RESPONSE TO NATIONAL OBSERVER’S “WEAPONIZED CHATBOT” ARTICLE
By Maggie Hope Braun, KICLEI Canada
June 1, 2025
This week, Canada’s National Observer published a piece titled:
📌 “A weaponized AI chatbot is flooding city councils with climate misinformation”
🔗 Read it here (1-week free access available)
Before it was published, I received a set of questions from the reporter. Instead of doing a recorded interview that could be selectively quoted, I chose to respond in writing—for clarity, fairness, and transparency. You can read my full, unedited response here:
🔍 A Quick Summary of the Article
The article by National Observer reporter Rory White attempts to paint KICLEI Canada as a coordinated misinformation campaign powered by AI. It alleges that our outreach is overwhelming city councillors and undermining legitimate climate policy. It claims that our Canadian Civic Advisor tool is “tailored” to influence councils with messaging that downplays climate urgency and challenges global net-zero goals.
Notably, the piece confirms several of our key concerns—even while attempting to discredit them:
🗣 “KICLEI (‘Kicking International Council out of Local Environmental Initiatives’) was founded… with a singular aim: to convince towns and cities to quit the voluntary net-zero program Partners for Climate Protection, due to its ties to the UN…”
Yes. That’s correct. And thank you for confirming what we’ve been saying all along: PCP is a UN-affiliated program. It is voluntary. And municipalities can leave.
The article also refers to PCP as:
PCP is “Canada’s flagship municipal net-zero scheme…”
Again, we agree. And that’s exactly why it deserves full transparency, economic review, and democratic consent.
What’s truly alarming is that most councillors we speak with have no idea what ICLEI is, how the PCP program works, or that their municipality is even enrolled—because in many cases, it was adopted by a previous council on a whim. That is a failure of democratic process, not a conspiracy. And it’s exactly why we are helping residents bring these programs into the light for proper review.
💵 Lethbridge Saved $63 Million — and That’s Not “Disinformation”
“Lethbridge… voted to cut its governmental emissions reduction target in half. These decisions followed receipt by the town councillors of letters, presentations and reports from KICLEI members. Some of these materials contain misinformation…”
But the article never explains what the misinformation is—nor does it mention that Lethbridge’s decision avoided $63 million in projected carbon offset costs. That savings came not just from KICLEI “persuasion” but from a recommendation by city staff and an honest evaluation of the financial burden imposed by aggressive targets.
No amount of academic disagreement can change the fact that cost is a legitimate concern in any policy debate.
💸 It’s Not the Membership Fee — It’s the Multimillion-Dollar Commitments
The Observer criticizes our warning to Tiny Township about PCP program costs, noting they pay just $12,700 per year. But this completely ignores our actual point: the cost of implementing the PCP milestones—not membership dues—is the real issue.
PCP milestone recommendations include:
“Building high-efficiency buildings… developing district heating… implementing near-zero GHG waste plans… electrified public transit…”
That’s not free. In fact, our estimates—ranging from $8M to $212M depending on community size—are conservative. Just look at Calgary: their own “Pathways to 2050” climate strategy is projected to require $87 billion in cumulative investment by 2050. While the city insists this cost will be distributed across sectors, it still relies heavily on municipal, provincial and federal tax dollars, grants, and subsidies, and places major financial pressure on individuals and small businesses to pay for compliance, retrofits, vehicle upgrades, and energy system changes.
The article notes:
“FCM… did not provide alternative figures when asked directly.”
If our numbers are wrong, the FCM could easily correct them. But they won’t. And that silence speaks volumes.
🗣️ Using AI to Support Civic Participation Is Not a Crime
The article frames our Canadian Civic Advisor tool (now KICLEI Support) as a sinister innovation:
“It has created its own custom AI chatbot… messaging is often framed to resonate with municipal officials’ duty to represent local interests.”
Isn’t that… exactly what civic engagement should do?
KICLEI’s digital assistant doesn’t generate propaganda. It helps real citizens articulate real concerns—using respectful, evidence-based language. The article even admits the bot is programmed to:
“De-emphasize the climate catastrophe narrative,”
“Focus on practical environmental protection,”
“Emphasize collaboration and mutual understanding.”
That’s not weaponization. That’s model citizenship.
Municipalities already rely on AI-driven policy dashboards and carbon accounting software provided by third-party vendors. Yet the Observer claims our tool is dangerous because it helps concerned Canadians participate more effectively?
If empowering local democracy is the threat, perhaps it’s the system—not the citizens—that’s overdue for review.
📢 This Is Called Civic Engagement—Not a “Firehose”
One of the most revealing lines in the article reads:
“Councillors in several provinces say they feel overwhelmed by KICLEI’s outreach… a ‘firehose’ of correspondence…”
Let’s get this straight: when international NGOs, staff consultants, and federal, international, and corporate-backed lobby groups bombard small-town councils with toolkits, timelines, and policy blueprints—that’s called capacity building. But when ordinary citizens respectfully ask their elected officials for transparency and cost reviews, it’s suddenly a “firehose.”
That framing says everything. The real imbalance isn’t the volume of communication—it’s whose voices are considered legitimate.
