Following North Cowichan’s decision to expedite the adoption of building step code 6 years earlier than the Province, with a vote of 4-3, we’ve contacted other communities to determine whether they are aligned with these so-called “local” initiatives.
We reached out to a contact who runs a citizen’s watchdog group in Kamloops and received this letter. It appears that municipalities are uniformly prioritizing global objectives over local necessities. Why does this uniformity exist?
Sound Off: Green Policies will have Homeowners Seeing Red
Like 99.99% of people living on Earth, I want a clean and healthy environment for my children to grow up in.
However, I also recognize that idealistic green policies can sometimes have an unnecessary negative impact on our society and quality of life. If you ask me, there must be a balance between the two.
Recently, I was surprised to learn from the media that my balanced opinions are considered dangerous to the future of humanity. According to the CAAD and reporters at the National Observer, I’m suffering from something called “Climate Denialism.” They claim that anyone advocating for calm reason and caution when implementing radical Climate Action is somehow a danger to our collective safety. They even go as far as advocating that people like me should be silenced and lobby media platforms to remove content like mine. Similar ideas were recently echoed in City Hall when a representative of Transition Kamloops passionately urged the council to ignore my comments about the glaring issues with the Community Climate Action Plan.
So, what is it that has the green lobby so concerned that they’re calling for censorship? It’s related to the growing movement of people concerned with topics surrounding Sustainable Development. The term was first used in 1987 to describe the development of human settlements in an environmentally conscious way. Back then, we were clear-cutting forests, there was a hole in the Ozone Layer, and Captain Planet was saving the day every Saturday morning. Intuitively, it made sense that we had to act to protect the environment. But the modern definition of sustainable development has evolved into something entirely different.
According to the United Nations, Sustainable Development is based on three pillars: Social, Economic, and Environmental. We must first adopt the UN framework called the “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) and apply these factors to every decision we make as a society. Only then will we achieve true sustainable development.
Canada, along with 194 other countries, is engaging in a one-size-fits-all approach to saving the planet. For 30 years now, the UN has been trying to fit the round earth peg into the square sustainable development hole, and we’re starting to see predictable results.
A prime example of sustainable development gone off the rails is the war against carbon. This includes strategies like stopping cow farts, banning meat consumption, limiting fertilizer use, and ending the use of all fossil fuels. The government is enthusiastically pursuing carbon reduction strategies that will force BC residents to make significant changes to how we live our lives. This is being marketed as good and clean, with people happily discussing the endless benefits. However, the real conversation should be about whether these changes are necessary, effective, and what negative effects they will have on our lives. No context is being provided.
In January, major news networks claimed that “banning gas” was a wild conspiracy. Well, it’s actually written into the CleanBC Road Map. The NDP, in alignment with the UN SDGs and the federal government’s commitment to the Paris Accord, is changing the BC Building Code not just to “net zero” but to “Zero carbon” by 2030. They’ve also identified homeowners with older, inefficient, gas and wood-heated homes as a source of carbon emissions. But don’t worry; the government has a plan to save us all from our emissions.
Currently, the government is discussing how to implement a retrofit code to eliminate all these inefficient homes. They have a target of retrofitting all old homes by 2050. As I understand it, the code could be triggered by anyone obtaining a permit for work on their house. It ensures that no work can be completed unless it complies with the new code. Homeowners will be nudged and influenced through onerous fees, regulations, and energy labelling requirements. They will be cajoled into conducting a “voluntary” energy retrofit on their homes. This may include insulation, removing natural gas, installing heat pumps, and EV charging infrastructure, and could easily run into five figures. I doubt that going into crushing debt to fight climate change is high on the priority lists of retirees, young families, and those struggling with the increased costs of everything these days.
The real discussion should be: In the context of a soft economy, a housing affordability crisis, and a shortage of skilled trades, does it make any sense to pursue increasingly costly carbon reduction strategies? I would argue that it does not. As technology advances and costs come down, sure, why not? We can all do our part, but that would take time, technology, and calm reason to prevail. However, the current climate crisis paradigm and illogical arguments for a government-forced transition to a so-called green economy are leading this country into a predictable future with more government, less energy, and less freedom for everyone.
This is why I speak about these issues. There is no context being provided. I’m passionate about these issues because it matters. My motivation lies in leaving a better place for my children in the future, and if that means I must stand up and take some negative press to get there, I’m willing to do it.
You can find out more about the association at KamloopsCSC.org
Kamloops, BC / KCSC Association