END the Climate Change Governmental Complex (CCGC)

Canadians have lived under a Climate Change threat for a generation, but not the kind that Greta Thunberg warned you of.

A Measurable Threat Beats a Modelled Future Threat Every Time!

Preamble: Our National Dilemma

There are people among us who believe that humanity is facing an inevitable and impending climate crisis over the next four generations owing to our burning of fossil fuels.

There are other people who don’t believe this. These “skeptics” include many Engineers, Scientists and other specialists who possess the knowledge, analytical expertise and access to scientific data that make them more than qualified to weigh in on the topic.

By comparison, consider the typical journalist who promotes sensational, attention-grabbing stories on the evening news or writes for national newspapers and magazines. These reporters are often Bachelor of Arts graduates whose depth of Science knowledge is likely no better than it was in high school. They are often attractive young women who are trained to recite the content presented to them on teleprompters in the manner of an ‘authority’ on the topic. Their “talent” is really acting - they have mastered the art of presenting the news as if they are actually knowledgeable in the subject matter. Behind the scenes, however, I suspect that they spend far more time preparing their makeup, hair and outfit rather than studying or reading science journals to bolster their credibility on the subject matter.

The “Scientific Consensus” Was Always Bogus

When former Vice POTUS Al Gore claimed nearly 20 years ago that “the Science Is Settled” regarding our impending demise from man-made global warming, I knew the man was either a con artist or a useful idiot playing into the hands of globalists with some other devious agenda. His presentation in The Inconvenient Truth was too slick and sensational to be believable, and the “evidence” presented in that film was a wafer thin veneer of scientific claims that hid any real scientific data if it existed at all.

To date, for example, there has never been a credible scientific research study ever published to identify a direct causal relationship between rising global CO2 levels and a significant rise in global temperatures. Yes, in a closed system such as an actual greenhouse, that relationship it well known. On the other hand, Earth is a humongous open system with hundreds of variables known to affect its climate.

With no proven evidence that a significant relationship exists between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperatures, one can only conclude that Climate Change Alarmism is nothing more than unscientific conjecture intended to fool the gullible and the ill-informed for other purposes. There is clearly far more ‘political science’ than actual Science behind the alleged Climate Change Crisis.

The politics behind the “crisis”

The political strategy is, apparently, to use fear as an emotionally hook to draw in as many people as possible into the belief that the Crisis is real and an existential threat to humanity. Evidently, the goal is to secure an emotional commitment from the masses to depend on our political leaders to take charge and “save the day”.

Politicians know that religious faith is a powerful force to motivate people. They expect to public to believe that the Crisis is real and have a comparable degree of faith that only political elites possess the superpowers to successfully conquer the threat.

It’s this faith that explains why I, and others, have characterized the Climate Change Crisis (formerly Anthropogenic Global Warming, AGW) as a contrived “religious” movement designed to lure a very large community of citizens into becoming unshakeably loyal to their AGW “Saviours”. The political elites would then enjoy unprecedented freedom to make laws and collect more taxes in order to “save humanity” even though no significant climate threat has been confirmed to exist!

If the threat was real, don’t you think that incontestable Scientific proof would have been established by now and that all skepticism would have vanished? Furthermore, Don’t you think it right that the onus should be on the government to prove without a shadow of doubt that their alleged Crisis IS real BEFORE they collect taxes and regulate all human activity in the name of overcoming the the threat?

The science remains unsettled on Anthropogenic Global Warming .

There are several good books written by Scientists and others that reveal the many fallacies and false narratives that has been promoted by official “authorities” like Al Gore. What began as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) later became “Climate Change” because no significant warming had occurred over the last two decades - an inconvenient fact for the alarmists. The credentials of these authors are excellent - certainly more than good enough to delve into the topic in depth and arrive at very respectable conclusions.

The book ‘Unsettled’ by Steven E. Koonin is a great example. Koonin covers many aspects of this topic brilliantly and thoroughly. The only thing that may be unsettling to Climate Change Alarmists who might read it will be their embarrassment in discovering how naive and ‘captured’ they had been by the unsubstantiated claims made by their ‘fellow travellers’.

This “crisis” began with Politicians and has been sustained by Public Institutions

Politicians and national governments, of course, have also played central roles since the beginning of the AGW saga.

In 1992, Canadian politician Maurice Strong met a farmer in Brazil who explained the value of pumping CO2 into his greenhouses to accelerate photosynthesis and crop growth. Learning that ambient heat within a greenhouse rises with higher CO2 concentrations (up to 2000 ppm were used), Strong established a theory that the same phenomenon was responsible for a serious global threat.

