The Strait of Hormuz - The World's Key Economic Choke Point

One aspect of the recent Iran-United States-Israel hostilities is a key issue that could have significant negative impacts on the global economy.  Thanks to the geography of the Persian Gulf, there is a choke point which could be used by the Iranians to reduce the supply of hydrocarbons to the world's markets.

As shown on this map, the Strait of Hormuz lies between Oman and Iran, a very narrow body of water that provides passage from the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman:

The Strait is between 47 and 95 kilometres (29 to 60 miles) wide and has an inbound and outbound shipping lane which are both only 3 kilometres (2 miles) wide with a 3 kilometre buffer zone separating the two lanes.  The shipping lanes are located mainly in Omani waters however they are governed by international maritime law with Iran controlling the waters to the north of the shipping lanes and Oman controlling the waters to the south of the shipping lanes.  The Strait is deep with a minimal number of marine hazards and reaches depths of up to 650 feet in the shipping lanes however, there are zones which are unsafe for tankers because water depths are less than 25 metres as shown here in red:

Given its proximity to the hydrocarbon producing regions immediately adjacent to the Persian Gulf, it's clear that the Strait of Hormuz is a choke point for the flow of oil.  Here is a graphic from the EIA showing how much oil and other liquid petroleum products have passed through the Strait since 2020:

Approximately 20 percent of global liquids production flows through the Strait every day however it is important to keep in mind that an even higher percentage of total globally exported hydrocarbon liquids pass through this choke point.  An estimated minimum of 30 percent of total exported seaborne oil and nearly 40 percent of global crude oil trade exits the Persian Gulf through the Strait.  While the Abu Dhabi crude oil pipeline running from the UAE to the Gulf of Oman could offset some of the lost oil exports should the Strait be closed, it has a capacity of only 4.2 million barrels per day.  The East-West crude oil pipeline that runs across Saudi Arabia from Abqaiq on the Persian Gulf to Yanbu on the Red Sea has a total design capacity of 5 million barrels of oil per day with roughly 3.3 million barrels of daily spare capacity as shown on this graphic:

Here is a table showing which nations exported oil and liquids through the Strait of Hormuz for the period between January and October 2023:

Here is a graphic showing the destination of the exported crude oil that transits the Strait of Hormuz:

It is estimated that 84 percent of the crude oil and condensate that moved through the Strait went to Asian markets in 2024.

Not only is the Strait of Hormuz a choke point for oil and associated liquids, it is a choke point for Liquified Natural Gas or LNG, primarily produced by Qatar.  In 2024, approximately 20 percent of global LNG trade passed through the Strait with Qatar exporting about 9.3 billion cubic feet of LNG per day through the Strait in 2024.  The EIA estimates that 83 percent of the LNG that passed through the Strait in 2024 went to Asian markets, primarily China, India and South Korea.  Here is a map from the EIA showing the LNG infrastructure in the Persian Gulf:

Here is a graphic showing the origin and destination of LNG that is transported through the Strait of Hormuz: 

The Strait of Hormuz is an extremely important and vulnerable geographic feature that has the potential to throw the world's economy into chaos.  Should Iran choose to hinder or harass maritime traffic passing through the Strait, it could have significant ripple effects through the global economy by pushing oil prices to record levels.  

What is Net Zero and is it Achievable?

The global ruling class frequently utilizes the phrase "net zero" when discussing the concept of global climate change.  While the words seem simple on the surface, understanding the concept and its potential for achieving the goal of reducing global temperatures is so important.  As well, we need to understand how other natural processes that are completely out of our control may impact global climate.

Let's start with a definition:

Net zero refers to a state in which the volume of greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere is removed from the atmosphere.  Any ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases must be balanced by the removal of those gases.

It is important to note that net zero does NOT necessarily mean that there will be no greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. absolute zero), rather that certain actions can be undertaken to balance greenhouse gas emissions with the removal of those gases through various means.  For instance, while China and India may continue to increase their greenhouse gas emissions, other nations could use sequestration, solar and wind power, forests, wetlands and grasslands and other technologies like carbon capture and storage to reduce their own emissions levels to less than the actual volumes that they emit, thereby offsetting growing emissions by the aforementioned nations.  It is important to understand that nature can also absorb carbon dioxide without mankind's intervention, in particular, at the ocean-atmosphere interface where ocean waters absorb carbon which is ultimately transferred to ocean sediments.  

