Thorold Case Study (Part Two): The First Delegation Against the PCP Program
Thorold Case Study (Part Two): The First Delegation Against the PCP Program
Ron Devereux: The First Canadian to publicly oppose the PCP program at a local council meeting, February 7, 2023
In a bold and unprecedented move, Ron Devereux, a resident of Port Robinson, Ontario, became the first Canadian to publicly oppose the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program at a local council meeting. Addressing the City of Thorold Council on February 7, 2023, Devereux delivered a detailed critique of the program, questioning its scientific basis and economic feasibility. His courageous stance, however, was met with controversy, as he was labeled a conspiracy theorist in the local paper. Devereux's delegation highlighted the significant debate surrounding the PCP program and underscored the need for a thorough examination of its implications for local communities.
Summary of Delegation to City of Thorold Council Meeting - February 7, 2023
Presenter: Ron Devereux
Purpose: To persuade the City of Thorold Council not to adopt the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program.
Key Points:
Introduction and Background:
Ron Devereux, a resident of Port Robinson, Ontario, presented his case against the City of Thorold joining the PCP Program, which is associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Notably, Devereux is the first Canadian to publicly oppose the PCP program at a local council meeting, demonstrating considerable bravery in his stance.
Scientific Basis and CO2 Emissions:
Devereux argued that the report recommending Thorold's participation in the PCP is heavily sourced from the IPCC, which he believes is not an objective scientific organization but a political advocacy group.
He highlighted that CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere and that 97% of this CO2 is from natural sources, with only 3% from human activity.
He explained that Canada's contribution to global CO2 emissions is minuscule and reducing it further would have negligible climate benefits.
Critique of Climate Targets and Costs:
Devereux pointed out that Canada’s climate targets, aiming for a 40-45% reduction in emissions by 2030, would result in an insignificant decrease in global CO2 levels.
He warned that the PCP Program would demand a continuous, costly commitment of city staff hours, which he described as a financial black hole with minimal environmental impact.
Misconceptions and Real Science:
He claimed that no legitimate scientific body has declared a climate emergency or labeled CO2 as pollution. Instead, CO2 is essential for plant growth and thus vital for all life on Earth.
Devereux emphasized that numerous natural factors influence climate, and human impact is negligible in comparison.
IPCC and Policy Implications:
He criticized the IPCC for spreading misinformation and fear-mongering, noting that their climate models have been inaccurate and their recommendations lead to economically damaging policies.
He cited a statement from an IPCC co-chairman suggesting that climate policy is more about redistributing wealth than environmental protection.
Conclusion and Appeal:
Devereux urged the council to reject the PCP Program, arguing that following the IPCC's guidance is unwise and would result in high costs for negligible benefits.
He encouraged the council to make an independent decision based on real scientific evidence and practical considerations.
Outcome Sought:
Ron Devereux requested that the City of Thorold Council vote against joining the PCP Program, emphasizing the need for a decision based on objective science and fiscal responsibility.
Public Reaction:
Following his presentation, Devereux was labeled a conspiracy theorist in the local paper, a testament to the controversial nature of his stance and the courage he displayed in voicing his concerns.
Mayor: Respecting the Partners for Climate Protection Program Financial Considerations, and Ron Devereux, a resident, is here for a delegation. We'll have him do his presentation before we bring the report to the floor. I'll call on Ron Devereux for his delegation. Please state your name and address, and then we'll open the floor to questions for Ron after his presentation. Welcome, Ron.
Ron Devereux: Thank you. My name is Ron Devereux. I live at 43 South Street North in Port Robinson, Ontario. Good evening, everyone. It's great to be here.
Information in tonight's report to council recommending Thorold to join the United Nations Partners for Climate Protection is heavily sourced from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, known as the IPCC. Thank you, Mayor Ugolini, Council, and City staff for the opportunity to talk about Earth science, carbon dioxide, and the IPCC.
As children, we were told to always tell the truth, so when we heard national politicians, the news media, and international United Nations say anything, we automatically believed they always told the truth. Then, as a young adult, through further education, I learned about common sense, logical, rational, objective, critical thinking, which is the basis of the real scientific method and real scientific research.
