KICLEI's Conspiracy Theories

KICLEI Conspiracy Theories

Countering Misinformation About ICLEI

1,358 words, 5:43 read time

Forward

This document responds to claims made by ‘KICLEI’ (Kicking International Council Out of Local Environmental Initiatives), an organization, seemingly led by a single individual, Maggie Braun, that advocates for municipalities to withdraw from global warming initiatives.

The document is lengthy. It does not have to be read in its entirety (indeed, it may be most useful as a reference document to ascertain the validity of different claims on an as-needed basis) to understand that the materials it counters are a grab-bag of claims, many rooted in conspiracy theories, many unsupported by evidence. Where attempts are made to provide sources and supporting facts, it is often in the form of links to Ms. Braun’s own work, or to other materials that remain well within the conspiracy echo chamber.

While much of Braun’s efforts seemed aimed at discrediting international and local environmental initiatives, this isn’t a document written to buttress or defend environmentalism, climate change or global warming, international institutions. Rather, this is a document written to highlight the importance of evidence-based, solutions-oriented processes in fostering sound decision-making. As such, it addresses profound flaws in reasoning and fundamental lack of understanding that enable a deeply misguided effort that would undermine practical, pragmatic work for the public good.

Solutions arise when decisions are tethered to evidence. Without that causal anchor – without the link to observable reality – decisions become capricious, unmoored, and prone to failure. Worse, they risk real harm.

A key tenant of sound decision-making is recognizing that evidence leads. There’s an aspect of humility in this regard. Those making the decisions, to a degree, place their opinions behind them, so that they can best hear and understand what the data might tell them. The role of the decision maker, thus, is not as an ideologue or personal arbiter, but as a representative of their community, tasked with pursuing decisions that broadly serve the public good. This means resisting decisions that, based on opinion alone, might diminish benefits – whether by limiting their reach or by directing them toward narrower, even self-serving, interests.

Solutions arise when decisions are tethered to evidence. Without that causal anchor – without the link to observable reality – decisions become capricious, unmoored, and prone to failure. Worse, they risk real harm. Evidence illuminates the path forward. Solutions turn that path into action. Together, evidence and solutions are the foundation of pragmatic, constructive, durable decision-making.

To argue for evidence, though, is to contend with a world increasingly hostile to expertise. We are living through a profound rupture: a shift from a time when technology and industry seemed to have solved many of our problems, to one where they are now seen as contributing, and often causing, many of our most pressing problems.

This reversal, from being able to rely on a known world, with a clear, predictable path forward, to a world that is increasingly threatening, where the solutions we thought we could take for granted now no longer apply, has profoundly undermined faith in the expertise that built that world.

Compounding this distrust is the radical transformation of our information ecosystem. The ways in which we once gained knowledge – structured, mediated, vetted – have been fragmented, amplified, and unconstrained. Today, anyone, regardless of expertise, can publish to platforms with audiences of millions. In this new information economy, attention is currency, and the pursuit of it rewards the sensational, the provocative, and the reductive.

While scientific and peer-reviewed journals are consumed less than social media posts, the faith Canadians have in the accuracy of the information they provide is far higher.

This contrasting dynamic may indicate the ease with which one can publish on social media, vs the difficulty, stemming from the stringency of requirements for accuracy, of publishing in scientific and peer-reviewed journals.

Read more about Canadian’s information consumption, here.

The result is both predictable and corrosive. Attention spans shrink. Headlines are consumed as content. Knowledge becomes shallow. The world’s complexity, compressed into clickbait and soundbites, slips out of view.

Conspiracy theories thrive in such an environment. They offer something seductively simple: explanations for the unease that so many feel, a narrative that imposes order on chaos, and a kind of certainty in an increasingly uncertain world. In this sense, their appeal is understandable. But their foundation remains hollow, and their consequences – on public trust, decision-making, and collective progress – are all too real.

This erosion of trust in evidence and expertise is not an abstract concern; it has tangible consequences. It shows up, time and again, in the dissemination of materials like those produced by Braun – materials that exemplify how misinformation can masquerade as analysis, leveraging a veneer of legitimacy to advance an agenda that lacks sound evidence or rationale.

Environmental initiatives are born of evidence, and oriented towards solutions to pressing problems. Collaborative action, including at the international level, reflects the fact that environmental issues often transcend boundaries. Many have now grown to such an extent that only an all-hands-on-deck approach offers any hope of success.

