Michelle Sterling of Friends of Science exposes how a 2020 UN declaration by 500 scientists—dismissed by media—challenged climate alarmism, yet outlets like CBC ignored it under Covering Climate Now, a 300-strong narrative campaign. She highlights Climate Feedback’s suppression of dissenters, including experts pre-2005, and debunks claims linking extreme weather (e.g., BC wildfires) solely to human-caused climate change, citing El Niño and historical precedents. Criticizing the Canadian Institute of Actuaries’ Time to Act report and Trudeau’s $2B tree-planting plan as flawed, she ties Alberta’s 100,000 and Ontario’s 75,000 job losses to anti-fossil fuel policies pushed by figures like Elizabeth May. Despite media hype, only 17% of Canadians prioritize climate—yet policies risk economic harm without scientific rigor or cost-benefit scrutiny. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello Rebels, you're listening to a free audio-only recording of my weekly show, The Gun Show.
My guest tonight is Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
If you like listening to this show, you will love watching it.
But in order to watch, you need to be a subscriber to premium content.
That's what we call our long-form TV-style shows here on The Rebel.
Subscribers get access to my show as well as other great TV-style shows too, like Ezra's Nightly, Ezra Levant Show, and David Menzies' fun Friday night show, Rebel Roundup.
It's only eight bucks a month to subscribe, or you can subscribe annually and get two months free.
And just for my podcast listeners, you can save an extra 10% on a new premium membership by using the coupon code Podcast.
When you subscribe, just go to premium.rebelnews.com to become a member.
And please leave a five-star review on this podcast and subscribe in iTunes or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Those reviews are a great way to support the Rebel without ever having to spend a dime.
And now please enjoy this free audio-only version of my show.
Climate change has been in the forefront of this federal election campaign wherever we look.
But does anybody really actually care?
And what does the science say about all of this anyway?
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Since your multiple use of blackface became an international scandal, Canada's international reputation has been irreparably harmed.
Have you reached out to any African leaders or any leaders from the Middle East to apologize for your conduct?
Canada will continue to engage in a positive, constructive way around the world, standing up for human rights, engaging with leaders right around the world, because we know that promoting our values and prosperity for everyone around the world is good for Canadians and creates better opportunities for everyone.
So that didn't answer the question at all.
Have you spoken to any African leaders or leaders from the Middle East to apologize for your personal conduct?
I have continued to engage with leaders around the world in a responsible way.
During an election campaign, my focus is connecting with Canadians as I was able to tonight.
And I was very pleased to see so many of the questions turned to the environment in all sections.
There was a clear contrast between those on stage who don't think we should be fighting climate change and those of us who do.
And again, we are the only party with a clear plan to fight climate change.
That is my friend and very daring colleague Kian Bexte, fresh off his federal court win to gain access to the English language leaders debate and scrum.
And you can see why the Liberals sent lawyers, I guess five of them, to try to keep him out.
But besides Kian's actual journalistic question shocking all the Poutine press all around him, something else is happening here.
Kian asked a biting, relevant, salient question the world definitely wants answers to about Trudeau's blackface scandal.
And Trudeau somehow deflected to climate change.
It's all the liberals can talk about, from their carbon tax to their bizarre tree planting plan.
Do any of these liberal solutions to climate change even work?
Do they make sense?
And is there even a problem that we should be solving?
My guest tonight has been doing some terrific work debunking some of the myths around the political agenda of climate change, from Greta Thunberg's constant scolding to Trudeau's reforestry plan.
Joining me tonight in an interview we recorded yesterday afternoon is good friend of the show, Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
Climate change has really been the focus of a lot of politics these days, especially on the federal election.
And I'm not really concerned or I'm not really convinced that I think Canadians care all that much about it when we have things like jobs and debt to worry about.
Joining me now from Calgary is Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
And I wanted to have Michelle on, well, for a bunch of different reasons, but Friends of Science has had a video go viral lately.
And it's been something that hasn't been touched by the mainstream media.
And I think it went viral because this is the sort of climate change news that people really care about, as opposed to this stuff that we're constantly being force-fed in the mainstream media.
Michelle, thanks for joining me.
I wanted to have you on because you have a video that has, I guess it's nearly 600,000 views.
And that's a lot for little old Friends of Science.
It's called No Climate Emergency, says 500 scientists to the UN.
Can you tell us a bit about that one?
