The Fraser Institute Published My Article on Canada’s Net Zero Law

This is a somewhat different, peer reviewed and more scholarly article than I posted here earlier.

Here is a link to the publication: fraserinstitute.org

8 replies »

    • I agree that he is a good blogger, and I do read his posts. He is, however, more focussed on the US, more politically partisan and more scathingly critical than I am. Two different styles on the same general subjects.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. https://shar.es/aWRw9z

    It’s not a placebo, it’s an attempt to allow the ENGO’s to go after corporations and the govt but judicial precedent. Otherwise known in the US as legislation by “sue and settle.”
    This is how the whole environmental anti development situation started in the US.
    Pass legislation (Clean Water Act) which on the surface everyone can agree with and there is little objection because it doesn’t have any teeth.
    Then the ENGO’s sue the EPA for a failure to protect something pursuant to the CWA. The EPA doesn’t fight the litigation but consents to it, or weak defence and the court rule in favour of the ENGO.
    Now you have legislation with teeth by judicial process!

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree, that is part of the government’s strategy. It passes laws that make everyone feel good because the media releases promise all sorts of great outcomes that are not really in the law. Then they get sued by ENGOs that are in large part funded by the government and non-taxable “charitable” foundations. Then the defendants don’t really defend.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. A little late but I have been following the Manhattan Contrarian as suggested by Barry Milliken. (Thanks!)
    One of his frequent commenters, Richard Greene, suggests (7 Apr) that the Cloward-Pliven strategy is at work here. In this strategy, the activists deliberately destabilize a system (in the prototype it was the municipal welfare system in American cities in the early years of the civil rights movement) in order to bring about some larger social or political goal, such as a federal guaranteed annual income, as government struggles to cope with the disruption. The people who were the ostensible beneficiaries under the social-justice flag are mere pawns or useful idiots for the larger hidden cause. Linguist John McWhorter, who is Black, argues that the prototype strategy had negative effects on Black people in the United States. The useful idiots in the civil rights movement were manipulated into encouraging uneducated women to bear large numbers of children out of wedlock (the destabilization strategy.) This “created generations of black people for whom working for a living is an abstraction.” (quoted by Wikipedia, lower-case b in original)

    In this analysis, Net Zero is recognized by everyone, proponents and opponents alike, as an unachievable folly. The absence of any credible grid-scale electricity storage plan, which would entail many trillions of dollars, is a case in point discussed most recently here:

    Canada’s brand new climate plan even gets a mention by one of the commenters:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/08/canada-the-federal-climate-plan-far-out-of-touch-with-the-world-with-first-nations-with-its-regions-and-the-feds-just-dont-care/ (Yes I know it’s in WUWT but do give the article a read. It’s good.)

    If Cloward-Pliven is operating, it will not do any good to prove that wind and solar cannot replace coal and gas (and still power all those electric cars) when there is no way to store vast amounts of electricity. The Green activists don’t care that it won’t work because it is intended to fail. For public consumption they say, “Oh, the wind is always blowing somewhere,” or “There is lots of spare capacity in the grid.” Whether those are true or untrue is irrelevant to them as long as the voters and decision-makers believe them, or are afraid to contradict them. The greater goal is to induce the social chaos (from which they hope to extract benefit and power) that will result from widespread energy poverty. In Canada, there is the additional opportunity for mischief from manipulating groups fighting resource projects. They are trying to dismantle a electricity-generating and delivery system that works and replace it with one that doesn’t. That is the real goal of Net-Zero. I’m not convinced they even care that much about the climate or the earth.

    Addendum: The reason they call it Net-Zero is that no realistic plan exists for eliminating all greenhouse-gas emissions from economic activity. So it is assumed that technology will be invented, scaled up, and deployed that will remove CO2 both from stack exhaust and directly from the atmosphere and store it forever underground. A few years ago this was all the talk, giving the idea that this would markedly reduce the cuts needed to be made in electricity generation to achieve net-zero. But no one seriously thinks this is going to happen — it would be the ultimate Emperor’s New Clothes project — so we are really back to Gross-Zero: windmills and batteries powering our economy and we do without airplanes, cement, cows, and sea-going ships..

    This isn’t real (as MC says.)


  3. I’m sure that the Cloward-Pliven strategy has been used many times in history. However, even mainstream environmentalism, while couched in terms of “science”, has all the earmarks of a secular religion. Marxism was also, in the view of the Marxists, “scientific” and inevitable. The leaders of Marxists movements and the leaders of the more than 4000 world religions mostly truly believe in what they are selling. They sell it mainly by predicting doom unless collectively guilty humans are radically reformed: by force (of law or not) if necessary. History shows that enormous evil is only possible when many people truly believe in the righteousness of a cause.
    What is more plausible is the claim that “outsiders” use the Cloward-Pliven strategy to fund true believer groups who will undermine the outsiders’ enemies. Putin funding of environmental groups to weaken the energy security of the West is a strong possibility. The claim by many that Putin preferred Trump to Biden is plainly at odds with Putin’s energy interests.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s