‘Carbon’ capture ?

Words matter. Weasel words are those suggest a meaning that is not factually correct. Canadians pay $billions in taxes to fund weasel government departments and their NGO partners’ subsidies.

ChatGPT identifies the weasel.

I asked: “When a climate change advocate urges humanity to reduce its “carbon footprint” using methods like ‘carbon sequestration’ and eliminating “carbon emissions” from fossil fuels, what do they mean?

When climate change advocates use these terms, they are generally referring to ways of reducing the amount of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO₂), that humans add to the atmosphere. The terminology can sometimes be confusing because “carbon” is often used as shorthand for “carbon dioxide” or even all greenhouse gases.

Here’s what each term usually means.

Carbon footprint

A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gases associated with a person, business, product, or activity. It is usually expressed as CO₂-equivalent (CO₂e), which accounts for the warming effects of gases such as:

• Carbon dioxide (CO₂)

• Methane (CH₄)

• Nitrous oxide (N₂O)

For example, your carbon footprint includes emissions from:

• Driving a gasoline or diesel vehicle

• Heating your home with natural gas

• Flying

• Producing the food you eat

• Manufacturing the goods you buy

Carbon emissions

When people say carbon emissions, they almost always mean emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) rather than elemental carbon.

Burning fossil fuels releases CO₂ because the carbon stored in coal, oil, or natural gas combines with oxygen in the air.

Examples:

• Coal-fired electricity

• Gasoline burned in automobiles

• Diesel used by trucks and farm equipment

• Natural gas used for heating or electricity

Climate advocates argue that reducing these emissions slows the accumulation of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

Carbon sequestration

Carbon sequestration means removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it for years to centuries (or longer).

There are two broad approaches.

Natural sequestration

• Trees growing in forests

• Grasslands

• Wetlands

• Soils that accumulate organic matter

• Oceans (which naturally absorb CO₂)

Farmers may increase soil carbon through practices such as:

• Cover crops

• Reduced tillage

• Agroforestry

• Improved grazing management

Engineered sequestration

• Capturing CO₂ from industrial facilities and storing it underground

• Direct air capture, which removes CO₂ directly from ambient air

• Mineralization, where CO₂ reacts with rocks to form stable minerals

Why advocates emphasize both

Many climate scientists and advocates argue that meeting international climate targets requires both:

1. Reducing emissions—putting less CO₂ into the atmosphere.

2. Increasing sequestration—removing some of the CO₂ already there.

One common analogy is a bathtub:

• The faucet represents emissions.

• The drain represents sequestration.

• If the faucet runs faster than the drain, the water level (atmospheric CO₂) rises.

An important scientific nuance

Although these terms are widely used, there are ongoing debates about:

• How much carbon can realistically be sequestered in soils and forests, and for how long.

• Whether carbon offsets and sequestration projects should substitute for emissions reductions, or only complement them.

• The economic costs and trade-offs of different mitigation strategies, particularly for agriculture, transportation, and energy production.

These debates concern how best to achieve climate goals, rather than the basic definitions of the terms themselves.

In summary

When a climate change advocate says humanity should reduce its “carbon footprint” through “carbon sequestration” and lower “carbon emissions” from fossil fuels, they generally mean:

• Emit less greenhouse gas by using less fossil fuel or using it more efficiently.

• Increase the removal and long-term storage of CO₂ in ecosystems or engineered systems.

• Reduce the net accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over time.

Public-Private Partnerships

Many NGO (non-governmental organization) are actually government-subsidized special interest groups that extend the reach of government policies and programs without actually reporting to a government agency. No accountability for operational results is established.

Today, I investigated one NGO in the agricultural sector that has partnered with the federal government on Climate Change matters. I was led to this organization after reading a column by a renown Climate Change Crisis Theory (CCCT) champion Ginny Colling. A retired college teacher in Communications, Ginny was trained by Al Gore’s organization to promote his Anthropomorphic Global Warming fears and policy recommendations in the early days of the CCCT, and evidently still uses climate change weasel words like “carbon” to lobby for more government intervention.

I personally associate the word “carbon” with a chunk of coal, not an invisible, odourless, non-flammable gas essential to sustain life on earth.

I could find no evidence of science education for Ms. Colling, and aside from her training through Al Gore (a lawyer), does she have any scientific background to even remotely qualify as a climate scientist? Apparently not, but she does put her Communications training to good use as a climate change evangelist.

In Ginny’s article, she referenced her association with…

Farmers for Climate Solutions

At https://farmersforclimatesolutions.ca/advocacy, you will find weasel words in several passages and associations with federal programs, some presented below.

Rooted in Climate Action: Recommendations for the next Agricultural Policy Framework

Canada’s Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) is our sector’s most significant policy framework. We have a plan to scale-up the adoption of climate-friendly practices that reduce GHG emissions, increase carbon sequestration, and strengthen resilience on farms across Canada.

Producer perceptions of environmental sustainability and climate change: 2024 National Poll of Farmers and Ranchers

Farmers for Climate Solutions commissioned market research firm Léger to conduct a national poll of Canadian producers to better understand the perspectives of farmers and ranchers on climate change and sustainability. The poll provides valuable insights into their concerns, environmental priorities, and the support they need to strengthen the resilience of their operations.