Mr. Strong had concluded that rising planetary CO2, arising from mankind’s reliance on the burning of fossil fuels for cheap energy, would create unsustainable global warming if not firmly and decisively curtailed by government edicts. After he presented his concerns to the United Nations, the rest, they say, is “history”.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

The United Nations created and funded the IPCC for the purpose of advising government leaders worldwide regarding the best policies to mitigate the alleged global warming threat. The IPPC rapidly emerged as a very influential organization by portraying itself as a source of global expertise on the topic. Thousands of employees were hired to review published scientific research in fields related to Climate, and to summarize their findings in periodicals. These IPCC Reports, and the recommendations they contained, became “gospel” to politicians and public officials who were responsible for preparing their national and regional Climate policies.

“Never let a good crisis go to waste”

This dictum has long been considered good advice for any ambitious politician who seeks to increase the powers of his office. It goes without saying that any politician who reaches the pinnacle of power must indeed be very ambitious and will gain international attention. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is just such a politician.

Justin has become a favourite of Dr. Klaus Schwab, founder and Chairman of the World Economics Forum. A WEF member since 2011, Trudeau has certainly proven himself to be a good and loyal student of the One World Order ambitions evangelized by Dr. Schwab and his entourage of billionaires, political leaders, corporate power brokers and Hollywood glitterati.

Trudeau is “building back better”

The widely-adopted plan for the AGW crisis was to “divide and conquer” the public, a tactic known to fan the flames of any crisis in order to justify government action. After Trudeau famously stated that the pandemic was a great opportunity to “build back better” (a WEF slogan) in mid 2020, he proceeded to issue statements, edicts and policies that divided Canada like no other time in its history. Prior to the pandemic, he applied the same format for the Climate Change Crisis - a topic that he publicly stated often as a national priority.

Part One of Trudeau’s national Climate strategy: Ramp up public concerns about the alleged Climate Crisis, declare and promote an “official” policy, formulate supporting narratives and broadcast them frequently. With the legacy media corporations aligned with his goals, this strategy was virtually guaranteed to augment and solidify the Crisis as a vital concern to large swaths of the population.

It never mattered to Justin that there is no substantiated scientific basis to justify mass vaccination during the pandemic threat or carbon taxation for AGW. He is confident that few citizens are sophisticated enough to question the policy knowledgeably. It only mattered that more fear be generated to encourage mass compliance to his dictates and to praise the ‘alarmists’ for their loyalty to the Liberal government’s “fight” against Climate Change.

Part Two: Attack The Opposition. Marginalize, criticize, banish and/or “silence” the ‘skeptics’, and then leave them no option but to force them to share in the costs and sacrifices demanded by “official policy”. This approach is both unfair to the skeptics and disrespectful of their constitutional right to make their own informed decisions on the topic and pay accordingly.

Trudeau and his advisors must have known that this strategy was guaranteed to generate animosity between the “believers” and the “skeptics”. Anyone with common sense would surely have understood that, as the “believer” and “non-believer” groups became progressively more polarized, their members would become increasingly manic with resentment and anger, and the risk of violent social unrest would be predictable.

Politigenic policies.

The harms caused by the governments’ policies relating to the Climate Change Crisis have been monumental at the social and Economic levels. If, in Medicine, the diseases that are caused by medical doctors are classified as “iatrogenic”, then the harms caused by politicians and pubic officials can likewise be classified as “politigenic”.

Modern Western societies are rife with politigenic problems. The Climate Change Crisis is just one of many.

It’s time to systematically identify and root out politigenicism in our world wherever we find it.

Freedom of Informed Choice?

Every Canadian is a product of the public Education system.

One goals of Public Education is to prepare every student to become a knowledgeable and resourceful critical thinker who will be able to function effectively and responsibly as an adult.

Should we consider it a failure of Public Education that our political and public leaders now believe it necessary to treat us all like children who cannot competently discern if the alleged Climate Change Crisis is a credible threat or not?

Could this failure of government-run Education also qualify as a politigenic harm to Canada’s society?

Information and Choice

Freedom of choice is the fundamental principle that underpins the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Freedom of Informed Choice is an appropriate update to this principle in this Digital Age of limitless information.

Everyone today benefits from a ubiquitous “information utility” that is readily accessible to every Canadian. It’s supporting infrastructure and broadcast content are controlled by government legislation and regulated accordingly.

Should we not have the right to use these public resources to investigate and choose for ourselves which side of the Climate Change divide best satisfies own individual understanding of the ‘facts’?

Change is never-ending and unpopular.

Consider that knowledge and understanding change as new ‘facts’ come available. Only the most stubborn, least-educated and dogmatic people refuse to consider new information in relation to their beliefs. Conversely, well-educated critical thinkers are generally more willing to accept and consider challenges to their former beliefs.