Here is a quote regarding net zero from the University of Oxford's Net Zero website: 

"The ‘net’ in net zero is important because it will be very difficult to reduce all emissions to zero on the timescale needed. As well as deep and widespread cuts in emissions, we will likely need to scale up removals. In order for net zero to be effective, it must be permanent. Permanence means that removed greenhouse gas does not return into the atmosphere over time, for example through the destruction of forests or improper carbon storage."  

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that net zero needed to be achieved by 2050 to retain the possibility of reaching the 1.5 degree Celsius global temperature increase, a number that was reached through the use of modelling. 

Here is a table from the United Nations Emissions Gap Report 2024 "No more hot air...please" report showing emissions from various nations and regions of the world:

To achieve net zero, one of the most important aspects is to reach peak national emission levels; the United Nations notes that seven of the G20 nations have not yet reached peak emissions including China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Republic of Korea, and Türkiye.

Not surprisingly, there are many pitfalls with the concept of net zero as follows:

1.) national net zero target dates vary widely and are frequently changed

2.) some nations choose to ignore emissions from certain economic sectors

3.) net zero targets are not legally binding

4.) some nations link emissions reduction targets to their rate of economic growth (i.e. emissions intensity) while others do not

Some wealthy nations have also funded greenhouse gas offset projects outside of their borders in developing nations while still emitting high volumes of greenhouse gases within their home territory.

Now for my opinion (not that you might care but I'll offer it anyway).  Yes, I believe that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are rising. That said, I don't believe that the rising levels are necessarily entirely anthropegenic and that the net zero plans being put in place will likely do very little to lower these levels.  Greenhouse gas components include methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and chlorofluorocarbons and, most importantly, water vapour which is the largest component of greenhouse gas, being responsible for about half of earth's greenhouse effect.  Here is a quote from NASA: 

"Data from satellites, weather balloons, and ground measurements confirm the amount of atmospheric water vapor is increasing as the climate warms. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report states total atmospheric water vapor is increasing 1 to 2% per decade.) For every degree Celsius that Earth’s atmospheric temperature rises, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7%, according to the laws of thermodynamics."

Basically, it's like a self-perpetuating or self-amplifying system.  Temperatures rise resulting in higher volumes of water vapour which further increase temperature which further increases atmospheric water vapour content etcetera ad infinitum.

Let's look at two of the many reasons why net zero may be unachievable.  Climate is likely influenced by solar activity, a controversial phenomenon which is being studied by scientists and is not fully understood as shown in this study:

Volcanic eruptions can also have a significant impact on global climate since they emit carbon dioxide, particulate matter and, in the case of submarine volcanoes, water vapour, into the atmosphere as shown in this study:

 

The January 2022 Hunga Tonga - Hunga Ha'apai eruption in Tonga is estimated to have released 150 million metric tons of water vapour along with 0.5 to 1.5 metric megatons of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, raising the global levels of stratospheric water vapour by 10 percent. In this case, the eruption resulted in a temporary but notable cooling of the tropical stratosphere.

The massive eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 in Indonesia caused oceans to cool for nearly a century and had a significant impact on atmospheric temperatures as well.  Volcanic carbon dioxide does have the potential to promote global warming whereas volcanic sulphur dioxide has the potential to lower global temperatures so the impact of volcanic eruptions on the global climate is heavily impacted by the type of gases contained in the eruptions.

Here is a diagram showing how volcanic gases interact with the atmosphere:

There are many natural processes that will impact global climate, some over the short- and medium-term and some over the long-term and these processes are currently being studied to better understand how they impact global temperatures.  Our politicians would have us believe that there is a simple solution to the global climate "crisis"; reaching net zero through the adoption of heat pumps, electric vehicles and carbon taxation.  As you can see from the information that I have provided in this posting, the earth's atmosphere is an extremely complex system with some of the potential climate-impacting processes being totally uncontrollable by humanity.  That is why I believe that net zero is a fallacy being perpetrated on us by individuals with a climate emergency agenda that is not necessarily in our best interest but is in the best interest of the "global few".