I've decided to explain the massive subject of climate change by talking about parts per million, percentages, and by mentioning whiskey and elephants. Observation: nowhere in the council report does it say how much carbon dioxide the City of Thorold is actually being asked to reduce. So, let's figure it out.
Real science climate facts: the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 406 parts per million, which is only 0.04% of all the gases in the atmosphere . That's a very tiny amount; CO2 is only a trace gas. 97% of all atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from natural sources; only 3% comes from human activity . For the world's 8 billion people, that 3% concentration equals only 12 parts per million. All of Canada's 38 million people collectively emit only 1.6% of that 12 parts per million, equating to 1/5 of one part per million, which therefore equals one part per 5 million. That's a very tiny amount.
Also, on the world stage, Canada is only a bit player in the amount of carbon dioxide emissions by humans. To demonstrate this, if you have a glass of 5 million drops of water and you put one drop of whiskey into the water, would you be able to taste the whiskey? Absolutely not.
Quoting from the report to council, in 2016, Canada set an ambitious climate target of 40-45% emissions reduction by 2030 . Rounding that up to 50%, Canada wants all its population to collectively cut their national emissions of carbon dioxide in half to one part per 10 million. That's an even tinier, negligible amount. This is supposed to be a voluntary national goal, but they're using the carbon tax to make it mandatory. That's equivalent to killing a fly by using an elephant to stomp on it.
Special note: Thorold's 25,000 population is a very tiny percentage of Canada's 38 million people. The Partners for Climate Protection Program comprises five milestones for the next 10 years. It will require a constant, ongoing, open-ended, endless commitment of city staff hours, which to me sounds like a horrendously costly financial black hole, for negligible climate benefit.
Always remember the popular saying: it's never about the original cost; it's always about the cost of the long-term upkeep. We constantly hear high-profile politicians say that Canada will always follow the science, yet they fumble and contradict what real science says. For example, no branch of real legitimate mainstream science has ever declared a climate emergency, climate crisis, or climate existential threat to humanity . No branch of real legitimate mainstream science labels carbon dioxide as pollution. It's a beneficial atmospheric gas; actually, it's atmospheric plant fertilizer, vital to the existence of all plants and all food chains, and therefore essential to all life on Earth . More carbon dioxide makes the Earth greener by increasing plant growth and crop yields to feed more people . So why is the IPCC preaching to reduce it?
When anyone calls carbon dioxide pollution, they are deliberately spreading misinformation. Real legitimate mainstream science has identified 22 factors that drive climate on Earth, and they are totally out of man's ability to control them . These 22 climate drivers operate continuously according to their own natural processes and on varying cycles, not synchronized or in harmony with each other. For this reason, Earth's climate is always naturally changing and therefore is not stable to begin with.
Earth science facts: the sun is 1.3 million times larger than the Earth—that's very big . 99.9% of the energy that drives the weather on the Earth comes from the sun . The sun's heat varies according to the cycles of sunspots . The Earth wobbles on its axis and its orbit is elliptical, not a perfect circle . I haven't even mentioned the Earth's tilt, cosmic rays, volcanism, ocean currents, and the plate tectonics of the Earth's crust. There have been five ice ages in the Earth's natural history . Despite continuous requests to publish their evidence, the IPCC cannot explain how the Earth warmed up so much after each ice age, long before there were humans on Earth burning fossil fuels. The answer is the sun, in combination with the natural processes I just mentioned.
Despite all of these real science facts, why is the IPCC focused on the 3% of all atmospheric CO2 that comes from human activity? A tax on the formation of uncontrollable sunspots would have as much effect on the climate as the horrendous cost that the carbon tax has on a minuscule amount of carbon dioxide around the world. The invalid pseudo-science pedaled by the IPCC is causing trillion-dollar bankrupting decisions on energy policies . I repeat, this is all for negligible environmental benefits. The United Nations and the IPCC are not branches of real science, nor are they accredited scientific institutions . The IPCC's climate models have proven to be total failures .
Here is real solid evidence that the IPCC information about their climate change efforts has been going on for over a decade, when they say it in their own words from their own mouth. It's not a conspiracy theory. Quote from IPCC co-chairman Ottmar Edenhofer, November 18, 2010: "One must say that we distributed de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." End quote.