The path forward demands, now more than ever, a return to intellectual humility, to evidence, and to the patient pursuit of solutions that work for all. Anything less risks losing not only the facts, but the public’s faith in a shared, workable future.

Introduction

KICLEI argues that international frameworks—such as the United Nations’ Agenda 21 and ICLEI’s Building Adaptive & Resilient Communities (BARC)—exert undue influence on local decision-making and threaten Canadian sovereignty. Its claims are made through public deputations, interviews, and content circulated on social media platforms.

KICLEI’s activities appear to stem largely from one individual, Maggie Hope Braun. Ms. Braun has been associated with the Canadian Action Party and participated in the so-called “Freedom Convoy,” which occupied downtown Ottawa in early 2022.

Central to Braun’s arguments are tenuous links between unrelated circumstances, often presented without context or evidence. Such loose, unsubstantiated connections are a hallmark of conspiracy theories.

For instance, Braun contends that Agenda 21—an entirely voluntary, non-binding framework outlining 17 Sustainable Development Goals¹²—undermines Canadian sovereignty. Agenda 21 has long been the focus of conspiracy theorists, some of whom allege it paves the way for a global government and that events like the COVID-19 pandemic were orchestrated as part of this plot.

Agenda 21, which sets out the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, has long been a target of misinformation and disinformation.

In a primer she distributes to municipalities, Braun notes that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney signed on to Agenda 21 in 1992. She claims that, as a result, Canada has been “governed” by international institutions such as the United Nations, the G7, the G20, the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum (WEF), the World Health Organization, and ICLEI.

Braun provides no evidence for this assertion, which reflects a profound misunderstanding of how international governance and agreements actually function.

In reality, nation-states—including Canada—remain the ultimate arbiters of their own policies. They may enter into international agreements, but remain bound only by the specific terms they have chosen to accept. International organizations lack any inherent authority to override a sovereign nation’s will.

Canada’s participation in agreements like the Paris Climate Accord or the USMCA demonstrates the exercise, not the surrender, of its sovereignty. The country’s constitutional framework empowers its government to negotiate and ratify treaties in pursuit of national interests, not at the expense of them.

Braun also cites the purported costs associated with municipal participation in initiatives such as the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program. She claims these costs could range from $7.2 million to $192 million, yet neglects to acknowledge potential cost savings or the long-term economic benefits of climate adaptation.

According to her own accounting, the base cost of participating in PCP is $95,000. To inflate that figure, she includes expenses unrelated to basic PCP participation—such as upgrading municipal vehicle fleets, installing EV charging stations, implementing “smart city” technologies, and even facilitating “15-minute cities,” another concept frequently misrepresented by conspiracy theorists. In fact, 15-minute cities aim to improve municipal efficiency and reduce infrastructure costs by concentrating services and amenities within walking or cycling distance, thereby lowering a community’s overall expenses over time.

This screenshot of an artistic rendering of a streetscape is taken from Barrie’s Intensification Area Urban Design Guidelines.

The mix of mid-rise development, street-level stores, and dynamic pedestrian spaces, along with multiple transportation options, is a good example of what a 15-minute city would look like.

Braun’s calculations consider only up-front expenditures while ignoring potential returns on investment, opportunity costs, and the externalities of business-as-usual. Her approach overlooks the ways in which climate initiatives can ultimately strengthen local economies and municipal budgets.

Finally, it should be noted that Ms. Braun appears to extensively use AI to generate her written content. This raises further doubt about her comprehension of these issues, and should give decision-makers pause for thought when considering any of the arguments she advances.

Significant change should require significant evidence, and the misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and outright inaccuracies Ms. Braun presents fall well short of that mark.

Below, we provide a detailed rebuttal of two of Ms. Braun’s primary documents – her municipal primer, and her declaration.

KICLEI's "Primer"

Ms. Braun has a primer outlining her arguments, which she presents to municipalities. In it appears the following resolution:

Be it RESOLVED that all Canadian Municipal Councils RESCIND any motions to participate in U.N. directive programs such as the FCM-ICLEI Partners for Climate Protection Program.

Below are rebuttals and clarifications to a number of points Ms. Braun raises in the primer.

Sustainable Development

Ms. Braun makes the broad claim that, “thirty years of so-called “sustainable development” [has] led to ghost towns and tent cities.” She makes no effort to connect sustainable development goals and work to implement them to the occurrence of ghost towns and tent cities, nor does she provide evidence of what ghost towns or tent cities she’s referring to.