Mark Carney and the Chatham House Tentacle

The Mark Carney tentacles seem to reach every corner of the globe.  His affiliation with a very wide range of groups including, most prominently, the World Economic Forum make it almost impossible for Canadians to determine whether there are conflicts of interest that will present themselves in the future.  One of his tentacles reaches into Chatham House, a United Kingdom-based international think tank and registered charity.

Here is an announcement from Chatham House regarding Carney's appointment as the group's Chair of the Panel of Senior Advisors dated May 17, 2022:

Here is another announcement regarding Carney's appointment as co-president of Chatham House dated March 22, 2024, less than a year before he ran as the leader of Canada's Liberal Party:

Here's his name as it appears in the group's 2023 - 2024 Annual Review:

Interestingly, as of February 28, 2025, Carney still had not resigned as President of Chatham House according to reporting by the National Post despite telling Canadians that he had resigned from all of his outside positions.

Now, not surprisingly, there is another interesting twist to this story.  According to the Government of Canada's International Assistance Projects Funded by Global Affairs Canada portal, Chatham House has benefitted from funding by Canadian taxpayers as shown here:

While both projects were funded prior to Carney's appointment as the group's Chair of the Panel of Senior Advisors, with his connections to the Trudeau government which began in 2020 and his close affiliation with fellow WEFer Canada's Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, one has to wonder if there isn't some sort of connection between his association with Chatham House and the Canadian government funding of Chatham House projects.

If we go back to fiscal year ending March 31, 2022, we find this on the Donor's page of the Chatham House website:

 

It turns out that in the fiscal year ending March 2022, Global Affairs Canada was one of Chatham Houses largest donors.

Up to March 31, 2024, the Government of Canada through various departments had also been research supporters for Chatham House:

If we put this all together, it begs the question; how much did Mark Carney have to do with funding Chatham House using Canadians' tax dollars prior to becoming Canada's Prime Minister?  It will also be interesting to see how much funding Chatham House receives from Canadian taxpayers under a Carney-led government.

The Evolving Narrative on Global Temperatures and the Danger of Solar Geoengineering

By now, many of my readers may have heard about the United Kingdom's plan to fund certain climate-based experiments through its Advanced Research + Invention Agency (ARIA).  According to the Agency's website, the group has the following core beliefs about "Future Proofing Our Climate and Weather":

The goal of ARIA is to "gather critical missing data and answer fundamental scientific questions on approaches that could help prevent humanity from experiencing climate tipping points" and to "explore whether approaches designed to delay, or avert, climate tipping points could be feasible, scalable, and safe."

ARIA claims that it is committed to responsible stewardship, transparency, accountailbilty and good governance and states the following about its funded research:

1.) Deliver valuable knowledge that can address the most pressing critical scientific questions surrounding these approaches

2.) Minimise risk by design

3.) Engage with, and respect local communities

4.) Be transparent, open and honest at programme and project level

5.) Communicate proactively

6.) Remain cognisant of the broader implications of research

7.) Be willing to adapt to lessons learned

8.) Adhere to our well-defined framework for responsible research.

The programme's independent oversight committee, made up of international experts, is designed to strengthen the governance of the programme. 

Basically, ARIA wants to fund geoengineering technologies that are designed to responsibly and artificially cool the earth.

According to the Guardian, the U.K. government through ARIA will fund £50 million ($66.65 million USD) of geoengineering, most particularly solar geoengineering also known as solar radiation management:

 

Here's a quote from the article with my bolds: 

"UK scientists are to launch outdoor geoengineering experiments as part of a £50m government-funded programme.

The experiments will be small-scale and rigorously assessed, according to Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria), the UK government agency backing the plan, and will provide “critical” data needed to assess the potential of the technology. The programme, along with another £11m project, will make the UK one of the biggest funders of geoengineering research in the world."

Here is a graphic showing five methods for solar radiation managemen from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or NOAA:

While the prospect of sun-dimming technology is rather frightening given that the negative repercussions could be catastrophic, a look back in time to 1975 shows us just how unscientific climate science really is:

As reported in Newsweek in 1975 (thanks to Tony Heller for the link), climate scientists were concerned about global cooling:

"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically.

The evidence in support of these predictions (drop in global temperatures that have led to a shortening of the growing season) has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it.