So, I'm here to emphasize the IPCC is not an objective scientific assessment organization. It's an authoritarian political advocacy organization. Its climate reports repeatedly ignore real published scientific research . The cost of IPCC climate recommendations is far higher and the benefits are extremely far lower than they claim . Reliance on the IPCC's climate advice is bad advice. When the IPCC says that "climate change is a pressing issue devastating the environment as well as humanity," it is severely spreading misinformation.
Mayor: Ron, you have one minute left. Just giving you the warning.
Ron Devereux: Sorry. It is severely spreading misinformation, fear-mongering, and guilt-mongering to the maximum. The IPCC misleads way more than it informs. The Partners for Climate Protection organization is comprised of over 500 participating municipalities across Canada. Your decision tonight should not be about keeping up with the Joneses who are running other municipalities who didn't do their homework. Any subjective fish can float downstream with the crowd. Please be a strong, live, objective fish and swim against the current. Please reject joining the Partners for Climate Protection organization of the IPCC.
Mayor: Thank you, Ron. Thank you very much for your presentation. I'll open the floor for any questions for Mr. Devereux. Are there any questions?
Councilor: Go ahead, Councilor.
Councilor: Thank you, Mr. Devereux, for coming here. Where did you get your information from? Is this all your opinion? Did you read this on the internet?
Ron Devereux: No, this information is available online. I have a science background and know where to find good, reliable science information. For example, there's a site called Principia Scientific. Basically, the sites I look for are the ones that are accredited science sites. Many of them act as clearing houses, much like Readers Digest was a clearing house. These sites act as clearing houses so I don't have to go to each individual site. I can go to these main sites, and they have the clearing house. They've done their research, and these articles have to meet real science standards to be published in the first place.
Councilor: Thank you. Any further questions? Go ahead, Councilor.
Councilor: Through you, Mr. Mayor. Ron, thanks for the presentation. Very educational. I know you're very proficient in this field, and thank you for coming to enlighten us. Appreciate it.
Mayor: Are there any questions? No questions but comments when the report comes to the floor? Absolutely. The report will be next. If there are no more questions, thank you so much, Mr. Devereux, for coming and presenting to council. Thank you very much, everyone.
Ron Devereux: Thank you.
References
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere: NASA. (n.d.). The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide. Retrieved from https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Human contribution to atmospheric CO2: IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
Canada's climate target: Government of Canada. (2016). Canada’s 2016 greenhouse gas emissions reference case. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-emissions/reference-case.html
CO2 as a trace gas and beneficial atmospheric gas: Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Breon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., ... & Zhang, H. (2013). Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Climate drivers: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (n.d.). What are Climate and Climate Change?. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
The sun's influence: NASA. (n.d.). Solar Influence on Climate. Retrieved from https://science.nasa.gov/solar-influence-climate
Historical climate changes and ice ages: National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). (n.d.). Past Climate. Retrieved from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data
IPCC's role and influence: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (n.d.). About the IPCC. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/about/
Ottmar Edenhofer quote: Edenhofer, O. (2010, November 18). Interview with Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Retrieved from https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/debatte/wir-verteilen-durch-die-klimapolitik-de-facto-das-weltvermoegen-1.8373227
Criticism of IPCC's climate models: Pielke, R. A. (2008). Climate models and their limitations. Nature, 452(7187), 970-971. DOI: 10.1038/452970a
Advertisement for Delegations
Attention Thorold Residents!
Join us on June 18, 2024, at the City of Thorold Council Meeting to voice your concerns against the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program.
Voice Your Opinion: This is your chance to share your perspective on important community decisions.
Influence Policy: Your input can help shape the direction of local policies and programs.
Engage with Leaders: Interact directly with council members and other community leaders.
Your input is crucial in shaping our community's approach to climate action.
Date: June 18, 2024
Time: 7:00 PM
Location: City Hall, Thorold
Make your voice heard. Stand for local control and transparency!
For more details, visit Thorold City Council.
To support our recommendations, fill out the Thorold Statement of Support and email to our KICLEI Niagara Contact.
Declaration Of Support For Thorold Council Resolution To Leave the PCP
Duncan Spence
KICLEI Niagara
LITTLECHILD.M.P.v.Citizens of Canada Case Docket No. 9012000725
Can.politics.narkive.com