December 2025
Re: “Climate is no longer a political priority” (Doreen Barrie, The Hamilton Spectator, 5 December): Columnist Doreen Barrie falls into the same binary climate alarmist narrative that if we aren’t building windmills and keeping fossil fuels in the ground, then we don’t care about the environment. Climate and the environment are separate issues, thus you can be an environmentalist and still believe that anthropogenic climate change is an unfounded narrative and that responsible use of fossil fuels won’t destroy the planet.
Her column spouts off all the usual Climate Emergency® narratives that always fail to acknowledge that Canada, and frankly the world, has come a long, long way in improving and protecting the environment. We no longer do many things that we used to do that harmed the environment, achieved through legislation, education and technological advantages. What comes out of factory smokestacks, the tailpipes of cars and gets emptied into our lakes and rivers is a lot cleaner than it was throughout much of the 20th Century, and getting better.
Toronto used to routinely have numerous smog days each summer, but these have been pretty much eliminated. I grew up in Burlington and remember back in the 1980s looking across Burlington Bay and seeing the smog hanging over Hamilton. That brown haze is now gone.
Burlington Bay/Hamilton Harbour also used to be a very polluted body of water and is now much cleaner. Carbon taxes, windmills and electric cars didn’t achieve any of these environmental accomplishments. In fact, none of the emissions reduction goals the Climate Emergency® crowd have pushed have had any real effect. Why? Because it would mean we would essentially have to return to the pre-industrial revolution days to achieve such goals, along with the hardships that our ancestors endured back then.
Does anyone out there remember the Drive Clean program? Drive Clean was so successful in getting older, polluting vehicles off the road that it was eliminated by Doug Ford’s government as an unnecessary tax-grab. The program, while hated by many at the time, actually proved effective in reducing our environmental damage.
Global warming or natural climate fluctuations?
In one of the geography classes that I took in high school, my teacher distributed a handout containing a semi-satirical story relating to the issue of Global Warming. This was in 1985 or 1986. It quite humorous and thought provoking, including claims that “while the southern U.S. burns, farmers in southern Ontario are making a killing on avocados.”
There are two relevant points here. The first is that we’ve been dealing with global warming/climate change for decades. It’s nothing new and hasn’t proven to be catastrophic. Secondly, we can’t stop the climate from changing, no matter how much we may try. The best we can do is adapt to the changes as best as we can, something we have successfully accomplished over the centuries. We have evidence of drastic changes in the global climate over thousands of years, none of which were human-caused. There are trees entombed in the Arctic Permafrost, meaning the Arctic was once warm enough for tree growth. Maybe one day, there will be a booming lumber industry in the Arctic, along with avocado farms in southern Ontario. We shouldn’t be careless with our environment, which we do have a measure of control over, but we are pretty arrogant if we think we can control the world’s climate.
It’s incredibly insulting that Ms. Barrie would claim Canadians are destroying the planet through consumerism and wanting to take advantage of the economic and environmental benefits that can be realized by getting our abundant natural resources to national and international markets. I can agree with her that people really don’t need to replace their year-old electronic device (phone, flat-screen TV, etc.) with the latest, greatest device, just because there is a new one available, but frankly, we are all free to spend our money in any way we want, despite what Ms. Barrie thinks about consumerism. However, pipelines carrying Canada’s ethical oil and cleaner-burning natural gas to international markets can have a real impact on countries still burning higher polluting energy sources like coal or animal dung, and I fail to see how that is a bad thing.
It’s incredibly insulting that Ms. Barrie would claim Canadians are destroying the planet through consumerism and wanting to take advantage of the economic and environmental benefits that can be realized by getting our abundant natural resources to national and international markets. I can agree with her that people really don’t need to replace their year-old electronic device (phone, flat-screen TV, etc.) with the latest, greatest device, just because there is a new one available, but frankly, we are all free to spend our money in any way we want, despite what Ms. Barrie thinks about consumerism. However, pipelines carrying Canada’s ethical oil and cleaner-burning natural gas to international markets can have a real impact on countries still burning higher polluting energy sources like coal or animal dung, and I fail to see how that is a bad thing.
A major downside to electricity generated by windmills and solar panels is that the energy can’t be stored, making them unsuitable for base load power. When battery storage is viable enough that the energy could be stored for use when it’s needed, like at night, that could be a game-changer. However, when you consider the size of the batteries that will be needed to store the energy, the size of the buildings that will be needed to house the batteries and the cooling systems that will be needed to keep the batteries from over-heating, will the “carbon footprint” be more or less than fossil fuel generation?