Yes, well, there was a petition sent to the, or a declaration sent to the UN in the same week that Greta was there and she made her how dare you speech.
And these 500 scientists from around the world, it began in Europe.
That's why it's called the European Climate Declaration, but they're people from around the world who have joined in.
And these 500 scientists basically say there's no climate emergency, which is the most important thing to know.
And they also say that we should be less political with climate science and more scientific.
And they're proposing that perhaps in 2020 there be some kind of a bilateral meeting of people who hold dissenting views on climate and with the UN and some of the other climate people there.
So I think they're looking for a very constructive path.
Anyway, this was issued.
We sent their press release from our service to about 500 media outlets, mostly in Canada, and nobody picked up the story.
So it was so frustrating.
I thought, well, maybe I'll just do a video and read what's in the declaration.
So I did that.
And really, to our great surprise, it just completely took off.
Like, we do have many videos that have maybe 10,000 views.
The one on Ross McKittrick's letter got, I think, 32,000, 36,000 views.
So we do have some that get up there, but this one just really took off.
So we now have, as you say, nearing 600,000 views.
And obviously people are interested in knowing this.
But the media, again, did not pick up the fact that this story went viral.
So you have to realize that there's a campaign going on right now across the world with, I think, more than 300 media outlets who are signed up to this thing called Covering Climate Now.
So their whole focus is to cover climate stories.
And not one of them picked up this story.
So we did another video called Censoring Climate Now, because that's obviously what they're doing.
Anyway, that's I found your Censoring Climate Now video very fascinating.
And like you say, there are media outlets who actually, I mean, I've sort of made it my beat to cover issues of climate change from a skeptic's point of view.
And when I say skeptic, I just don't think that taxes change the weather.
And when everybody else starts living like we're in a climate emergency, maybe I'll start taking it seriously.
But there are reporters who, like, that's their beat, climate change, and the world is going to end.
That's their beat.
And they completely ignored these 500 actual scientists, like hard scientists, their letter to the UN.
They just completely pretended like it didn't exist.
And if your beat is climate change and you're supposed to do straight journalism, well, then report the news.
Right.
Well, I mean, you can see the policies say at the Toronto Star.
They will not engage in any what they call false balance.
Same with National Observer, which of course is run by Linda Solomon Wood, who is the sister of Joel Solomon, who is part of the TIDES organization and has been running part of the tar sands campaign in Canada for years.
So, you know, they have an agenda.
You know, if you look at all these journalists who claim that they are dedicated to objectivity and accuracy and everything else, you know, when it comes to climate, that's simply not the case.
And the first thing they do is they call you a denier instead of reviewing what your actual stance is.
Because, and that there's a group called Climate Feedback, actually, which is certified by the Pointer Institute.
The Pointer Institute is a journalistic institute in the United States.
So they put together a group of climate scientists who would comment on different science stories.
So of course, they've shredded the story of the 500 scientists as if they're not climate scientists.
What do they know?
Well, most of the people on that list were studying climate before the commentators in the critique were born.
So, because climate science as a métier is really since 2005, before that, there was not such a discipline as climate science.
It was earth scientists, atmospheric scientists, physicists, meteorologists, volcanologists, oceanographers.
You know, it's an interdisciplinary field.
So Pointer Institute, of course, is funded by groups like Tides.
So, you know, it's very nice to say, oh, well, look, you know, we did a critique and we brought in the real climate scientists.
If you look at who's on the list there, two of them are forest agronomists.
What do they know about critiquing climate science?
You know, they are part of the interdisciplinary field, but that's really the point.
It's interdisciplinary and it's very complex.
So I think I kind of went on too long there.
No, no, that's great.
I just, it occurred to me when you were going on about how there's this imbalance in the media.
And it reminds me of a story I did.
It was a few years back, actually.
It's probably one of the first real stories I did into like CBC's bias.
And someone had written to the CBC because they were watching this news story about these islands off the East Coast and they're shrinking.
I forget the name.
It escapes me.
I'm a landlocked Albertan.
So this sort of stuff really doesn't interest me unless CBC's lying.
And then so the guest that they had on the show was saying, oh, well, these islands are eroding because of climate change.
Like that was the only reason they gave.
And so this viewer wrote in and said, you didn't even, you know, like it's very clearly erosion based on seawater moving like tides and stuff.