In fact, SDG 11(1) states that by 2030, access for all to “adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services…” should be ensured. Addressing Ms. Braun inference that the SDGs are negatively impacting rural life, SDG 11(a) states, “Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning.”³

Climate Change

Ms. Braun references videos, both by herself and by John Dunn, as evidence that climate change is a hoax, and that by signing on in support of Agenda 21 Canada ceded its sovereignty. The claims made by both individuals are full of falsehoods, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations.

The question of Canada’s sovereignty and the role of international institutions is already covered, and any participation in Agenda 21, as well as the PCP, is explicitly voluntary and non-binding.

Mr. Dunn claims that climate change is natural, noting that Earth has gone through periods of extreme warming and cooling in the past. He states that because the concentrations of CO₂ in the atmospheres of Mars and Venus are high (95% and 96.5% respectively), the fact that one is cold and the other hot disproves the role of CO₂ in creating a greenhouse effect. Mr. Dunn also claims that water vapour is a more serious greenhouse gas than CO₂ or Methane (CH₄).

While the Earth has experienced dramatic changes in climate in the past, human civilization was effectively non-existent during those times. Saying that we shouldn’t address climate change because Earth has experienced ice ages in the past is like saying that one shouldn’t add flood mitigation measures when living in a flood plain. Pre-industrial concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere was around 280 parts per million (ppm); today we have close to 420 ppm,⁴ practically the entirety of which is the direct result of human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.

Mars and Venus, while they have similar atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, have very different atmospheric densities, and occupy different locations relative to the Sun. Venus, which has a surface temperature of around 470ºC, has a surface pressure 90 times that of Earth’s, which enables the heat-trapping associated with the greenhouse effect. Venus is also approximately 42 million kilometres closer to the Sun than Mars.

In addition to being farther from the Sun, Mars has a far less dense atmosphere, with a surface pressure that is less than 1% that of Earth’s. This thin atmosphere, where CO₂ is thinly spread, has little capacity to redirect energy back toward the surface of the planet.

Finally, it is true that water vapour is the most prevalent GHG in Earth’s atmosphere. Water is considered a multiplier of the greenhouse effect, not a driver. This is due to its highly responsive characteristic, with its atmospheric lifetime lasting about 9 days, so that it reflects, rather than drives, the longer-term dynamics associated with other GHGs. CO₂, which, with an atmospheric lifetime that can run between hundreds and thousands of years, easily accumulates over long periods of time. Other GHGs, like Methane, also persist in the atmosphere, and also absorb more infrared radiation, or heating energy, which greatly increases their potency when it comes to the amount of heat they trap.

Private Property Rights

In the primer, Ms. Braun makes the claim that private property rights are threatened by sustainable development, arguing that the Brundtland Commission Report directly targets them, as well as directs population growth towards selected settlement areas.

Ms. Braun claims that the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, the first one of which was held in Vancouver in 1976, the report of which is titled Habitat I, provides the groundwork for this threat against private property rights.

Much of Ms. Braun’s concerns regarding sovereignty, which she claims is threatened by mandates imposed by international institutions like the United Nations, would be allayed by reading the charter of the United Nations.

Article 1(2) reads: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace. (Italics added.)

Article 2(1) reads: The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

And Article 2(7) reads: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

(Chapter VII empowers the Security Council to take action in response to threats to peace, breaches of peace, and acts of aggression. There’s no indication that Ms. Braun is advocating for Security Council reform.)

Further, the UN’s SDGs, as well as ICLEI’s initiatives, explicitly state that participation is voluntary.

Addressing concerns regarding Habitat 1, directly, Ms. Braun includes a short quote, without crucial context, from Section II(D) of the report,⁵ which outlines recommendations for national action. The quote Ms. Braun uses is provided first, and then the full quote is provided after to ensure proper context:

Ms. Braun’s edited quote:

“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and ineﬃciencies [sic] of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and, therefore, contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”

Full quote:

Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle to the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.
Instead, the pattern of land use should be determined by the long-term interests of the community, especially since decisions on location of activities and therefore of specific land uses have a long-lasting effect on the pattern and structure of human settlements. Land is also a primary element of the natural and man-made environment and a crucial link in an often delicate balance. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable to its protection as an asset and the achievement of the long-term objectives of human settlement policies and strategies
To exercise such control effectively, public authorities require detailed knowledge of the current patterns of use and tenure of land; appropriate legislation defining the boundaries of individual rights and public interest; and suitable instruments for assessing the value of land and transferring to the community, inter alia through taxation, the unearned increment resulting from changes in use, public investment or decisions, or due to the general growth of the community.
Above all, Governments must have the political will to evolve and implement innovative and adequate urban and rural land policies, as a corner-stone of their efforts to improve the quality of life in human settlements.