If you are interested in the Science behind the study of belief, I recommend this podcast discussion between Sam Harris and Jonas Kaplan called ‘How To Change Your Mind’. You will find links to their professional profiles and their expertise in the cognitive sciences from the show notes page for this episode of Honestly with Bari Weiss.

A personal conundrum about beliefs …

I have always wondered why most people will praise and celebrate others who claim to be “born again” Christians, but they will fail to honour others who come to an alternative conclusion. Atheism may legitimately be a more convincing framework for some of us to contemplate the mysteries of Life & Reality without the need of religion and holy texts.

Consider this. If one universal, metaphysical truth actually exists about Creation, then why do over 4000 religions survive today each espousing a different doctrine and all trying to add new members to their “tribe” of followers?

A comparison of Climate Change and religion is inescapable.

The common basis for religious and Climate Change “faiths” is that they both serve a fundamental survival impulse. People naturally want to “belong” to a group(s) that offers safety, comfort and a compatible social community in which friendship and help can be found in times of need.

Since our individual needs, experiences and circumstances are different, does it not make sense that our individual “tribal” choices will also be different from each other?

The fear of death is an existential emotion for everyone.

Religion offers hope for an afterlife so as to make death less fearful. The Climate Change crisis generates fear of an alleged environmental Armageddon; this man-made narrative draws people together who imagine that, through “strength in numbers”, they can pressure elected officials to take action on their behalf to quell their fears.

Yes, both atheists and Climate Change skeptics experience fear. However, they tend to use data and reason to mitigate the fear-inducing threats.

In all cases, fear is clearly the prime driver that draws believers and non-believers into their respective camps.

Fear of banishment

Fear can also take another, more immediate form - social isolation from “the tribe”. Banishment by former friends from the social “in group” can be a strong motivator for some people. These folks tend to “go along to get along” to seek safety in numbers. They often espouse fealty to the popular beliefs and ideas of the “tribe” while secretly holding different opinions.

A common pejorative term for them is “sheeple”.

Controlled speech.

Some topics are even avoided altogether as inappropriate to discuss in “polite company”.

Fear of being labelled as an “outsider” for expressing unpopular views is one reason for this self-censorship. Another is to avoid unpleasant confrontations with people who holds “different” ideas and opinions.

“Off limit” topics were historically restricted to religion and politics. Today, however, they include Climate Change, the efficacy of Covid vaccines and masks, gender identity confusion in young people, alleged conspiracy theories and the sources of their “misinformation”. It certainly feels like the walls of censorship are steadily closing in on us powered by unseen forces.

This fear of social isolation is very serious for some people.

I have often wondered how many people today are genuinely afraid to “speak their mind” and choose to say nothing in order to protect their ‘group status’.

A few years ago, I heard a podcast that featured a prominent Libertarian public figure who claimed that, in her experience interacting with many women, fear of social banishment was far more common in women than in men. This aligns with my own experience.

Fear of banishment trumps freedom of speech

Yes, we live in an age of censorship, ‘group think’, and social media cancelation which makes it difficult to really get to know each other. Most people present to others a social ‘self’ that is ‘safe’ from judgement and criticism.

For example, there are many self-professed “religious” people who claim to be a “Christian” but never attend church services or read the Bible. What proportion of a typical church congregation harbours these closet “doubting Thomas” members? Likewise, what proportion of citizens exists who claim to agree with the Climate Change Crisis narratives but also harbour secret doubts?

Does their fear of banished exceed their desire to be genuinely known and understood by others? Can there be any other explanation?

About the PROPOSAL

Premise #1: Life is a non-stop process of learning; we must adapt accordingly.

Learning takes place in formal ways, like attending school, and informal ways like navigating every event and circumstance that we encounter every day. Experience and wisdom are the result. Greater confidence and courage can follow.

The PROPOSAL below acknowledges the fact that we never stop learning; that trial and error are essential ingredients for learning and; to navigate Life successfully, we must be free to make responsible and informed choices throughout our time on earth.

The PROPOSAL also recognizes each one of us to be an individual who is a thoroughly unique being living an existence that is highly unpredictable. Our end will come and many of our Life choices are necessarily made with our mortality in mind.

Finally, the PROPOSAL is made with the full understanding that we are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and fulfillment. We naturally seek, find and choose individuals and communities (aka “tribes”) where our needs, priorities and values best fit with our personal circumstances. In this way, we form relationships for mutual support and “collectives” to exert influence and power on others in order to serve the interests of ourselves and our tribal brethren.

Premise #2: Tribal leaders are expected to serve ‘the majority’.