That wasn't even presented as something that could have been a reason.
They didn't even present it as though it could have been a reason, let alone the main reason.
And the CBC ombudsman wrote this person back who forwarded me the email that basically said, well, we don't have somebody on from the other side of the debate.
So if we are attributing something to climate change, we're not ever. going to have somebody on who says, well, maybe it could be this or maybe it could be that, but it's not always climate change.
It's CBC policy that they don't offer the other side because they don't feel there's another side at all.
Yeah, well, you know, what journalists feel and what the facts are are two different things.
Why Climate Change Isn't Always the Answer00:15:54
Yes.
You know, we shouldn't be talking about feelings on climate change.
That's what Dr. Catherine Hayhoe tried when she was in Calgary during the CITES conference.
She asked the audience, you know, how do you feel about climate change?
How has climate change impacted your life?
Well, of course, many people in Calgary were devastated by the flood in 2013, so they feel pretty bad if you tie it to climate change.
But that was an extreme weather event.
You know, eight of the worst floods in Calgary's history were before 1933.
Human-affected climate change is only deemed to have started about 1950, and it's only deemed to be a portion of the change.
So, you know, Dr. Hayhoe was misleading the public.
And yet, she's just been given a huge award in the States as one of the best, you know, science communicators in the world.
Well, great.
What's she communicating?
Yeah.
It's like a self-help program.
Yeah.
If I want to, if I want somebody who wants to know how I feel about something, I'll go to a therapist.
You know what I mean?
Like, I want the facts, and that's it.
That's it, not feelings.
Now, speaking of facts over feelings, you had a really great video probably about a week ago, around the time that Saint Greta Thunberg came to visit us all, and you laid out the facts.
You said, don't worry, Greta, be happy.
Yes, yes, don't worry, be happy.
Yeah, this is based on the 500 scientists and their declaration for one thing, because they say that, you know, we don't really have to be concerned in that we have certainly until another hundred years, you know, to figure out this issue.
It's not a critical issue right now.
But there's a little video that Greta and George Malbio did together, which is posted on The Guardian.
And I find it quite creepy.
You know, she's a 16-year-old girl.
He's a very mature man.
And the two of them are making a big pitch that there's a way to save the planet with these magical machines called trees.
Well, trees are plants.
They're not machines.
And, you know, they're advocating that everybody should run out and plant a tree.
And, you know, I'm not opposed to planting trees.
I love it.
But in this video, we also show Greta that actually China is building the Obor, right?
And nobody's saying a word about that.
The Obor is this huge band of roads across Asia and a marine path across Asia to Europe.
And, you know, George and Greta are not saying a word about that.
And Greta's opening line was from Extinction Rebellion's theme, which is this is not a drill.
So, you know, they try to scare people.
Then they say, go plant trees, everything will be fine.
And they don't even address the real elephant in the room, which is the encroachment of China on the rest of the world.
And China is not going to be doing any climate activity of any merit in the near future.
So we should be thinking about these geopolitics and not focusing on this climate craziness.
Well, you just brought up Extinction Rebellion, and we had the Extinction Rebellion bridge-out protests this week all across the country.
I think in Edmonton, they lasted about an hour and a half before they got tired and cold.
Closest thing to work they've done in a long time.
They gave up after 90 minutes.
I don't know how long they made it in Calgary.
The police arrived in Edmonton.
I watched some of the coverage from Global, and they blocked traffic for at least an hour, hour and a half.
At one point, the police were actually standing in front of them protecting them instead of arresting them.
You know, it's an offense to intentionally block a traffic lane in Canada.
So it's fine to have some kind of a protest.
You know, you can carry your sign, you could stand on the side of the road.
Lots of things you can do without creating chaos, but this is intentional chaos.
Their objective is to destroy capitalism.
And, you know, George Monbiot, who I mentioned before in the video with Greta, his plan is that everyone will have a carbon ration, a carbon ration.
So, you know, you'll have to carefully meet out whether you're cooking, whether you're heating your house.
And if you run out of your carbon ration, well, you just buy more credits from someone who has them.
Well, how's that going to work out for people who are poor?
So, you know, this is a very serious thing that's presented as something innocuous, but I see it as very, very dangerous to society in general.
Yeah, and it's chilling to me how many people are lending the likes of Extinction Rebellion some credibility, like Elizabeth May, like Greta Tunberg.