These points, by and large, describe the recognition of public value inherent in current land-use regimes in Ontario and throughout much of the western world. Land-use is regulated to ensure improper activities, which are largely those that could negatively impact the public, do not occur.

Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming

Braun includes a section titled, “Climate Science 101 – Climate Realism”, in which she claims that “only 0.3% of published scientists state in their papers that recent warming is primarily man-made.” This figure is taken from a rejoinder to another paper, and is both highly selective and presented without important context.

The rejoinder, written by Legates et al. (2013)⁶ addresses a study by Cook et al. (2013),⁷ which attempts to measure the degree of scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in peer-reviewed literature. Cook analyzed 11,944 abstracts of peer review papers published between 1991 and 2011 and found that 97.1% of papers that expressed a position on AGW endorsed the view that human activities are causing global warming, while a vanishingly small number were skeptical of that stance.

The 97.1% figure comprises both explicit and implicit endorsements. Implicit endorsements are characterized by reference to factors that are human caused and contribute to global warming, like land-use patterns or energy use.

Legates extracts only those that explicitly state global warming is caused by human activity, which is where he arrives at the 0.3% figure.

It should be noted that the main thrust of Legates’ argument, however, is not to dispute the figures Cook et al. arrive at, but rather to emphasize that consensus does not equal correctness, and that using arguments based on consensus to establish a case in the eye of the public carries with it a risk of inaccuracy.

Subsequent papers, including a direct response to Legates criticisms by Bedford and Cook (2013),⁸ address Legates criticisms, and have continued to build upon the conclusions that Cook found. Myers et al. (2021)⁹ found that 91.1% of study respondents, from a sample of 2,780, agreed that the Earth is warming mostly due to human activities, which increased to 98.7% among confirmed climate scientists. For those with high expertise (20+ climate-related publications from 2015 to 2019) they found 100% agreement.

Also in 2021, Lynas et al.,¹⁰ found a greater than 99% consensus among climate-related peer-review papers.

Academic discourse, including scientific, is a process, which evolves over time and which represents many points of view, arrived at through different methods of study and analysis. There is value in understanding the broad arc of dialogue, the direction towards which it trends, and the subtitles and nuances of the variations that form its boundaries and gaps. Selecting just one number from a paper – especially one that is in direct dialogue with another – and abstracting it from the context of its larger conversation is both a complete misunderstanding of how academic work progresses, and a misrepresentation of the work from which the number is taken.

Natural Disasters Have Not Increased

Braun claims that “global warming has not increased natural disasters,” after which she includes a litany of examples. Addressing the overarching claim that natural disasters have not increased, with significant causal links to global warming, first, and then each example in turn:

Natural Disasters

Both the frequency and intensity of natural disasters is increasing.¹¹¹²¹³ According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction:

“…there were 7,348 major recorded disaster events claiming 1.23 million lives, affecting 4.2 billion people (many on more than one occasion) resulting in approximately US$2.97 trillion in global economic losses.

This is a sharp increase over the previous twenty years. Between 1980 and 1999, 4,212 disasters were linked to natural hazards worldwide claiming approximately 1.19 million lives and affecting 3.25 billion people resulting in approximately US$1.63 trillion in economic losses.”¹⁴

The insurance industry, as a result, is increasing premiums, and, in some cases, withdrawing entirely from high-risk markets.¹⁵ This is shifting the burden of recovery further onto governments, including municipal governments, resulting in greater cost to taxpayers, in addition to the trauma associated with climate change related impacts, such as the loss of homes and threats to personal safety.

Braun’s additional claims, that “Extreme Heat Events, Forest Fires, Landfall Hurricanes, Extreme

Tornadoes, and Droughts are in Decline” are addressed here as instances of natural disasters.