Elected politicians are law-makers. They formulate and negotiate rules to meet the needs of “the majority” most of the time. Unfortunately, this arrangement means that each member of their tribe will fall into the “minority” category some of the time. If a constituent suffers “minority” status too often, the incentive to seek a more compatible community may arise.

As already mentioned, over 4000 alternative religions have been created to accommodate people who evidently suffered “minority” status too often in their former religious groups. If we are to learn from the history of religions, it’s clear that “informed choice” has always been a driving force behind the social and philosophical evolution of our species. Even non-religious organizations have proliferated around the world to offer the “atheist” ( ie “sceptical”, “doubting”) citizens alternative communities of people who hold compatible beliefs and ideas. A list of the 25 most influential contemporary atheists can be found here.

Premise #3. Governments have much to learn from the history of religion.

Church leaders are far less autocratic today than in the past. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, exercised aggressive and harmful powers over people in earlier times that no one would find acceptable today.

Instead, contemporary churches are more welcoming and less authoritarian. They show greater respect for the individual paths that each soul is compelled to follow. The kind of message that a newcomer to a church may hear today would be something like:

“If you like and believe in our doctrines, then come join our congregation. If you don’t, then seek and find your own path with our blessings.”

Our governments, in contrast, have become increasingly autocratic and dictatorial over time. Political leaders seem out of touch with the citizens that they are alleged to serve. Men like Justin Trudeau are children of wealth and privilege who were raised in circumstances that are reserved only for the rich, powerful, famous and well-connected.

Premise #4. Canadian democracy is now a fiction

Our elected elites act like “know-it-alls” who show no respect for the Canadians who no longer trust them of the institutions they control. They discredit and dismiss any credible and legitimate sources of information alternatives that are not under their control. As such, the “it’s my way or the highway” is the way government officials treat most Canadians.

This Canadian authoritarian regime in Ottawa showcased its abuse of power in early 2022 to the disbelief of everyone. The peaceful protesting of hundreds of thousands of average Canadians during the Truckers For Freedom convoy and national protest (against vaccine mandates and travel restrictions) could have been met with diplomacy rather than derision and the use of force by government actors at every level.

Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act, rather that a series of respectful sit-down meetings with leaders of the protest, was the most cowardly acts by a Prime Minister that I have witnessed in my 71 year lifetime. The fact that he got away with it with “nary a scratch” is proof positive that Canada is no longer a democracy.

From that episode millions of observers, within our nation and beyond, learned with certainty that they could no longer trust our elected authorities and public institutions to protect every man, woman and child under Canadian constitutional law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

Those autocrats could certainly learn a thing or two from contemporary Church leaders on important matters. This is particularly true concerning the Climate Change Crisis!

THE ISSUE

Before proposing a solution to a problem, it makes sense the clearly define the issue that you are attempting to solve. Ayn Rand condensed an important aspect of the problem very well in the statement below.

Collectivism makes no room from each individual’s Life Lens or ethical rights.

No where has this been more evident than during the recent pandemic and the decades long Climate Change mandates imposed by public authorities.

The federal and provincial governments of Canada have pursued a Climate Change agenda that has never had the support of our citizens. Over recent decades, politicians and government officials have aggressed against us by passing unfair laws, creating and enforcing onerous regulations, imposing unacceptable tax burdens and by scolding/ridiculing anyone who would not embrace and obey their Climate Change mitigation strategy and its regimes of power and authority.

The economic harms to the prosperity of individuals and businesses have been extensive.

Yet the public autocrats in power have continued to blame us for the failure of their policies. Then they have had the gall to insist that we must take ownership for the crisis and “do the responsible thing”. This is the ‘moral authority’ that our governing elites claim as they “sell” their dictates to us! Their game plan is to manipulate us into believing that we must shrink our “carbon footprint”, forego modern conveniences, pay more and higher taxes, and “tighten our belts” - all for our own good!

Our Rear View Mirror reveals the Facts

It’s been nearly two decades since The Inconvenient Truth movie featured former Vice POTUS Al Gore who famously claimed that “the science is settled” and climate catastrophe was inevitable.

Like the old time preachers and “medicine men” who travelled in covered wagons from town to town selling miracle tinctures and delivering fiery sermons full of hell fire and apocalyptic predictions, Al Gore captivated the world with his masterful presentation in The Inconvenient Truth. Like Nostradamus before him, none of Gore’s predictions have materialized.

Currently a very wealthy man from his successful ‘carbon credits’ con, I don’t feel any sympathy for Mr. Gore’s tarnished reputation today. It lost its glow steadily as his misinformation was increasingly proved to be unsubstantiated conjecture combined with pure hyperbole.

