Former Chicago Mayor, Hillary Clinton Campaign Manager, and Obama Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel and his friend, Hillary, are famous for issuing the despicable political suggestion to “never waste a good crisis.” And, over the years, people with a few morals in their souls have recognized that idea as the opportunistic and unethical tactic by which many politicians have passed legislation and increased “regulation” to crush individual rights.
So, does it come as any surprise to discover that collectivist politicians and leftist media members are following the Emanuel-Clinton playbook when it comes to the tragic wildfires blazing across portions of Canada?
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has blamed “anthropogenic climate change” for the fires that have wiped-out forests, destroyed homes, strangled businesses, and prevented human movement on major roads between provinces (the latter two of which he arbitrarily shut down himself for nearly two years under his self-anointed COVID lockdown powers). Likewise, three New York Times scribes recently teamed-up to claim that “…global warming has intensified the wildfire season” in Canada.
But is any of that true?
First, let’s ask if the “wildfire season” is worse today than in decades past (before the purported “Carbon Apocalypse.”) As the Canadian National Fire Database clearly shows, wildfires across Canada have decreased since the 1980s, having peaked in 1989.
Yet, mainstream media outlets across Canada parrot the nonsense that Trudeau and the climate-fear-carbon-tax-energy-lockdown pushers keep making up. Could their impetus be ideological, or might they be spreading the mythology for other reasons? Perhaps it's worth noting that numerous Canadian "news" agencies have received funding from the leftist "Liberal" government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, which is pushing for increased bans on using natural resources in Canada - to combat ‘climate change,’ of course.
Bans on the use of natural resources... Meaning that, even as forests, farmland, water, soil, and other things that market participants recognize as resources are depleted or sullied by the fires, Trudeau and his collectivist ilk are targeting the very prerequisites needed to help protect against and fight fires.
Indeed, when it comes to energy, Trudeau wants to shift Canadians to horribly inefficient “wind” and “solar” – and Canadian inflation, regulation, and blocks on Russian sources have driven Canadian oil and natural gas prices higher. That means not only is it harder to fuel fire-fighting equipment, the push for even wider use of expensive "alt" energy will eat up leverageable-saved capital that could be harnessed and directed towards more fire-fighting equipment, more fire fighters, and sundry other fundamentals to combat wildfires.
It’s too bad so many Canadian media outlets and their New York brethren parroting Trudeau's climate fantasies don’t mention that.
Likewise, it would be nice if these pushers of “the anthropogenic climate threat” mentioned the fact that police across Canada have arrested numerous REAL people on suspicion of ARSON tied to the wildfires. The CBC recently reported on an arrest of a 54-year-old woman in connection to multiple wildfires blazing across northeast Alberta.
Canadian People’s Party Leader Maxime Bernier June 7 did what Trudeau didn’t. On Twitter, he linked to info about police arresting one man on TEN COUNTS of suspected arson going back to April. In fact, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have arrested several suspected arsonists and charged them on suspicion of lighting fires across in Nova Scotia, Yukon, British Columbia, and Alberta.
And there are other important facts to consider when studying the terrible Canadian wildfire problem, the two foremost being: Who runs the bulk of that Canadian land and how can land best be managed to reduce fire risks? The answers might surprise some folks who are unfamiliar with the Canadian political system.
“The land of Canada is solely owned by Queen Elizabeth II (now, King Charles III) who is also the head of state. Only 9.7% of the total land is privately owned while the rest is Crown Land. The land is administered on behalf of the Crown by various agencies or departments of the government of Canada. The Canadian Act has no provision for any Canadian to own physical land in Canada. Canadians can only own an interest in an estate. Of the land owned by the Queen, 50% is administered by the provincial governments and the rest by the federal government.”
Political collectivism offers zero incentive to husband resources – or even allow the free market to recognize things as resources and attach prices to them. Thus, as one can see in the US, Canadian forests are not managed properly to mitigate fire risk by removing dead wood.
Contrary to private property owners, who can be cited if their errors cause damage to the lives or property of others, politicians and bureaucrats face no real liability risks. As I often have noted to students, private property systems allow for tort cases, in which people can claim harm done by others, bring them to court before jurors, and, if they are granted compensation, a price can be attached to the damage. This price subsequently is recognized by other property owners and insurance companies, incentivizing mitigation efforts and a market for mitigation technologies and processes.
Government does not allow this process of revelation and price creation. In fact, through their ever-expanding taxation and “regulation,” governments actively undercut the ownership of private property and the leveraging of extra capital to preserve property. Politicians and their pop media pals focus on a climate bogeyman as the nemesis, even as they insinuate that government is the answer, ascribing environmental improvement to the bureaucracy, when such claims are unjustified.
Jumping on the fearmongering bandwagon, The Washington Post cited the Canadian smoke over the northeast to evoke memories of the “New York Killer Smog” of 1966, insinuating that, first, the smog was historically unprecedented at the time, and, second, that it was the 1970 federal Clean Air Act that mitigated the dirty air. But they provide no historical evidence for their insinuation that this brief period in 1966 was somehow worse than, say, 100 years earlier, and they offer no evidence of any causative connection between the Clean Air Act and markedly better air.
In fact, as many economists know, and as Patrick Weinert wrote for the Mises Institute in 1998:
“…air pollution was being reduced in the United States decades before any federal regulations were adopted. From 1950 until 1970, the amount of volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide in the nation's air fell by more than 20 percent, even though total vehicle-miles traveled in the country rose by 120 percent, from 458 billion to 1.1 trillion. The level of sulfur dioxide in the air began falling as far back as 1920, and the total amount of airborne particulate matter has been reduced by 79 percent since 1940.”
The driving force was not government. It was private market interest to cater to consumers and reduce waste. The areas that did not reduce waste in that fashion and at that pace were government-run or government-granted energy monopolies - because government has no market incentive to cut costs or reduce risks.
These are matters to consider, and consider seriously, even as political forces worldwide promote the mythology that our private use of carbon-based fuel is putting us in danger. Canadian forest are ablaze not because of “anthropogenic climate change” but because of catastrophic criminal and political actions.
Often, they are one and the same.
Follow MRCTV on Twitter!
Joe Biden and the Left hate America, they worship at the altar of Pride.— MRCTV (@mrctv) June 12, 2023