“Most of Antarctica is Cooling and Gaining Ice”

Between 2002 and 2023, Antarctica lost approximately 150 gigatons of ice per year.¹⁶

“There are more Polar Bears today than 50 years ago”

This is either an ignorant, or a disingenuous claim. No comprehensive survey of polar bear population had occurred prior to the 1970s, and since then, a sound estimate of numbers is difficult to arrive at. Furthermore, bans and quotas on hunting polar bears, implemented in the early to mid 1970s¹⁷ – 50 years ago – likely contributed to an increase in population.¹⁸ A ban on hunting has no bearing on the impact that global warming may have, and there is ample evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic is negatively affecting polar bears.¹⁹²⁰

“There is Ample Evidence that CO2-Mitigation Measures are as Damaging as they are Costly”

Ms. Braun makes the claim that there is ample evidence, but doesn’t back it up. There is ample evidence, but it’s for the benefits of investing in mitigation and adaptation measures. Recent studies put the return on investment for at 182%, with a needed $2.8 trillion put toward emissions mitigation in developing countries, resulting in economic benefits valued at $7.9 trillion.²¹

CO₂ As a Pollutant, and as a Plant Food

A number of points Braun makes in her “Exercise 2” are previously addressed, including the misunderstanding of how CO₂ acts as a greenhouse gas, and the role of water vapour as a greenhouse gas.

Ms. Braun claims that CO₂ is “not a pollutant”, and that it plays a role in increasing plant and crop yields, providing food for human consumption. It’s possible that this assertion is due to Braun, accepting on face value, similar claims made by an organization calling itself Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL), which Braun cites elsewhere in the Primer. CLINTEL orchestrated release of a document called the “World Climate Delcaration”, which purports to represent over 1200 scientists and professionals, that states there is no climate crisis.

This document, as well as CLINTEL, have been widely debunked, having links to fossil fuel interests and including a high number of signatories with no expertise in the field of climate science.²²

Addressing the claim that CO₂ is not a pollutant, that is increases plant and crop yields, resulting in more food for human consumption, directly, it is necessary to begin with outlining exactly what a pollutant is.

A pollutant can be defined as any substance or energy introduced to an environment that, in excessive quantities or in specific conditions, disrupts ecological balance, damages natural systems, or poses risks to human health, flora, or fauna.

For the most part, pollution is context-dependent, as many substances or forms of energy are naturally occurring and not inherently harmful. Their classification as pollutants arises when their concentration exceeds natural or sustainable levels, or when they appear in environments that are particularly sensitive to their effects.

CO₂ is not a pollutant to the extent that it occurs naturally, and exists at levels that do not disrupt or pose risks to Earth’s ecological balance, human health, flora, or fauna. It is a pollutant, on the other hand, when it does disrupt or pose risks to one or more of those criteria.

Studies have found that at higher concentrations, some of which (1,000 ppm) may be reached by the end of this century as a result of current CO₂ emission trends, pose direct risks to human health, including reduced cognitive abilities, bone demineralization, kidney calcification, and more.²³²⁴

With respect to CO₂ functioning as plant food, here again Ms. Braun seems to have seen a post on social media and taken it at face value.

Evidence shows that, while is essential for plant growth, helping to increase biomass, too much has a negative effect, including a decline in uptake of nutrients, such as nitrogen. Possible explanations for this include the imbalance caused by too much CO₂, which leads to the plant closing or narrowing its stoma, the mechanism by which plants absorb nutrients, once it has reached its absorptive capacity for CO₂, preventing continued, normal, uptake of additional nutrients.²⁵

The limitation of nutritional uptake in plants is likely to have knock-on impacts on soil quality, impairing the health of the microbiome and the ecosystems that depend on it. This threatens both the long-term viability of agriculture, and the quality of food it provides, as well as non-agricultural ecosystems, which provide the basis for biodiversity.

KICLEI's "Declaration"

Ms. Braun hosts a “Declaration” which she asks individuals to sign on to, which presents on the surface as a somewhat reasonable effort to encourage local action, but which, in fact, relies on a host of inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods to push a scientifically illiterate, historically inaccurate agenda of climate denialism and conspiracy theories.

Each item of the Declaration is addressed below, with original text intact and shown in quotation marks, and with rebuttals following.

Preamble

Declaration Text:

“In this age of profound global challenges and rapid change, the need for Canadian sovereignty, self-reliance, and respect for local governance has never been greater. While international collaboration has its place, the unbalanced influence of global frameworks and agendas has too often overshadowed the voices of our communities, threatening our unique way of life, our economic independence, and our cherished freedoms.