Today, many consider that Al will be better understood by history as one of the greatest charlatans of all time.

The Climate Change Governmental Complex rests on the success of the Great Gore Con

Massive government institutions have grown to command a larger and larger slice of the public taxation and debt pie since the spectacular success of The Inconvenient Truth in 2006.

Much of the money is currently spent to sustain the incessant fear-mongering campaigns and untruths which public leaders must use to continually convince citizens that their taxes, regulations and investments in their government jobs are necessary.

Today, a massive economic sector exists were none had prior to 1990 - the Climate Change Government Complex. It is entirely the creation of government elites who have exercised their dictatorial powers over us all,  believers and non-believers alike.

My PROPOSAL

The existence of Climate Change Government Complex (CCGC) is at the root of the problem I wish to address. To resolve the problem, it must be rooted out.

Following Ayn Rand’s wise observation, it makes sense to decentralize the decision-making regarding Climate Change down to the individual citizen.

Such decentralization will necessarily require the repeal of all legislation and regulations that enable the Climate Change Government Complex to exist. This will remove any authority that government institutions will have claimed in the past to act on the ‘crisis’. The CCGC will have been relegated to history.

Replace the CCGC with a not-for-profit Tribunal of citizens who possess the Scientific, Engineering and Business expertise to credibly evaluate investment proposals for improving upon the sustainable creation and use of various forms of energy, including fossil fuels and nuclear.

In particular, this “energy projects investment” body of decision-makers would focus on the “environmental footprint” of our nation’s worst polluters (no, CO2 is not a pollutant) and wasters of energy.

Energy Investments Tribunal (EIT)

The EIT could consist of 5 (no more than 7) members who would function as a highly qualified decision-making team following a similar model to that of the popular TV show The Dragon’s Den. In each episode, this respected panel of successful Canadians would hear “the pitch” presented by business owners and entrepreneurs who seek private funds to address their “carbon footprint” challenges and improve upon their efficient use of energy.

The Bigfoot Show - a Return On Hope

A name like “The Bigfoot Show” could reflect its purpose to shrink excessively large carbon footprints and do so using television to offer information and entertainment in the process.

In Bigfoot, members of the EIT panel members could include one or two business entrepreneurs who possess a successful track record. In this regard, the Tribunal could include wealthy Canadians who have built well-known and respected businesses, and who possess the experience to evaluate an investment proposal on its merits. Other members may include Engineers who have undertaken large industrial projects and manufacturing upgrades, and have experience in creating return-on-investment calculations.

With a good mix of experience within the Tribunal, their collective assessment of the capabilities of the entrepreneurs who seek sources of private funds would be needed to determine if the EIT’s investment offers will be in capable hands.

Dragon’s Den fans will know that one or more of it’s panel of investors usually declare interest in buying a stake in the entrepreneur’s business after some due-diligence has been completed. Many past Dragons Den winners have subsequently reached higher penetration levels of their products into consumer markets profitably.

Unlike Dragon’s Den, however, all Bigfoot investment decisions should be the unanimous choice of all 5 Tribunal members (similar to a jury decision in a court of law). The money is not theirs to invest. Instead, like a corporate Board of Directors, they have a fiduciary obligation to make the best investment decisions on behalf of their donors.

EIT donors will not be typical investors. The will not be expecting a personal Return on Investment (ROI). Instead, like church-goers who contribute to the “donation basket”, they will expect a Return On Hope (ROH) - that their contribution will make the world a better and safer place for humanity.

Climate Change Investment Fund (CCIF)

The financial capital for investments will be raised privately and voluntarily from believers in the Climate Change crisis. This Climate Change Investment Fund is expected to grow substantially for several reasons:

1. Citizens will eventually reap substantial savings from the abolition of carbon taxes and other costs imposed on them by the CCGC. The resulting increase in after-tax disposable income will make room in the average family budget to donate to causes like The Bigfoot Show’s CCIF that were formerly inaccessible to them.

2. All religions and their churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples, they have been funded by donations from their believers. People freely donate to causes in which they possess strong convictions. The generous donations offered by thousands of citizens for the Truckers For Freedom convoy/protest in Ottawa in January 2022 is proof that even secular causes seeking a Return On Hope will also grow from voluntary donations.

3. The choices made by the EIT to invest the CCIF will be transparent to the public and to all CCIF donors. The results of those investments, if tracked and reported to the public by The Bigfoot Show, would sustain a long term public interest in this alternative to the less transparent or accountable CCGC.