Consider the example of Fredericton’s Margo Sheppard, quoted in the article:
“She reported the messages as spam to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) — but never received a response.”
That’s because there was no violation.
Let’s also be clear: The KICLEI Substack newsletter contains relevant updates for municipal councils to be made aware of, and includes a visible unsubscribe link just like any other publication. The idea that local officials are helplessly besieged by emails is not only misleading—it’s insulting to the democratic process.
We encourage respectful civic engagement. We teach people to communicate with clarity and courtesy. If some elected officials feel “overwhelmed” by public feedback, perhaps the problem isn’t the volume—it’s that constituents are finally speaking up.
🧪 Response to the Scientists Quoted in the Article
We take these concerns seriously and welcome the opportunity to clarify.
KICLEI’s mandate is not to dispute climate science—it’s to challenge how selective scientific claims are being translated into binding global policy, often without public debate or full local impact review. Our materials cite published work to provoke civic discussion—not to mislead or distort.
We’re not claiming CO₂ has no role in climate—no credible scientist says that. What we are saying is:
CO₂ makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is mainly water vapour
Humans are only responsible for about 4% of that 0.04%—the rest comes from natural sources like oceans and soils
CO₂ is plant food—it’s essential for life and agriculture
CO₂’s warming effect is logarithmic, meaning each added molecule has less impact than the one before
These are basic, accepted facts in climate science—but they’re often left out of public conversations and council presentations.
The question is not whether CO₂ matters. The question is: how much does it matter, and is it being used responsibly in policymaking?
When you’re justifying multi-million-dollar restructuring of local communities, those distinctions matter.
Let’s address the scientists quoted:
Kevin Trenberth: It’s well established—even by NASA and the IPCC—that water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas, not CO₂. CO₂ makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere, and humans are responsible for only about 4% of that. The rest comes from natural sources like oceans and soils. Trenberth says water vapour is a “feedback,” not a “forcing,” but that distinction doesn’t change the basic facts I just stated. The public rarely hears this information, yet it's central to any informed policy conversation. If simply pointing out the composition of the atmosphere threatens the credibility of the whole climate catastrophe narrative, then maybe that narrative needs a closer look.
Andrew Lacis: His own NASA-linked research explains that CO₂’s warming effect is logarithmic—each additional molecule has less impact than the one before. That’s standard physics. Yet most climate policy treats CO₂ impacts as escalating linearly. Municipal officials deserve to understand the actual dynamics.
John Cook: His 2013 study is often cited to claim a 97% consensus. But only 0.3% of reviewed papers explicitly stated that humans are the primary cause of warming. Highlighting that fact isn’t denial—it’s transparency. No credible scientist would say greenhouse gases have no effect—the question is how much. Councils deserve to know what’s actually in the consensus data, not just the media soundbite.
KICLEI welcomes respectful corrections. We routinely update materials when needed. But challenging the political application of climate science is not disinformation. It’s responsible civic engagement and governance.
This Is Not “Misinformation.” It’s Democracy.
KICLEI exists to defend four simple principles:
Local control over local policy
Transparent costs and voluntary participation
Fiscal integrity for municipal budgets
Accountability to the people—not unelected global networks
We’re not apologizing for helping people ask good questions. We’re proud of our growing community of citizens, councillors, and researchers who are committed to Canadian values—not unaccountable international mandates.
If empowering the public to speak up is considered a threat, then the problem isn’t us—it’s the system.
📚 Learn more, take action, or get involved:
🔎 Transparency or Deflection? Responding to ICLEI and Associates New “Misinformation” Pages
If your municipality is reviewing its PCP or FCM climate programs, KICLEI can help!
🧾 KICLEI Quick Support Request Form
KICLEI offers tailored help for Canadians engaging their council on global directives, transparency, or FCM/ICLEI concerns. We provide draft resolutions, research, media support, and strategy. Fill in the basics and we’ll follow up promptly.
🔎 Explore KICLEI’s Website
Visit kiclei.ca to read the Declaration, access campaign tools, and learn how municipalities can reclaim their autonomy.
📥 Subscribe to Our Newsletters
Stay informed through KICLEI Updates and Gather 2030 — our civic journalism series on local governance and policy reform.
👉 Subscribe here
🤝 Become a Member
Join the movement as a local member and help fund independent civic advocacy.
No government grants. No corporate influence. Just Canadians taking a stand.
👉 Join Us
💬 Connect With Us
Have questions? Want to start a campaign in your town?
Reach out through our new contact form. We’ll support you every step of the way.
💳 Donate & 👕 Shop the Message
💳 Donate
Every dollar supports grassroots campaigns, research, and councillor outreach across the country.
➡️ kiclei.ca/donate
👕 Shop the Message
Wear it. Share it. Start the conversation in your community.
➡️ kiclei.ca/merch– T-shirts, decals, hoodies, and more.
Because asking the right questions isn’t just smart—it’s essential.
#LocalismOverGlobalism #MunicipalTransparency
Nice to see your over the target Maggie.
This article is worthy of your attention. https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/king-charles-mark-carney-and-the