy all serve on the CEF’s board of directors.
In 2024, the CEF received $1.4 million from McKay’s foundation, $250,000 from the left-wing Rockefeller Family Fund, $15,000 from Getty’s foundation, $10,000 from singer and actress Barbra Streisand’s foundation, and $4,000 from actress Jane Fonda’s foundation.
Climate Emergency Fund (CEF) as major backer: CEF has been the dominant funder since Climate Defiance’s founding in 2023. Reports indicate CEF provided over 90% of Climate Defiance’s budget in its first year and about 50% in the second year. In early reports (around 2024), this amounted to roughly $250,000 from CEF, representing about half of the group’s total funding at that time. CEF channels grants to groups like Climate Defiance, Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, and others focused on civil disobedience and direct action.
CEF’s own donors (Hollywood and elite connections): CEF was co-founded in 2019 by Rory Kennedy (documentarian and Kennedy family member) and Aileen Getty (Getty oil fortune heiress, who has personally donated over $1 million). Other major supporters include:
Adam McKay (filmmaker behind Don’t Look Up), who pledged and largely contributed $4 million to CEF starting in 2022 and serves on its board.
Abigail Disney (filmmaker and Disney heiress).
Actors like Jeremy Strong (Succession), Chelsea Handler, and others linked through donations or board roles. CEF has thousands of smaller donors (over 5,800 reported in some accounts), ranging from modest amounts to large gifts.
Climate Defiance’s own fundraising: The group describes itself as “scrappy” and “grassroots,” raising additional funds directly from individual donors. They accept non-tax-deductible donations via their website and tax-deductible gifts through their 501(c)(3) arm (Climate Defiance Foundation, which gained tax-exempt status around mid-2025). They also use platforms like Chuffed for campaigns (e.g., a legal defense fund). No evidence points to a formal “patron fund” program on their site—funding appeals emphasize grassroots support alongside institutional backing from CEF.
Other notes: Climate Defiance operates both a 501(c)(4) for advocacy/political work and a 501(c)(3) for tax-deductible donations. Funding criticism often highlights perceived hypocrisy (e.g., oil heiress backing anti-fossil fuel actions) and frames CEF-backed groups as “radical” due to tactics like confrontations with politicians and executives.
I got sucked back in when I learned about the ZWO ASIAir controller that “simplifies” some of the tasks that kept me from improving my telescope skills, so the telescope just sat for several years.
I got sucked back in when I learned about the ZWO ASIAir controller that “simplifies” some of the tasks that kept me from improving my telescope skills, so the telescope just sat for several years.
But the learning curve was still pretty steep. I now have an autofocuser, a guide scope and camera, and it took me forever to get the autoguiding to work (which I had to make myself understand and use because my new telescope mount has a periodic error in the gears that makes little star streaks back and forth).
Anyway, after I practiced enough in my suburban, moderately light-polluted backyard with some pretty good results, last night I took the rig out to a dark sky location on Alabama’s Lake Guntersville. This is the result: 4.25 hours of 5-minute images processed in Pixinsight and stretched and color-enhanced in Adobe Camera Raw. I was blown away… click on it to do some pixel-peeping.
A full-halo CME is heading for Earth following a long-duration X1.9-class solar flare on Jan. 18th. The CME’s arrival on Jan. 20th could spark strong geomagnetic storms with auroras at mid-latitudes.
A full-halo CME is heading for Earth following a long-duration X1.9-class solar flare on Jan. 18th. The CME’s arrival on Jan. 20th could spark strong geomagnetic storms with auroras at mid-latitudes.
Sunspot 4341 erupted on Jan. 18th (1809 UTC), producing an X1.9-class solar flare. The explosion lasted for hours, which makes this flare even more powerful than its “X1.9” rating would suggest. This video from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory says it all: (animation may take a few seconds to load)
Radiation from the flare ionized Earth’s atmosphere over the Americas, especially South America. This caused a shortwave radio blackout that may have lasted more than an hour at frequencies below 10 MHz.