4. Every church in Canada has been build and sustained by believers who imposed no obligations on non-believers. Religious faith is understood by most people to be an individual matter. Likewise, since the science concerning Anthropogenic Global Warming is unsettled (particularly regarding the extent of harm it allegedly poses to humanity) and that many skeptics exist (“non-believers”), all hyperbolic claims regarding the threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming must also be considered a matter of faith and only supported on a voluntary basis.

Who Will Qualify to receive Investment Funds?

The organizations that may quality to receive investment funds from the Energy Investments Tribunal could be identified in one of two ways:

1. Nominations made by the people who make substantial donations to the Climate Change Investment Fund. After all, if they are willing the “put their money where their beliefs are”, then they deserve a say in to whom that money goes.

2. By request from the owners/executives of businesses that have been identified amongst “the worst emitters”. Many of these people will likely come forward to take advantage of an opportunity to upgrade their production facilities while simultaneously reducing their “carbon footprint”. It also will benefit their corporate image to be featured on The Bigfoot Show as a “responsible corporate citizen”.

The investment winners, of course, will be determined only by the Tribunal and its ability to assess the ROI of each investment project.

Who Will Not Qualify for the Energy Investment Tribunal?

Understandably, none of the Tribunal members should ever be employed by any level of government, agency, board, commission, corporate media organization, activist group or registered charity. This is absolutely necessary to avoid either the suspicion of, or actual, corrupting influences from potential conflicts-of-interest or cronyism.

The SWOT+ Analysis.

To help our citizens to decide on the merits of this PROPOSAL, an assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats can be very useful. The identification of “Who benefits?” and “Who pays?” will strength its ancillary goal of being as transparent and accountable as possible in the eyes of the public and CCIF donors.

Below, I offer my own SWOT+ Analysis to kickstart discussions. I realize and expect that others will likely provide different SWOT+ Perspectives.

STRENGTHS:

1. Decentralization of decision-making to the individual level. This will gradually lead to the political justification (will of the people) to shrink the size, cost and scope of the Climate Change Governmental Complex. This will be accomplished by gradually repealing the legislation that currently exists to sustain its operations and authorities. The savings for all Canadians will be enormous when the taxation requirements to fund its sprawling institutions are no longer required.

2. Funds invested by Climate Change Crisis believers will be invested directly in actual projects by a transparent and accountable means. The Bigfoot Show and it’s Tribunal will invest based on a properly-assessed ROI (return on investment) in order to attain the Returns on Hope desired by donors. The Tribunal members will have been chosen for those abilities, and their decisions will be isolated from the influences of special interest groups of people who may possess self-serving interests and/or political motives.

3. The entertainment and information value of The Bigfoot Show will also serve to meet the transparency and accountability interests of all donors while being entertained in the process. If successful, a syndicated version of the show could lead to its replication in other nations.

4. Reduce the expensive and unsustainable “government footprint”. After our governments have been removed from any authority to invest in, tax, debt finance and regulate everyone in the name of mitigating the “climate change crisis”, they can return their attention and focus on other issues. Citizens will have more confidence in The Bigfoot Show than in the CCGC. This is because Bigfoot’s priority in making transparent and accountable decisions with a follow up on results attained will be more satisfying and trustworthy. Citizens and donors will know with a high degree of confidence that the Energy Investments Tribunal will possess the financial resources and dedicated mandate to make real progress on the AGW “crisis” while potentially increasing the productivity of Canadian businesses (ie “the worst emitters”).  This is a “win-win” scenario for everyone.

WEAKNESS

1. The PROPOSAL is a “big ask” for Canadians to consider, especially for those who don’t like change and who possess faith in their belief that governments are the only way to address major societal issues. Some of these skeptics will ask obvious questions like: “Who will pick the Tribunal members?” “How do we know that we can trust their decisions or safeguard the Funds from theft or misuse?” These are legitimate questions. However, when compared to asking these same questions about the Climate Change Governmental Complex, it becomes clear that this PROPOSAL is potentially a much better, less bureaucratic and more flexible choice.

2. Many public sector jobs will no longer be needed as the Climate Change Governmental Complex is eliminated. What will become of those government employees? How great will be the financial losses to the Public Sector Labour Unions that currently derive the majority of their corporate revenues and profits from the annual dues paid by each member? Should the public be concerned about these losses? (Consider: how much concern did public sector employees show concerning the loss of jobs and businesses in the private sector when our governments imposed pandemic mandates on everyone? Many claimed that our sacrifices were necessary and they self-righteously proclaimed that “we are all in this together” from their fully-paid, safe, work-from-home positions!)