The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earths climate seems to be cooling down.  Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions.  But they are almost unanimous that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

...a study released last month by two NOAA scientists noted that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3 percent between 1964 and 1972." 

My how things have changed over fifty years.  In the mid-1970s, apparently climate scientists were extremely worried about global cooling and were looking at solutions like melting the arctic ice caps to increase the world's temperatures and stated that if planners delayed, it would be more difficult to cope with that particular version of climate change.  Now, five decades later, climate scientists are grasping at technological straws in an attempt to cool the planet down by experimenting with the earth's atmosphere to reduce solar radiation. 

Perhaps, it would be best if mankind just let nature act as it always has; unpredictably and in cycles.  Rather than trying to control nature, it would be wise to let the climate change as it has for millennia (and much longer) without interfering with natural processes by using technology with unknown short-, medium- and long-term consequences.  Unfortunately, the decision makers that are funding these experiments with our tax dollars have no clue whatsoever about climate science...or any science for that matter.

Canada's Mainstream Media Bias During the 2025 Election

There is little doubt that Canada's dinosaur media is politically biased in favour of the ruling Liberal Party and a recent story that appeared on the CTV website is further proof that Canadians are being subjected to a steady diet of anti-Conservative, anti-Poilievre propaganda.

Here is the "news" article:

Here's a quote from the first part of the article by Joanna Lavoie with my bold:

"An Elections Canada worker who allegedly encouraged voters to vote Conservative outside of an advanced polling station in York Region over the weekend will “not be present at any EC office or polling place,” a spokesperson for the non-partisan agency says.

“We always take allegations of partisanship seriously. When allegations are raised, we look into them. Measures have been put in place by the Returning Officer to ensure election workers continue to remain non-partisan,” Diane Benson, of Elections Canada, told CTVNews Toronto.ca in an email.

“The integrity of the electoral process, and the perception of its integrity, are our priority.”

Benson added that “out of an abundance of caution” they’ve also referred this file to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Canada Elections Act.

The incident in question occurred over the weekend at a polling station in the King-Vaughan federal electoral district at Teston Village Public School, near Jane Street and Teston Road, in Maple, Ont.Nadeem Mahmood, a spokesperson for the riding’s Liberal candidate Mubarak Ahmed, told CTV News Toronto that he was working as a scrutineer at that location last Friday when the “breach of public trust” occurred.

“What has happened is very concerning. It’s unacceptable,” he said.“Targeting voters in a particular language, for example, to promote a specific party, of course, is not only unethical, it borders on voter manipulation as well.”Mahmood said he’s aware of six to eight voters in the lineup who reported that a female employee there was “going around and telling selected people to vote for [the] Conservatives.” 

Elections Canada workers at Canadian polling stations are required by law to refrain from partisan political activities during the election period.

Given the tone of the article, one would think that only the Conservatives are responsible for electoral misbehaviour.  However, if you take the time to read further down the article, you'll find this: 

"The spokesperson did, however, say they’re “aware of a situation in Milton East–Halton Hills South where an Elections Canada worker was encouraging people to vote Liberal at a polling station, which we reported to Elections Canada.”

Elections Canada confirmed to CP24 that it is “aware of the situation,” adding that they “always take allegations of partisanship seriously.” “When allegations are raised, we look into them. Measures have been put in place by the Returning Officer to ensure election workers continue to remain non-partisan,” a spokesperson wrote in an email.

“Out of an abundance of caution, we have also referred the file to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, which is the office responsible for ensuring compliance with the Canada Elections Act and investigating potential contravention.”

Given that bit of news, why is it that the headline didn't read "Elections Canada workers under investigation for urging early electors to vote both Conservative and Liberal at Ontario polling stations" rather than just highlighting the misdeeds of a worker promoting the Conservative candidate at a polling station in the King-Vaughan riding?  Since most people don't read beyond the headlines in today's world, it is highly unlikely that they would realize that a pro-Liberal Elections Canada employee would be guilty of the same "sin" as their pro-Conservative peer.

This and other examples of biased reporting certainly makes it appear that the Liberal government's policy of buying Canada's mainstream media has been highly successful during the 2025 federals election.

Can Government-funded Technology Solve Canada's Automobile Theft Crisis?