Stronger farms and ranches, stronger Canada: Investing in on-farm resilience during the 2025 federal election

This federal election provides us with an important opportunity to advocate for investments that support farmers and ranchers working to increase the resilience of the operations. By engaging with your local candidates, you can ensure that on-farm resilience is recognized as a priority, regardless of who forms Canada’s next government.

Under the Resources drop-down we find FaRM — federally funded host of learning tools that enforce federal Climate Change messaging and use of weasel words to misrepresent the facts.

The figurative meaning of “weasel”

A weasel is a small, highly agile carnivorous mammal known for its speed, curiosity, and hunting ability. Despite its size, it is a remarkably efficient predator. Because of these natural attributes, calling someone a “weasel” has become a metaphor. It often describes a person perceived as:

• sneaky or deceptive,

• evasive or untrustworthy,

• opportunistic,

• or someone who avoids direct responsibility (“weaseling out” of a commitment).

This figurative use reflects cultural perceptions rather than the animal’s actual nature. In reality, a weasel’s behaviour is simply an effective evolutionary strategy for surviving as a small predator.

A similar observation applies to public sector institutions and our political entities. The creation and expansion of rent-seeking NGOs, which depend on subsidies from taxpayers, is likewise an evolutionary survival strategy for governments to protect and sustain their powers and to extend the reach of their predatory tentacles across many diverse “partnerships”.

ChatGPT Prompt.

How much funding for https://farmersforclimatesolutions.ca/advocacy comes from government sources?

Based on the publicly available information, the answer depends on which part of Farmers for Climate Solutions (FCS) you’re asking about.

Short answer

• The advocacy organization itself is not primarily government-funded for its operations, according to its public disclosures.

• However, Farmers for Climate Solutions administers major federally funded agricultural programs, particularly the Farm Resilience Mentorship (FaRM) program, so a significant portion of its total revenue comes from government grants tied to program delivery rather than lobbying or advocacy.

What the financial statements show

The audited financial statements for the year ending August 31, 2024 report:

• Total revenue: $3.19 million

• Grant revenue: $3.185 million (99.8% of total revenue)

• Donations: about $2,000

• Interest: about $4,000

The statements identify these as grant revenue, but they do not break down the grants by source (federal government vs. foundations vs. other funders).

Evidence of government funding

FCS operates the Farm Resilience Mentorship (FaRM) program, which is supported through the federal government’s agricultural climate initiatives. The organization describes FaRM as a national farmer learning program delivered with regional partners.

FCS also receives philanthropic support. For example, the McConnell Foundation publicly lists grants of $469,000 and a later $900,000 (2023–2027) commitment to Farmers for Climate Solutions.

What about advocacy specifically?

One interesting point is that in its registrations with the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, FCS states:

• “No government funding was received during the last completed financial year.”

This is not necessarily inconsistent with the audited financial statements. Possible explanations include:

• the lobbying registry asks about government funding received by the lobbying entity during a specific reporting period;

• some government-funded programs may flow through contribution agreements, partner organizations, or be recognized in different fiscal years;

• the organization’s fiscal year (ending August 31) differs from the reporting periods used in lobbying disclosures.

Without examining the detailed notes to the audited financial statements or federal contribution agreements, it isn’t possible to determine the exact reason.

Can the percentage from government sources be calculated?

Not from the publicly available financial statements alone.

The available evidence supports these conclusions:

• Nearly all FCS revenue is grant-based (about 99.8%).

• Some grants are clearly philanthropic (e.g., McConnell Foundation).

• Some grants are associated with federal agricultural climate programs such as FaRM.

• The organization does not publicly itemize the proportion of grant revenue that comes from government versus private foundations, so an exact percentage cannot be derived from the published reports.

If you’re interested, I can also trace every federal grant or contribution awarded to Farmers for Climate Solutions (or its predecessor, SeedChange) from Government of Canada disclosure databases and estimate what proportion of its funding has come from government sources over the past several years.

Fascism characterized by ChatGPT.

A public-private partnership (PPP) an arrangement between governments and non-government organizations based on shared political and economic interests. Benito Mussolini was the first to exploit these arrangements in the 1930s. It became known as “fascism” and associated with Italy’s alliance with Hitler’s Germany.

• Political: An authoritarian, ultra-nationalist system that rejects liberal democracy, limits or abolishes competitive elections, suppresses dissent, and concentrates power in a single leader or ruling party.

• Institutional: Independent institutions—such as the judiciary, media, universities, labor unions, and the civil service—are brought under state control, intimidated, or reshaped to serve the regime’s goals rather than operate independently.

• Economic: Private property and private businesses generally continue to exist, but economic activity is directed or heavily influenced by the state to achieve national objectives. Rather than abolishing capitalism, fascist regimes typically subordinate both business and labor to state priorities through regulation, corporatist institutions, and political control.

My Comments

NGOs are agents of governments. Thousands operate in Canada. They are a clandestine and insidious way for governments to extend their powers of policy enforcement, control of economic activity, and increase their cultural influence through vehicles of propaganda.

Some NGOs are more significant and strategic than others. For example, Farmers For Climate Solutions is a bit player when compared with the public sector labour unions that operate at every level of government across Canada - municipal, provincial and federal.

Is Canada still a capitalist democracy if so much of our economy and culture is shaped by public-private partnerships under fascist arrangements.? Tell me what you think.