Of greater interest is the CME. The explosion launched a full halo CME with a significant Earth- directed component. NASA models predict that it will reach Earth during the early hours of Jan. 20th. The impact could cause a strong G3– class geomagnetic storm with mid-latitude auroras. Stay tuned for updated forecast models.
A recent memorandum of understanding between Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith represents the inevitable reassertion of economic necessity over the fantasy of “decarbonization” that has gripped Ottawa for the past decade.
A recent memorandum of understanding between Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith represents the inevitable reassertion of economic necessity over the fantasy of “decarbonization” that has gripped Ottawa for the past decade.
Allowing for the construction of a pipeline to transport Albertan oil to a Pacific export terminal, the agreement prompted the resignation of one liberal member of parliament and celebration from the province’s leader. “This is a great day for Alberta,” declared Smith.
Atlantic Canada, parts of Quebec and even Ontario benefit from royalties and tax revenues generated by hydrocarbons extracted thousands of miles away. So-called moral objections to oil sands development are often voiced by inhabitants of Halifax or Montreal, but rarely heard is a willingness to forgo the western revenue that keeps hospitals open and public payrolls funded.
So, it was financial reality that drove Carney to upend expectations established by countless government documents, climate pledges, and regulatory frameworks the previous government put in place to “save the planet” by discouraging the use of fossil fuels.
Canada’s climate industrial complex had predicted that pipelines would become stranded assets and that Alberta would fade into irrelevance as net zero became federal policy. However, the deal signed by Carney moves in the opposite direction, making provisions for new infrastructure and signaling that even Canada’s most climate-obsessed federal leadership cannot govern without fossil fuels.
In technical terms, the federal cap on oil and gas emissions has been suspended. The Clean Electricity Regulation – a proposed constraint on Alberta’s ability to generate affordable power – has been loosened. Timelines for reducing methane emissions have been extended beyond 2030. Yes, there are caveats that appear to impose a soft form of anti-carbon sentiment, but the overall picture has changed.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a publicly funded institution, has consistently parroted environmental advocates who treat fossil fuels as abominations rather than economic necessities. This messaging has convinced many Canadians that their government is committing a terrible sin by producing energy the world demands. Lost on them is the fact that Canadian oil and natural gas are produced under far more stringent standards than exist in the Middle East, Russia or other regions.
Energy abundance underpins prosperity. Nations that constrain their energy supply impoverish themselves. Nations that produce reliable, affordable energy benefit their populations and the broader world. Canada should produce the energy for itself and export the surplus to global markets.
Beyond energy economics, there is another dimension to Canada’s economic future that the legacy climate orthodoxy dismisses: agriculture. Canada’s warming climate has extended growing seasons across the prairies and opened new agricultural possibilities.
According to official data, “total wheat production rose 11.2% year over year to a record 40 million (metric tons) in 2025, surpassing the previous record set in 2013.” Canola production rose 13%, surpassing a record set in 2017. Barley and oat production rose 19% and 17%, respectively.
In all, the output for all principal field crops increased by 4% year-over-year. For the next crop year (2025-2026), total production is projected to reach near record levels, up 3% year-over-year and 8% above the previous five-year average.
Historical analysis demonstrates that climate conditions across Canadian agricultural regions have shifted toward longer growing seasons, with more frost-free days and expanded viable crop zones.
Critics will claim that allowing a new pipeline is a betrayal of future generations. But what truly endangers posterity? A fraction of a degree of warming that extends growing seasons? Or a future of energy scarcity, deindustrialization and economic stagnation?
Fearmongering about a “climate emergency” served only to empower a bureaucratic class intent on controlling consumption and taxing lifestyles. It did nothing to change atmospheric physics or the needs of people who rely on affordable energy to survive.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
You must be logged in to post a comment.