I guess to some extent, Justin Trudeau, when he marched with Greta Tunberg, ironically against himself.
It's very frightening to see, like you say, these chaos makers and lawbreakers being treated as though they are not only the scientific authority, but the moral authority when it comes to how the rest of us live our lives.
Right.
And you notice that immediately after that video dropped, that was when Justin Trudeau came out and said, well, now I'm going to plant 2 billion trees and that money will come from the TMX pipeline.
First of all, we did another video about that great.
And because we called up our forestry consultants and said, hey, you know, what's this with, what's the reality of planting 2 billion trees in Canada?
The first thing they said is there's not enough land.
So, you know, people imagine that it's okay.
You can just run out and plant a tree anywhere.
Well, you need to tend it.
You need to choose the right tree for the right place.
You need to make sure that it will grow and mature properly.
And we have reforestry programs going on everywhere in Canada.
I think our guy said one of his clients is planting 340 million trees this year anyway.
So to find a place to plant these additional trees that Trudeau is proposing would mean that we'd have to actually start sort of expropriating land from farmers who sit in, it's called the white zone.
No offense to anyone, but that's the technical term for it.
But it's the one between the boreal forest and the plains.
So there is some rough forage area there.
Probably your farm sits on that.
That's exactly where I am.
I'm exactly where the boreal forest sort of crashes into the grasslands.
And my ancestors worked pretty darn hard to clear the land.
And now Justin Trudeau is going to come along and reforest it.
Well, I'm sorry, but I'm busy feeding the world.
Right.
Yeah, well, and it's problematic.
People are jumping on the bandwagon with all of these kinds of green schemes, which may have an element of merit within.
I'm not opposed to planting trees.
I'm not opposed to beautifying the world.
I'm not opposed to saving the planet.
In fact, I think that I'm working for that every single day.
And I'm saving the planet from these stupid plans that will cost taxpayer a fortune and not accomplish anything in terms of the environment or in terms of climate change.
So, you know, no one's doing the due diligence on these things.
The same with net zero.
Sounds like a fantastic thing.
It came up a few times in the leaders' debate last night.
It's impossible.
That's one of the things that these 500 scientists say.
It's impossible to do net zero, certainly within the next 10, 20, 30 years.
It's just simply, it cannot be done because you have to think: what are things made of?
Everything, except for woven baskets, are made from natural gas, coal, and oil.
Everything.
You need that energy and you need the actual physical resources that come from those materials, say to make wind turbines, to make dams, to make solar panels.
You know, if those are your solutions, you need tons of fossil fuels.
And if you want to electrify Canada, you need about eight to ten more power generation plants on the size of Site C Dam.
And there's not one on the books right now.
And they take at least 20 years to plan and commission.
But before that, you have to do all the groundwork.
You have to get the land, you have to put in the plans, you have to get approval from the authorities, you have to get approval from the people who live there.
And most people hate power lines more than they hate pipelines.
So it won't be an overnight process.
So this is a very, very dangerous, risky path that these people are putting us on and not doing the due diligence.
Like, why do we pay public servants millions of dollars every year if they're not able to advise these professional politicians as to the implications of what's going on and what the end will be?
It's very dangerous.
Yeah, and you know, I've seen a lack of due diligence firsthand.
I went looking for information on Bill C69, so that's basically the pipeline blocking bill.
I went to find out if the Ministry of Environment had done any sort of case study on the economic impact of C69 on Alberta.
They hadn't done any.
So then they referred me over to Natural Resources Canada.
And guess what?
They hadn't done any.
But they said, oh, you should check with Environment and Climate Change Canada or the Canadian Energy Regulator.
Well, lo and behold, I just found out two days ago from the Canadian Energy Regulator.
Nobody did it either.
Nobody is studying any of the things that they're doing to us.
And they don't even care.
They're just writing legislation.
Somebody else will deal with the fallout.
That somebody else always happens to be us here in Alberta.
And they just pat themselves on the back for being green.
Well, you know, at this point, it's us here in Alberta, but we're going to see that ripple effect go across Canada because Canada is founded on resources from many different sectors.
And one of them is the oil and gas sector in Alberta and the oil sands.
When I worked at Alberta Environment, the oil sands was driving one-third of the Canadian economy.
So significantly declined since then.
And that has had a ripple effect.
