MARK MACDONALD
BRITISH COLUMBIA – Is it about time we start to wonder why the so-called “elite” continues to press for greener – read higher priced – energy?
Green energy is much more costly to produce, and while the outward intention of its creators – outside of making profits – is to reduce or eliminate the consumption of carbon-bearing fossil fuels, why aren’t we digging deeper into the issue?
It really is a first world problem, because third world nations would be pleased to use any form of energy they can afford. And they do. Because without energy, nations cannot build, or evolve into self-sustaining economies to improve the quality of life of their own people.
A few years ago I attended a Fraser Institute seminar for journalists in Toronto and one of the sessions pointed out that clearly, the best, most efficient way to pull underdeveloped nations out of poverty is to provide them access to afforhttps://www.fraserinstitute.org/dable energy. Having a continuation of “energy poverty”, as the presenter described it, was a sure way to ensure that the “have-nots” never become “haves”.
While the leaders of prosperous nations turn their noses up at fossil fuels in favour of other, greener power sources, countries mired in energy poverty would be thrilled to have the opportunity to afford any source of energy. If they could have access to fossil fuels to help drive their economies, don’t you think they would jump at the opportunity? If it was affordable to them, they would.
Green energy, that is even more expensive than the energy they can’t even afford, pushes the realization of their power aspirations further down the road, even out of sight. So, whether we like it or not, green energy is not going to help those who cannot afford non-green energy. It is going to keep them poor, and less of a competitive economic threat.
Of course, this is all being done under the cloak of “saving the world” from global warming/climate change, which makes it a noble cause. Are we entirely sure if those pushing the agenda so hard, while circumventing the globe in private jets, have completely pristine motives?
A rising tide raises all boats, as they say, and if the goal is to help everyone, in every nation, live the best version of their lives possible from an economic standpoint, everyone should benefit, no?
As we have gone through (hopefully) the COVID pandemic, what we have witnessed is that those that have money have, in many cases, made more money. The bottom third of society felt the downturn more than most, which is typical.
My Grandma used to share about the Great Depression, which she went through, that unemployment was about 30 per cent. The economic devastation and hardship was widespread and deadly due to the fact at that time, there was no social safety net to speak of. No Canada Pension, no welfare, no employment insurance, disability benefits, etc. The “have nots” that were not provided for, and the many tales of survival – or failures to do so – are well documented.
A quick check today, however, would show that if one was to add up all of the government-assisted individuals in this country, aka the “not working”, the total would be – get ready for this – about 30 per cent. In other words, 3 out of 10 people right now are some sort of government assistance and not working – virtually the same percentage as the Depression itself.
Which always brings me to encourage young people to obtain some type of post-secondary education degree or trade certificate. The piece of paper is much more than a ceremonial document to hang on a wall – it is a wage setter in the real world.
So, looking back on the pandemic – and let’s hope it’s firmly in the rear-view mirror – it is fairly clear that there are many who have made more and are better off now financially than they were a year ago. Their investments made money, and, of course, shifts were made to capitalize on opportunities within the market. Trades people worked steadily throughout as society can’t function without their essential services.
So who suffered? The “bottom” third, just like in the Depression.
Which brings me to circle back to the Green energy argument, fervently spread by the “elite” who can not only afford the new rates, but are likely shareholders in the companies providing them.
Taking into account how those who have money make more money during tough times, is it outside the realm of possibility that “energy elites” WANT high-priced energy, so that only they and certain countries can afford, thus ensuring their dominance of global markets and trade?
In other words, by making energy more expensive, they can keep have-not nations in economic hardship?
Asking for a friend.
Mark MacDonald is President of Communication Ink Media & Public Relations Ltd. and can be reached at mark@communicationink.ca