This declaration—rooted in the principles of Confederation—is a call to action for all Canadians to prioritize localism over globalism, to strengthen our communities, and to reaffirm our commitment to protecting the land, freedoms, and opportunities entrusted to us.”

Rebuttal:

Confederation is Built on Collaboration

Confederation, by definition, represents a coming together of multiple parties to form a unified and cooperative entity. It is not an act of isolation but of partnership and mutual support.

The Constitution Act establishes principles of federalism that balance the autonomy of provinces and territories with the need for a strong, cohesive national framework. It recognizes the importance of shared governance to address both unique regional needs and collective national priorities.

Principles of Confederation Undermine Localism as Isolation

Federalism: Confederation ensures power-sharing across national, provincial, territorial, and Indigenous governments. This structure promotes collaboration over isolation.

Peace, Order, and Good Governance (POGG): These principles prioritize stability, effective governance, and the ability to address challenges collectively—values that align with both local and global collaboration.

Economic Union and Trade: Confederation emphasizes economic interdependence, fostering trade within Canada and internationally. By acting as a vehicle to represent disparate regions, with distinct characteristics and competitive advantages, on the international stage, Confederation enables prosperity for Canadians, which directly counters the claim that increased isolation is advantageous, made by KICLEI.

The Need for Compromise and Shared Realities

Claiming Confederation as a practice of localism ignores the fact that unity and compromise are essential to address differing experiences and shared realities.

Canada’s history demonstrates that progress comes from finding common ground—whether between provinces, cultures, or in international forums. Rejecting global collaboration disregards the benefits of working together to solve collective challenges like climate change, economic instability, and public health crises.

Respect for Indigenous Peoples and Treaties

Confederation also includes respect for Indigenous rights and treaties, emphasizing the need for partnerships that acknowledge historical and cultural contexts.

This principle aligns with global sustainability goals, which often prioritize Indigenous-led conservation and community empowerment, further showing that localism and globalism are complementary rather than contradictory.

Confederation is a model of collaboration, compromise, and shared governance. It reflects the need to balance local autonomy with collective action to achieve stability, prosperity, and fairness. Invoking Confederation to advocate for isolationist localism misrepresents its core values, which emphasize unity in diversity and the importance of addressing both local and shared global challenges.

Canadian Sovereignty is Paramount

Declaration Text:

“The governance of Canada must remain in the hands of Canadians, free from undue influence by international organizations, treaties, or agendas that disregard our unique needs, challenges, and aspirations.
Any policy that compromises Canadian sovereignty, property rights, or local governance shall be reconsidered or rejected.”

Rebuttal:

Participation in international organizations like ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) and voluntary initiatives like Agenda 21, which includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), does not undermine Canada’s sovereignty. These programs are entirely voluntary and non-binding, empowering local governments to adopt or adapt practices as they see fit.

For example:

Goal 6 (“Clean Water and Sanitation”) focuses on ensuring access to clean water and sustainable sanitation systems.
Goal 8 (“Decent Work and Economic Growth”) promotes sustainable economic development and equitable employment opportunities.

Such goals are aspirational frameworks rather than mandates, leaving implementation entirely in the hands of participating governments.

The term “undue influence” typically refers to a situation where a powerful entity coerces or manipulates a less powerful one to achieve its objectives.

Given that participation in ICLEI and UN initiatives is entirely voluntary and does not impose binding obligations, there is no mechanism through which such influence could compromise Canadian sovereignty. Instead, these partnerships provide tools, funding opportunities, and shared expertise that empower Canadian municipalities to address challenges on their terms.

Far from threatening sovereignty, programs like these enhance Canada’s capacity to address local challenges while contributing to global progress in areas aligned with Canadian values, such as environmental stewardship and economic growth.

Local Solutions Over Global Mandates

Declaration Text:

“Decisions affecting Canadian communities must prioritize the voices and expertise of local leaders, citizens, and regions. One-size-fits-all policies imposed from afar will not work for a country as diverse and vast as ours.
Municipalities shall reject global frameworks like ICLEI’s Agenda 21 and focus instead on pragmatic, local initiatives that balance economic development, environmental stewardship, and community well-being.”

Rebuttal:

The assertion that global mandates are imposed on Canadian communities through ICLEI or Agenda 21 is incorrect. Both ICLEI and the Agenda 21 initiative are entirely voluntary and non-binding.