OPPORTUNITY

1. Start with a Proof of Concept pilot project. A few years ago, the Ontario Liberal government approved a multi-year pilot project to test the viability of the Universal Basic Income in several electoral ridings including the one in which I live. This project was cancelled soon after the Conservatives won an electoral majority. If a provincial government can experiment with a concept that poses as far-reaching economic and social implications as a possible rollout of UBI, surely a multi-year Proof Of Concept test pilot for The Bigfoot Show, the Energy Investment Tribunal and the Climate Change Investment Fund with it’s far-reaching benefits should also receive the necessary approvals to move ahead.

2. Voluntary ownership strengthens interest and commitment. Ownership is a proven way to obtain buy-in for, and participation in, an initiative. By comparison, coerced taxation builds resentment when earnings are taken for alleged purposes for which no transparency or accountability exists. People can generally be motivated by “carrot or stick” incentives. Our governments have tried “the stick” (taxation & regulation) approach for decades hoping to change human behaviour. They have combined this with frequent fear-mongering campaigns to induce public compliance. Their approach has failed spectacularly! My evidence is the fact that they are still fighting the same battle by the same methods with no evidence that they are any further ahead than when they started. It’s time that the public chooses a long term “carrot” approach beginning with a “proof of concept” Tribunal pilot project.

3. Many productive private sector jobs will emerge when the “carrot” approach proves to be vastly superior to the “stick” approach! When the “largest emitters” receive the funding they need to reduce their “carbon footprint”, a wide range of specialists and non-specialists will be hired to carry out the work. Engineers of various disciplines, construction crews, computer science personnel, and many more Canadian workers will surely be engaged to plan and bring projects to fruition. These will be much better jobs than the ones currently favoured by the Climate Change Governmental Complex such as: erecting unsightly, bird-killing and unhealthy windmills; building large solar farms on valuable Canadian real estate that could be used instead for many other productive purposes; cadres of administrative personnel that the CCGC need to sustain its operations. These new private sector jobs will be Canadian jobs! The will use Canadian assets and “Make In Canada” know-how so that our businesses will be less reliant on products like solar panels which are mostly made in China.

4. A global market for The Bigfoot Show? Is it possible that it will become more popular that The Dragons’ Den? Could Canada become known globally as the first nation to employ an Entertainment Industry idea to bring practical and creative solutions to the AGW issue? Would there be a global market for a syndicated version of The Bigfoot Show and how much money could this be worth to Canadian investor? Could there be spin-offs to replace other domains where Big Government monopolies prevail which could also benefit from this concept?

THREATS

It will come as no surprise that the major obstacles to my PROPOSAL will be human. Opposition is sure to arise from a variety of special interest groups, and their associated communities, who currently possess a large stake in maintaining the status quo. The following is only a partial list of these:

1. Canadian members of the World Economic Forum (WEF) such as Justin Trudeau, Mark Carney, Chrystia Freeland, Jagmeet Singh and many other Parliamentarians have been executing the WEF playbook. They seek to transform (“build back better”) Canada into a post-sovereign, post-national region of a “One World Order” controlled by wealthy and powerful elites who are associated with the WEF, United Nations, World Health Organization, World Bank and other globalist organizations. These groups share a common purpose:  to remake the world under their authority according to their vision of our global future. “You will own nothing and be happy” is their stated vision on the WEF website. They want current and future generations to receive ‘cradle to grave’ “free services” upon which they will be 100% dependent. This promise can and will be enabled by The Fourth Industrial Revolution that provides an endless array of digital technologies which continually creep into all aspects of our lives. These innovations will surely provide the Digital enforcement infrastructure needed to make the WEF’s vision of global communism a realist possibility.

2. Every public sector union member and every public sector department manager that has any responsibility associated with the Climate Change Governmental Complex will rightly be concerned about their jobs. Their associated employment perks (great benefits, pensions, etc) are also at risk. While many non-government workers “took the hit” on their jobs, businesses, savings and more, the typical government employee displayed an unsympathetic sense of personal “entitlement” while working from the safety and security of their privileged government positions. “We are all in this together” was an easy refrain for them to chant during COVID19 while others suffered disproportionately to the harms inflicted by inflexible, ill-informed and draconian state mandates. They will all fight aggressively to maintain their privileges.

3. All Greta Thunberg sympathizers and Climate Change activist groups will surely take up their pitchforks and placards to protest my PROPOSAL. These people are unapologetic autocrats who subscribe to the “my way or the highway” dictum and who have always aggressively chastised, ridiculed and/or attempted to marginalize anyone and everyone who has posed any opposition to their agenda. The rich, powerful and famous elites of the world who supported Greta and her cheerleaders will continue to burn large quantities of fossil fuels as the rack up ‘frequect flier miles’ jetting off to the next international Climate Change Conference or week-long Davos shindig. Especially those with their private jets will continue to stand out as the most notorious hypocrites who display no concern for their own carbon footprint. Meanwhile, the fawning media organizations shamelessly bolster the fame of those famous Climate Change champions while “we little people” are the butt of their criticisms. Once again, they will label us as the fundamental cause of the world’s problems. Party on, folks!