You know, many oil sand suppliers come from all across Canada.
And you can see that Ontario has been a decline in industrial in their industrial base.
Part of that is due to the decline in the Alberta oil sands.
And, You know, Quebec won't get off light either because we've been funding their free child care programs and such like with equalization for a long time.
So, you know, they should think twice.
And this tar sands campaign, you know, people think, oh, you know, it's just you Albertans all crying about it.
No, it started a long time ago.
Started in Quebec, started in Ontario.
In fact, Elizabeth May, we have a video on this.
She was the leader of the Sierra Club in 2005.
They were granted money out of the US to push the GHG legislation in Canada and to establish a climate action fund and a network of climate actioneers in Canada.
So, you know, if you want to look at the economic decline in Canada, I think you can look right at Elizabeth May as one of the key figures.
Ontario lost 75,000 jobs due to their green plan, and El has lost 100,000.
So you can see this ripple effect is happening across the country.
And yet, people still take her seriously as some sort of moral standard for the green movement as she rides around in the Canada Day parade in a viper.
I'm not sure she's a very nice woman as an author.
Well, I'm not so sure.
Well, you know, I think she appears to be a nice person, but it's the policy that we have to look at.
You know, we really should not be doing the cult of the personality.
It's the policy.
Absolutely.
And none of those policies will work.
So I hope people will watch our video about her and I hope the media will ask her those questions that we asked because they're not tough ones.
Now, I wanted to move away from some of your video stuff that you've done, however great that it is.
But you also, Friends of Science, are great at rebuttal reports.
And you have a new one coming out and it rebuts the actuaries of Canada.
Yes, it is.
Why are actuaries getting involved in climate change?
Well, that's a very interesting thing.
People have to understand that a lot of what is behind the climate movement is the fact that pension funds and institutional investors are deeply embedded and deeply invested in all things climate.
Most of them are signatory to this group that is transnational, unelected, unaccountable.
It's called the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment.
And they're all deep into this two-degree target.
They are trying to shift investment to force a change in society through this group.
And you have to realize there's, I think at one point, there were like 1,200 signatories of these major institutional investors.
That includes things like the Canada Pension Plan.
And they all sit on an accumulated mass of about $100 trillion in assets under management.
So who works with them to help them evaluate risk?
Well, this is a group of people called actuaries.
And they're, shall we say, mathematical experts.
They're statistical experts.
And they do the risk evaluations.
And they try to be extremely objective.
This is one of the reasons why we were surprised.
They issued a report called Time to Act.
This was from the Canadian Institute of Actuaries.
And they felt that they could reach Paris targets if we just gathered more information on extreme weather events.
Extreme weather events are not related to climate change, CO2, or human influence.
And they seem to be declining.
Am I right about that?
Well, they're very erratic.
You know, in some cases, say in Canada, wildfires have declined.
I know it doesn't sound like it from everything you hear in the media, but they have declined.
But it's not something that you can just count them up and say, wow, look, we had lots of wildfires in BC, therefore climate change is causing them.
We did an analysis, one of our people did an analysis of the BC wildfire season a couple of years ago, and they found that probably the hectares burnt were due to the pine beetle infestation and the fact that that deadwood was not cleared out.
But it wasn't due to climate change.
It was an El Niño year.
And El Niño is a natural, hot, shall we say, hot ocean phenomenon that washes around the world usually for like a year or two and changes some of the regional climate patterns.
Faulty Climate Models00:02:51
So it does affect BC, it does affect Alberta, doesn't have much of an effect down east.
That was an El Niño period.
And lots of deadwood from pine beetles.
So yeah, you get lots of wood burnt.
But once you burn a forest, you won't be burning much for the next 40, 50 years.
Yeah.
No, it just seems strange to me that the actuaries would jump in and just say, well, like, I still don't understand what role they're playing in all of this.
I get that they mitigate risk, but what science are they presenting?
They evaluate the risk for the insurance companies.
And so they assess all kinds of different factors related to a particular context to evaluate mortality, to evaluate longevity, infrastructure risks.
So they're really important people and they're very, very objective.
In fact, the principles of conduct, their code of conduct, requires them to consider the public duty first over their profession or their members or their clients.
So we're hoping that this report that we issued called Misguided Math, Misinterpreted Science, we're hoping that that will reach the actuaries and they will be able to see that much of the hysteria about climate change and extreme weather is based on faulty climate models, mathematical models.