While Canadians are distracted with the 2025 federal election, the Carney Liberal government recently posted this news release on the government's Transport Canada website:

The Minister of Transport and Internal Trade and on-again, off-again Liberal candidate Anita Anand, announced that the Government of Canada would be providing funding of $1.1 million to eight innovative projects that are aimed at reducing the rampant theft of automobiles in Canada. 

Let's look at how significant automobile theft is in Canada.  According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, here are the auto theft statistics from 2018 to 2023:

Here is some background on the issue:

1.) Between 2018 and 2023, auto theft claims costs have increased significantly across the country:

2.) Nationally, auto theft claims costs increased by 254%.

3.) In 2023, auto theft losses amounted to over $1.5 billion, an increase of nearly 20% from 2022 (the year that held the previous record).  The previous four-year national average, between 2018 and 2021, was $556 million.

4.) The crisis is most significant in Ontario, where auto theft claims costs increased by 524% between 2018 and 2023, surpassing $1 billion for the first time in 2023. IBC will be releasing province-specific data on auto theft claims costs in the coming weeks.

So, what is the Carney government's solution to the problem?  Technology and not the kind of technology that will intercept vehicles that are about to be exported from Canada, rather, the type of technology that will be installed in your vehicle.  Here are the eight proposals that are being funded by Canadian taxpayers:

1.) Smartphone-based security using biometrics and proximity detection;

2.) Locking devices using artificial intelligence (AI) monitoring;

3.) A system to replace a vehicle’s starter relay;

4.) Fingerprint authentication;

5.) AI-powered steering wheel locks;

6.) Sensors with gesture recognition;

7.) A smart key fob protector; and

8.) Miniaturized devices that could disable vehicle components should theft be detected.

Now, let's keep in mind that Mark "Climate Change" Carney is a one-trick net zero pony and that should he become Canada's elected Prime Minister, could ultimately impose restrictions on Canadians who insist on driving those nasty internal combustion engine vehicles.  If you look at the technologies that have been selected for further research by the Liberal government, you'll notice that a significant proportion of them have the capability to remotely disable a vehicle.  For instance, should a Climate Change Carney government decide that ICE vehicles are only to be driven certain days of the week or within a certain distance of your residence (think 15 minute city), what would stop them from using some of these technologies to prevent you from driving your vehicle?  Remote vehicle shutdown technology already exists and is used for fleet management, theft prevention and asset tracking and has the following capabilities:

1.) Remote Vehicle Immobilization: Allows users to remotely disable a vehicle's ignition. 

2.) Remote Vehicle Shutdown Technology: Allows law enforcement officers to turn off a vehicle remotely. 

3.) Remote Vehicle Disabling Systems: Can prevent an engine from starting, prevent movement of a vehicle, and to stop or slow an operating vehicle. 

Law enforcement agencies already have remote vehicle shutdown technology as shown here:

Now, let's go back to car theft in Canada.  According to this article in Queen's Park Briefing, Canada inspects less than 1 percent of outgoing containers at Canada's ports.  Is it any wonder that there is an automotive theft problem in Canada?  And somehow, the government thinks that they've made progress by intercepting 1806 stolen vehicles in 2023, roughly 1.6 percent of the 114,863 vehicles that were reported stolen that year.

While the Canadian government is trying to convince the public that it really is concerned about the rampant theft of vehicles in Canada and that the issue can be solved by implementing advanced in-vehicle technologies, in fact, in the hands of an authoritarian government, these technologies could be used to lock Canadians out of their most important mode of transportation and keep them under lockdown in their 15 minute city.  And, as an added benefit for the government, some of these technologies could be used to track Canadians' every move.

Mark Carney and the Globalist's Solution to Canada's Housing Market Woes

Just over a year ago, this gem was published in Canada's Globe and Mail:

Ini this opinion piece, Canada's current unelected globalist Prime Minister weighed in on Canada's housing market and how Canada could fix its housing market woes at the same time as the nation improved its impact on global climate change.  Given that the Liberal Party has now released its housing plan for Canadians, this article is of particular interest.  Let's look at a few quotes.

Carney opens with this:

"Given the two major concerns for today’s young people – housing affordability and climate change – I believe it is now up to Gen X to follow his (former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney) example and get the job done. After all, climate change and housing affordability aren’t just solvable problems; there are also common solutions that apply to both. Politicians at every level of government should take note and take action."