Agenda 21 is a non-binding United Nations action plan developed during the 1992 Rio Earth Summit to promote sustainable development. Similarly, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, established in 1990 by 200 local governments from 43 nations, is a voluntary network aimed at empowering local governments to address environmental challenges based on their unique priorities and needs.
Participation in programs such as ICLEI or the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program does not undermine local governance. Instead, it enhances the ability of municipalities to address complex challenges by fostering collaboration, sharing best practices, and avoiding costly mistakes. Local governments remain fully in control of which initiatives to adopt and how to implement them.
Claims of “one-size-fits-all” policies misrepresent these programs. ICLEI’s services, tools and resources are tailored to the specific needs of participating communities, respecting their diverse cultural, geographic, and economic contexts.
Similarly, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), part of Agenda 21, are aspirational and non-binding. For example, SDG 4 (“Quality Education”) includes targets such as ensuring all children receive free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education by 2030. However, the means to achieve this goal and the definition of “relevant and effective learning outcomes” are determined locally, aligning with community needs and priorities.
Collaboration through these initiatives brings tangible benefits, such as improved access to funding, enhanced innovation, and strengthened economic prosperity through partnerships and trade. Learning from the successes and failures of other communities helps municipalities implement evidence-based solutions while maximizing taxpayer value.

Programs like ICLEI and Agenda 21 empower local governments to balance economic development, environmental stewardship, and community well-being. They offer pathways for communities to achieve locally determined goals while benefitting from shared global knowledge, ensuring that solutions are pragmatic, tailored, and effective.

Environmental Stewardship, Not Ideology

Declaration Text:

“We commit to protecting Canada’s natural beauty through practical, measurable efforts to prevent pollution, enhance water quality, preserve biodiversity, and manage resources responsibly.
Policies aimed at reducing CO₂ emissions must not harm Canadian families, farmers, or industries, nor sacrifice energy security for unproven technologies.”

Rebuttal:

The claim rests on three flawed assumptions:

CO₂ emissions are not harmful and policies to reduce them are unnecessary.
Efforts to mitigate climate change are driven by ideology, not evidence.
These efforts depend on unproven technologies.

The Harm of CO₂ Emissions is Scientifically Established

The science of how CO₂ contributes to global warming is robust and widely accepted. Human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by 50% over the past 200 years. This dramatic alteration of the Earth’s carbon cycle is driving significant environmental changes, including more unpredictable and extreme weather events.

The overwhelming scientific consensus supports the link between human-induced CO₂ emissions and global warming. Rejecting this consensus is, by definition, ideological, as it dismisses evidence-based reasoning.

Climate Change Harms Families, Farmers, and Industries

Canadian families, farmers, and industries are already facing the consequences of a less predictable and more extreme climate:

Agriculture: While longer growing seasons may offer some benefits, increased uncertainty in rainfall timing and amounts poses serious risks to crop yields. Droughts, floods, and extreme weather events can offset any potential gains.
Families: Rising temperatures increase the frequency and severity of heatwaves, impacting public health, particularly among vulnerable populations like children and the elderly.
Industries: Climate unpredictability disrupts supply chains, damages infrastructure, and increases operational risks.

The insurance industry reflects this reality by adjusting premiums to account for the rising risks associated with climate change. This trend places additional financial pressure on families and businesses and requires governments to act as backstops for major losses, as seen with disaster relief efforts following extreme weather events.

“Unproven Technologies” is a Vague and Misleading Claim

The argument that CO₂ reduction efforts rely on “unproven technologies” lacks clarity and evidence. Renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power are well-established, widely deployed, and increasingly cost-effective. Advances in energy storage, electric vehicles, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) continue to demonstrate their viability and scalability.

Assertions based on undefined or poorly substantiated terms, like “unproven technologies,” often rely on fear and confusion—a common tactic in conspiracy theories. Without clear evidence to support such claims, they should be critically examined and treated with skepticism.

Efforts to mitigate CO₂ emissions are not ideological but are grounded in well-established science. Ignoring the risks posed by climate change exposes Canadian families, farmers, and industries to increasing harm and economic instability. Proactive policies and investments in proven and emerging technologies are essential to adapt to and mitigate the challenges posed by a changing climate.

Energy Security is Essential

Declaration Text:

“Canada’s abundant energy resources must be managed responsibly to ensure affordable, reliable access for all Canadians, particularly those in rural and remote communities.
We will pursue energy independence by supporting innovative, Canadian-made solutions while resisting reliance on unstable foreign markets or expensive, ideologically driven alternatives.”