And that the problem is that, you know, this is a very complex area that ordinary people don't understand very well, but I think that they will understand it extremely well.
When you see that some of the climate models, they discovered that on a 10-year forecast basis, there was a 30% error in their assessment in designing these models.
So they fixed it.
So in a 10-year assessment, you know, some of the projections are pretty close to what's happening in climate.
But on the 100-year projections, they didn't fix it.
They did not include that 30% error margin.
So that means that these projections that Elizabeth May is citing from the IPCC report, we're all going to die because it's going to be so hot.
Well, they're way out of whack.
They're statistically, you know, it is incrementally unbelievable how far out of whack it would be with this 30% error.
So we tried to bring that to the attention of the actuaries and the general public and policymakers.
People should know these models are skewed, they're flawed, they're running way too hot, and that's the basis for public policy.
It's the basis for carbon taxes, and it's completely invalid.
It's wrong.
Michelle, I want to thank you for being very generous with your time today.
Thanking Michelle00:04:41
And I want to give you a chance to let people know how they can find some of your rebuttal reports, some of the work that you're doing, and to support Friends of Science because you don't have big, deep-pocketed helpers like so much of the environmental movement.
Yeah, we don't have.
Well, if you look at our website, www.friendsofscience.org, there's a little donate membership button up in the corner so you could help us there.
If you like our materials, you can share them.
We're on Twitter at FriendsOScience.
We're on Facebook.
We're on LinkedIn.
We just opened an Instagram account.
And YouTube, of course.
Yeah, so have a look at our videos.
And, you know, we've got quite a compilation of videos.
Some of them are full presentations by scientists.
Some of them are short videos by scientists.
Some are commentaries by me or other people where we're just trying to bring forward a plain language understanding of a certain issue.
And again, I'm not a scientist.
I don't claim to be, but neither is Al Gore.
So, you know.
You know, that's a great way to put it.
And it's true.
Your videos break down these issues that are intentionally far too complex for the normal person to digest.
I think that complexity is by design so that you just throw up your hands and say, you know what, whatever.
Smarter people will deal with this.
But you do a great job of breaking down the issues, presenting facts in a way that arms people to go out in the world and make these arguments.
And I think that's great.
Well, I think the most important thing that people can do right now is question, you know, is just step and say, wait a minute, you're talking about trillions of dollars of my money and my children's money.
And I don't see any cost-benefit analysis.
I don't see any due diligence.
And I want to see these things before any of these policies are implemented and really demand that of any political leader and any, you know, green advocate, challenge them on it.
I mean, at one point we had somebody, we were tweeting Elizabeth May about the fact that wind and solar panels are made from oil, gas, and coal.
And somebody on her side tweeted back and said, well, you know, are you sure?
Because we don't think so.
We're missing a lot of stuff at school.
Like energy illiteracy is truly killing this country and putting us deeply at risk.
Yeah, and it's making it easy for our children to be brainwashed by the likes of Greta Thunberg.
And, you know, it sounds like I'm attacking Greta, but really her handlers.
She's just the human shield in all of this.
Yes, and there's a, you know, huge green billionaire movement behind her.
You can look at the Manufacturing for Consent site and read about the people behind Greta.
And again, as I say, I'm not criticizing her either.
She's being used.
She's a child, and she's not in a position to make a critical evaluation of what people are feeding her.
And unfortunately, the rest of our children are not either.
So.
Michelle, I want to thank you very much for coming on the show.
We'll have you back on very soon.
I think it was a little bit too long between last appearances, but I'm busy with the election and you're busy with disseminating the truth to the people.
Yes.
Well, thank you very much for having us.
And we really appreciate, really appreciate everything that you do and your team as well.
And congratulations on your win in court.
Yes.
Freedom of the press.
Freedom of the press.
Thanks, Michelle.
You have a good one.
Okay, thank you.
Only 17% of Canadians list the environment as their top priority in this election.
You'd never suspect that were true if you listen to the coverage from the mainstream media and the constant moralizing from the Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens on the issue of climate change.
And mainstream media reports have been lamenting the fact that Canadians don't want to pay for environmental initiatives.
Will the Liberals' big promises of making life much more expensive for the sake of being green translate into a win at the ballot box?
Well, I guess we have about two weeks before we find that out.
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time, in the same place next week.