Thanks to a decade of immigration and economic mismanagement under his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, Canadians of all ages are finding that housing, both for rent and for purchase, is completely unaffordable as demand has outstripped supply, leaving a substantial portion of Canadians living in either substandard housing or on the streets.

With that brief introduction, let's look at some background before we go back to Carney's commentary.  Fortunately for all Canadians, Mr. Carney who has an answer to everything that somehow manages to bring climate change into the equation, served on the federal government's Task Force for Housing and Climate:

While his biography has been scrubbed from the task force's current website, a simple search on Archive reveals this:

...and this:

For a self-proclaimed "outsider", he certainly was proximal to the "inside", wasn't he? 

In March 2024, the Task Force released this report:

 

...which provides a blueprint for a program to add 5.8 million new homes by 2030 to restore Canada's housing market by constructing homes that are "affordable, low-carbon and resilient". 

Interestingly, in the report, Mark Carney signs as a member of Canada 2020, the group that believes that Canada needs to expand its population to 100 million people by the year 2100:

One of the key aspects of the Task Force's recommendations is for the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government to enact laws that would increase the density of housing as quoted here:

"Legalize density in existing communities by eliminating unit maximums on all forms of residential housing and abolishing parking minimums on residential, commercial, and industrial properties, by legalizing the construction of CMHC pre-approved housing designs as-of-right, and by adopting ambitious as-of-right density permissions near transit." 

...and by changing bylaws that would repeal certain municipal policies as follows;

"Create a more permissive land use, planning and approvals system, including by repealing policies, zoning or plans that prioritize the preservation of the physical character of the neighbourhood, and by exempting from site plan approval and public consultation all projects that conform to the Official Plan and require only minor variances.  Revise and update zoning laws to allow the establishment of small-scale retail spaces in residential areas, prioritizing locations that are highly accessible by public transit and conveniently walkable for residents, and waive office space requirements in all downtown building conversions and re-developments.

 And, there's your 15 minute city.

So, in other words, laws need to change to allow for the densification of housing in Canada's urban settings.

The Task Force for Housing and Climate released this report in November 2024:

... which outlined four pathways to housing affordability:

1.) Making home ownership and rent more affordable by cutting building costs.

2.) Keeping property taxes and transportation costs in check by allowing more building in convenient locations.

3.) Lowering insurance and maintenance costs by building sturdier homes in safer areas.

4.) Reducing utility bills with energy-efficient homes.

With that background, let's look at Carney's climate-friendly solution to Canada's housing crisis.  Here's a further quote from his commentary in the Globe and Mail, much of which follows the recommendations of the Task Force:

"...we need to build up, rather than out. Focusing housing growth in cities and communities where there is existing infrastructure such as roads, water lines, libraries and community centres is faster, less costly and more climate-friendly. To enable building in these areas, we need to legalize density. It simply must be easier for a homebuilder to turn a 75-year-old bungalow into a cluster of townhouses, or an aging strip mall into a modern and affordable mid-rise apartment complex. To do that, governments should eliminate unit maximums, abolish parking minimums and allow taller buildings and more density near transit lines “as-of-right.”

So, in other words, let's tear down all of those old inefficient and historical single family dwellings and replace them with high density housing which brings to mind this dystopic vision of the urban future from Steven Spielberg's Ready Player One:

To close, let's look back at a bit of Mark Carney's housing history keeping in mind that he has lived in the Rockcliffe neighbourhood since his return from the United Kingdom in 2020 and declared Rockcliffe as his home neighbourhood in his candidacy paperwork:

In 2012, a $1.3 million home in Canada would have been considered very high end and would have been completely unaffordable by the vast majority of Canadians. 

Just for fun, here's a current listing in the Rockcliffe neighbourhood, the second least expensive single family home currently listed for sale:

Does that look like a "climate friendly" 3600 square foot home to you?  I wonder if Carney would mind if his next door neighbours tore down their houses and put up a few semi-detached homes on their properties?

This is another fine example of two globalist narratives:

1.) rules for thee and not for me.

2.) you will own nothing and be happy.

For untold numbers of Canadians, this is what Canada's current housing market looks like:

Instead of focussing on reducing the climate impact of housing, why doesn't Mark Carney concentrate on helping these unfortunate Canadians find permanent homes that protect them from the weather?