Who BENEFITS & Who PAY?

While it may be helpful for spell out the “who gets what” of my PROPOSAL, the answer is self evident.

Throughout time and across the planet, there have always been class systems in human societies. Only the dynamics behind these class hierarchies have changed over the millennia.

“Might makes right” has always been the common theme.

In ancient times, physical and/or military might determined the leadership of tribes, and the governance structures of city-states and emerging nations. “Might” continues today in a different guise as evidenced by the growing trends towards global governance based of financial, technological and political power as envisioned by the World Economic Forum.

“Might” is a relative term.

Might is best redefined according to context and ‘the times”. While the “strong man” was personified differently during the age of the cave man, his image has undergone a steady metamorphosis throughout the ages.

Todays “strong-man” is usually extremely wealthy, connected, politically powerful, famous (or “infamous” as is the case of men like Donald Trump, George Soros, Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates), ruthless, and sometimes devious to the point of verging on “evil” ( a subjective assessment which depends on the Life Lend of the beholder).

Needless to say, those who benefit and those who pay from any PROPOSAL like this one will inevitably choose one side or the other of the “battle line” that will form according to their personal ‘who benefits and who pays’ calculus. Like the concept of “evil”, the assessment of which tribe to join will be made by each individual, for better or worse.

On a pessimistic note.

Today’s “strongmen” enjoy near insurmountable advantages in getting what they want. They control the media, manage many of the world’s supply chains, leverage enormous wealth, have direct access to powerful legislators and officials employed in government institutions, exert substantial self-serving influence in the banking systems and on central bank policies, and they oversee our military, policing, institutions of Justice, the entire public health and medical sector, all Education services, and more.

Contrast this the feeble powers of the average citizen

Every 4 years, we are entitled to issue a single vote to indicate who we prefer to be in charge of the above strongman regimes. The only way to defeat an unpopular regime, without resorting to armed anarchy, is for enough citizens to vote for elected officials who will commit to repealing all legislation that gives the strongman class the ability to rule over us.

This is the contemporary strongman’s Achilles Heel. It will remain their point of vulnerability for as long as Western nations like Canada continue to hold elections “by the people for the people”.

The Climate Change Governmental Sector could potentially (a long shot admittedly) be defanged in Canada by the electoral “will of the people”. Contrast this with the citizens of China who, under the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), have long ago forfeited any semblance of “electoral democracy”.

The CCP describes its form of national governance as “Communism with Chinese characteristics.” It involves the extensive use of Digital surveillance technologies to maintain economic and societal controls over their massive population. With 1.3 billion citizens, maybe it is the only form of governance that works for China? I don’t know the answer to this question and I doubt if many others do as well!

In Canada, periodic announcements from the Trudeau Libera/NDP coalition government indicate that a CCP-style of Digital Communism is becoming our destiny too. As a nation of only 36 million citizens who are blessed with access to one of the world’s largest nations that is rich in natural assets, I don’t see how a CCP-like governance regime for Canada is either appropriate or desirable. For those who agree with me, we must join in an effort to oppose it while we still can.

We must get organized in significant ways

A great place to begin to oppose a CCP-like future is to make a PROPOSAL like this one a reality. The WEF and UN are strong forces behind the past buildup of the Climate Change Government Complex in Canada and elsewhere. If this domino were to fall and thwart their plans, we could establish a bulwark against any and all future assaults on our personal and national sovereignties.

Hopefully we can rally enough Canadians who cherish their rights under the Canadians Charter of Rights and Freedoms to fight for the survival of our Canadian way of life and the democracy upon which it rests. We must vanquish the apparent love affair that many Canadians have with bigger, more expensive and more authoritarian governments. Those Canadians must come to understand the risks that excessively large and powerful governments pose to our way of life.

Let’s change Canada’s political culture to one that embraces Individual Freedom, Personal Responsibility, mutual respect, and Fair treatment under unbiased laws.

Just say NO to Digital Communism!

Put the brakes on the engines that have kept pushing us down the slippery slope towards the WEF’s vision of a world ruled under a centralized regime of Digital Communism. Force every political candidate to publicly sign an oath to obey the Charter of Right and Freedoms in carrying out their duties of elected office and tie punitive conditions to that oath so that the consequences of failure are well known and harsh. Public trust in our elected officials will only return if their duty to Canadians is backstopped by known measures of accountability and transparency.

So, when would you like the first episode of The Bigfoot Show to air?