Canada’s Carbon Problem

We have a problem in Canada. We have a lot of problems in Canada, to be honest, and one of them is carbon. (Apparently. CBC climate tax Trudeau) When it comes to farming, we simply do not have enough carbon. Farmers spray their fields as the crops cannot get enough from the air. Even homeowners enrich their soil with chemicals – natural through compost and manure or synthetic – because there is not enough. Plants give off oxygen as a process of photosynthesis. They absorb both carbon and oxygen to perform photosynthesis (former) and breakdown sugars for food (latter). Then as stated, give off oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis. Or more simply:


Canada is not like the United States. We are not populated coast to coast, border to border, with clumps of wilderness speckled throughout. Canada is nearly complete wilderness and mostly unpopulated, with a smattering of civilization seeming to appear randomly through the land. In other words, we have trees and plants. We have a lot of trees. We are mostly trees. And bears and beavers and wolves and moose. Mostly trees and plants though.

Did I mention CO2 is necessary for plant growth? Higher carbon levels means bigger plants and simply more plants. It means more food crops and healthier food crops. So much so, that farmers are artificially adding carbon to their crops. Yet the government wants to tax Canadians for “producing” carbon. Our hydro has been raised so much, it’s $100/month more now than a year ago. Gas is already expensive and highly taxed. Every electronic comes with a “green” tax, as do vehicles. Ethanol has been found (speaking in green here) to be a worse pollutant and worse for the environment, than straight up unleaded. Yet the very vehicles that would be using 91 octane (or higher), which contains zero ethinol, are also the cars slapped with an extra gas guzzler tax. Yet as they don’t use ethanol “enriched” gasoline, the “environmental damage” should be offset.

Then on top of HST, we will be smacked with a carbon tax. Now, could someone explain how plant-dense Canada has any global effect on carbon? We probably have a thousand trees per person, including the Inuit, are functionally carbon neutral at our “worst” (assuming carbon is bad) and we have to pay our government even more money because Chna and India are producing carbon and we, unable to offset it, need to pay our incompetent government to fix the problem? How does making it difficult for families to pay bills or feed their children, change how bad the smog in Bejing is? Or that the Ganges is a greater, actual, environmental and biological hazard than any plant-nourishing carbon will ever be?

Could someone explain how in the Middle Ages olives and grapes were grown in England. Were there too many SUVs? Were they cycling through too many electronics and needed the Kings to get them with a green tax to curb their television and cell phone use? How can we have historical climate shifts without the factors we now say cause global warming? Which was rebranded climate change when the warming never actually happened. After the “…there’s a 75% chance the entire Northern Polar ice cap in some summer months could be completely ice free in the next 5 to 7 years,” never materialized by 2016 (7 years after the video) we had already switched to “climate chaos”. Al Gore claims ice free…. [The quote starts around 2:15.] While this statement is full of wiggle words to avoid actually being responsible for false prophesy, the fact is, it was meant to be a threatening prediction to dictate government policies. Such as taxing populations.

We have record ice growth, winters so cold they have broken all records and found out the polar bear populations is thriving, especially as the statistics used for fear mongering has purposefully excluded large polar bear populations. We also have The Globe and Mail, a Canadian paper, admitting to things such as:

Mr. Gissing said he hopes the results lead to more research and a better understanding of polar bears. He said the media in southern Canada has led people to believe polar bears are endangered. “They are not.” He added that there are about 15,000 polar bears across Canada’s Arctic. “That’s likely the highest [population level]there has ever been.”

Then we have:

But many Inuit communities said the researchers were wrong. They said the bear population was increasing and they cited reports from hunters who kept seeing more bears. Mr. Gissing said that encouraged the government to conduct the recent study, which involved 8,000 kilometres of aerial surveying last August along the coast and offshore islands.

I’m sorry people, but I’m going to trust the Inuit when it comes to polar bears before anyone else. Show me one scientist who actually lives with polar bears and I’ll give them a hearing. But if the Inuit are saying we have polar bears and every scientist says the opposite, I’m going with the Inuit.  Globe and Mail, polar bears.

We have records of multiple lies and threats that never materialized. And Canadians are going to be paying taxes based on the claims of the very people, and the very “science”, which has repeatedly been falsified. They even need to fudge their own work to create panic where none exists.

The CO2 graph claiming horrific rise in carbon, threatening us all: Can anyone else see where the Y axis begins? It has been a long time since math class, but from what I remember, one should have a zero and a squiggle above it to show that a large part of the chart is cancelled out to show the pertinent information. All we see here though is how drastic the uptick is. The full chart is actually:

Not so impressive anymore. If one maps temperature vs carbon, it gets really interesting:


Oops. Temperature changing before carbon, and temperature averages going down with carbon.

And I’m supposed to pay taxes on this crap?


Published by

Kitchen Valkyrie

Wife and mommy, exploring the nutrition landscape, trying to be heathy and make my family strong. Here is my adventure.

4 thoughts on “Canada’s Carbon Problem”

  1. You have more polar bears because there is less sea ice, so they are going south. Talk till you’re blue in the face, it remains the case that each of the past three years was the hottest on record, it remains the case that there is less sea ice every year, it remains the case that the north pole (the North. Fricking. Pole.) was open sea at the height of last year’s summer.

    As to whether it’s bad for Canada – you may have a point. Canada could very well be one of the winners … until the floods of immigrants start pounding at the door.


    1. Interesting. Population numbers don’t rely on location. We were told polar bears were dying off, while ignoring massive populations. Travel/location is moot.

      Some places have warmer winters, while other places have record cold. Look at Russia, record storms. Every year there have been areas with mass snowfall. Places in the USA have had massive snowfalls the past few years.

      We are still at the end of an ice age. If the ice age is ending it should be warming, with or without humans. What about the warm period in the middle ages? Olives growing in England? It wasn’t because of their SUVs, 100%. Have you seen the changes in shorelines from ancient Egypt/Greece to today? Cleopatra’s palace and the city it was in is now underwater from changing shorelines, which have nothing to do with global warming or human influenced change. In England what was an island with an ancient fort is now a hill in fields, because of changing water levels. Again nothing to do with human influence on weather. Rivers change over time as well. Things change and humans don’t do much to make it happen.

      Thank you for your interest.


      1. Yes mate. More storms. More snowfall.

        What is snow made out of? Water.
        Where does it come from? The sky.
        How does water get into the sky? Evaporation from the oceans.
        What causes evaporation? Heat.

        As for the medaeval warm period, please see this infographic, which shows that warm period among others. The problem is not just the degree of warming, it’s the rate at which it is happening.


      2. 270+ models were wrong. They’ve been wrong about everything. When you start saying all events are proof of your hypothesis, there’s no more science. We were told 2016 was when we would start telling our children what snow was because it would be gone. My son’s first Christmas was all snow.

        Water is the biggest effect on weather patterns, yes. At any given time it makes up 5-20% of the atmosphere. That fluctuation causes huge weather shifts. Carbon makes up a minuscule percentage that pales in comparison to the effect of water, so much so that it doesn’t have any effect. Methane is a joke, as the half life is too short to have any realistic impact.

        More people does not mean more pollution. City conditions were far worse 100 years ago. We make standards of cleanliness and sanitation, create new cleaner ways of utilizing what we have. We are far better off than the industrial revolution, far cleaner. The world changes, we aren’t doing it.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s