Lastly, can we get off the false narratives that carbon dioxide is a pollutant (it’s essential for photosynthesis and thus, life on Earth), that electric vehicles are emissions-free (what goes into producing the battery is not emissions-free) and that we’re all going to die if the temperature goes up if 2 degrees. Humans have been quite adept at coping with temperature variations for thousands of years, as we have with changing weather patterns and sea-level changes. Scientists like Dr. Patrick Moore, a dedicated environmentalist and Greenpeace co-founder, argues that the world is actually carbon deficient. Dr. Moore, who is an ecologist, argues that the world would be actually greener, not just figuratively, if there were higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Oh, but Dr. Moore is “in the pockets of big oil!” Even if he is, please tell me how he is wrong. None of the apocalyptic predictions that Al Gore forecasted in his much discredited documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” have come true. Advocates point out that he was accurate in predicting things like increasing frequency of heat waves, rising CO2 levels and retreating glaciers, but none of them have been even close to the outcomes he predicted.
I will agree with one part of Ms. Barrie’s column: “Climate is no longer a political priority” and has “been displaced by more immediate problems.” That’s true, as evidenced by Justin Trudeau officially cancelling the carbon taxes on home-heating oil in the Maritime provinces in 2023, where their polling told them they were in danger of losing many of the 24 seats that they held at the time. This one act confirmed what many of us have known for years: the decision to impose carbon taxes on Canadians is based on political science, not the scientific kind of science; that “following the science” on the Climate Emergency® only matters if it doesn’t cost your government seats.
Now, let’s see what Prime Minister Mark Carney can do about inflation and negotiating an American trade deal, both of which are making life unaffordable for Canadians.
*******************************************************************************************************************
The original column that inspired my column:
Opinion | Why climate change is no longer a political priority in Canada
It’s not an exaggeration to say that we hold the fate of the earth in our hands, Doreen Barrie writes.
Dec. 5, 2025
By Doreen Barrie
Judging by the MOU signed by the prime minister and Alberta’s premier, climate change has fallen off the political agenda.
It had already been displaced by more immediate problems like affordable housing, the price of groceries and the impact of Donald Trump’s tariffs on the economy. Yet, we are smacked in the face, almost on a weekly basis, by the consequences of a warming planet: forest fires, droughts, catastrophic flooding and other extreme weather events.
For those concerned about such issues, it is a discouraging turn of events. Why do governments prioritize economic matters and who is going to address the health of the planet?
Canada is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. However, given the trajectory we are on (planning a series of megaprojects that will have a significant impact on the environment), the government appears to be abdicating its responsibilities on this file.
Critics have pointed out that climate commitments have been violated by a number of countries. However, inaction or timid actions by governments make sense given that their primary and immediate focus is to ensure economic prosperity. Absent the tax revenue generated by a healthy economy, governments would be unable to support the health care, education, social assistance, etc. that citizens depend upon. It is not surprising then that governments strike a Faustian bargain, sacrificing the interests of future generations to ensure the current generation of voters enjoys material success.
It is clear that if the environment is to be protected, the impetus must come from individual Canadians. In fact, protection of the environment will take place in spite of, not because of, government policy. A heretical statement from a political scientist!
It’s not an exaggeration to say that we hold the fate of the earth in our hands. Politicians are not about to tell us that the phenomenal growth we have experienced in the last 50 years has come at a cost. Record levels of resource extraction and unprecedented levels of mass consumption have diminished nature’s bounty and our account is overdrawn. Until now, we have regarded nature as an endless resource for us to feed our insatiable appetites, but this is a fallacy.
Don’t expect to hear from our premiers or the prime minister that human-caused climate change threatens our species, that the resources we depend on to survive (especially water) are dwindling. You will not be advised by governments to consume less, to live in harmony with and respect nature — for that you will have to turn to the wisdom of Indigenous groups around the world.
Unlike what we might characterize as Western world views, Indigenous people see themselves merely as caretakers whose responsibility is to preserve land, water and life on the planet for future generations.
The Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration on Water at the 2003 World Water Forum in Japan included the statement: “We were placed in a sacred manner on this earth, each in our own sacred and traditional lands and territories to care for all of creation and to care for water.” They believe that humans are part of a web of life, and are no more important than animals, plants or landforms.
Against such a backdrop, their opposition to tanker traffic in northern B.C.’s fragile environment should be understood as a deep commitment to protecting the entire web of life, not just human interests and livelihoods.
We would do well to adopt the “two-eyed seeing” approach recommended by Mi’kmaq Elder Albert Marshall. This is a cross-pollination of traditional knowledge and oral histories of Indigenous knowledge systems and Western scientific knowledge systems. Such a paradigm shift will force us to consider the effect of our actions on generations that follow us.
We have choices to make and I hope our impatience and hubris won’t be our undoing.
Doreen Barrie is an adjunct assistant professor in the political science department at the University of Calgary. She is the author of “The Other Alberta.”
Sources: Al Gore has history of climate predictions, statements proven false | Fox News, Is Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth accurate?, At a glance – Is Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth correct?, After 10 Years, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Is Still Inconvenient : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR, After 10 Years, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Is Still Inconvenient : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR, thespec.com/opinion/contributors/why-climate-change-is-no-longer-a-political-priority-in-canada/article_9b9a82b7-b2bb-56af-bddd-a6ea18729a9a.html.