Rebuttal:

The claim suggests that energy independence can be achieved solely through Canadian-made solutions, while rejecting “ideologically driven alternatives.” However, this perspective oversimplifies the complexities of energy markets, ignores the realities of renewable energy development, and misrepresents the goals of sustainable energy policies.

Canada’s Energy Independence is Already Strong and Set to Grow

Canada is one of the world’s top energy producers and exporters, particularly in oil, natural gas, and hydropower. Canada is also at the forefront of a renewed push for nuclear energy, with retrofits and new builds at facilities in Ontario, including the development of small modular reactors (SMRs).

Our domestic energy production far exceeds consumption. In 2022, Canada produced 22,616 petajoules (PJ) of energy, and consumed 8,585 PJ (a ratio of 2.6 produced to 1 consumed).

While there is no direct claim made that Canada’s energy independence is threatened by a reliance on foreign-made energy components, like solar panels or batteries, the production of which China dominates, it seems likely this is the author’s intended target.

This is an outdated view of Canada’s energy market. Trade with China is a two-way street, with an increasing amount of crude and natural gas going to China, due in part to the recently completed Trans Mountain Pipeline. Unilaterally withdrawing from trade relationships risks Canada’s prosperity, undermining our quality of life and ability to engage constructively in world affairs.

Further, Canada’s energy market is increasingly diversified. Hydro, natural gas, and nuclear power generation ensures Canada is not reliant on a single source of energy. Trade relationships with traditional allies are shifting supply chains for renewables away from China and closer to home.

Finally, Canada is well-positioned to be a major playing in the critical mineral market, for which established and new trade relationships will be crucial.

Rural and Remote Communities Need Tailored Solutions

The emphasis on providing affordable, reliable energy to rural and remote communities is critical, but traditional fossil fuel reliance has often failed these regions.

Many remote communities still depend on expensive and polluting diesel fuel for electricity. Transitioning to renewable sources such as wind, solar, and micro-hydro—paired with battery storage—offers more affordable, sustainable, and locally controlled energy options.
For example, the use of solar microgrids in remote northern communities has demonstrated success in reducing costs and improving energy reliability.

Renewable Energy is a Canadian-Made Solution

The notion that renewable energy is an “ideologically driven alternative” is misleading. Renewable energy technologies like wind and solar are Canadian-made solutions, supported by Canadian innovation and expertise.

Canada is a global leader in clean energy technology, with companies exporting renewable energy solutions worldwide.
Investing in renewables creates local jobs, strengthens energy resilience, and reduces dependence on global oil and gas markets, which are subject to significant price volatility.

Fossil Fuels are Not a Long-Term Solution

While fossil fuels remain a significant part of Canada’s energy portfolio, relying solely on them is unsustainable for several reasons:

Economic Volatility: Oil and gas markets are influenced by global geopolitics, making them inherently unstable. A diversified energy mix reduces economic risks.
Environmental Costs: Continued reliance on fossil fuels contributes to climate change, which has direct economic and social costs for Canadian communities, including through rising insurance premiums, and costs associated with disaster relief and infrastructure repair.
Public Demand: Canadians support clean energy development, recognizing the environmental and economic benefits of transitioning to a low-carbon economy.

“Ideology” vs. Evidence-Based Policy

Labelling renewable energy alternatives as “ideologically driven” dismisses decades of use, technological advancement, and market data demonstrating their viability and, increasingly, their competitive advantage relative to many other forms of power generation.

Renewable energy is now the cheapest source of electricity in many parts of the world, including Canada.

Far from being ideological, these technologies represent pragmatic, economically sound solutions to modern energy challenges.

Protecting Property Rights

Declaration Text:

“The right to own and manage private property, including farmland, is fundamental to our freedom and prosperity.
No policies or regulations shall undermine the autonomy of farmers, landowners, or small businesses in the name of global sustainability goals.”

Rebuttal:

The claim implies that global sustainability goals inherently conflict with property rights, but this is a false dichotomy. Protecting private property rights and pursuing sustainability are not mutually exclusive. In fact, responsible land management and sustainability goals often enhance property value and long-term prosperity.

Property Rights are Already Protected by Canadian Law

Canadian legal frameworks strongly protect private property rights, including those of farmers, landowners, and small businesses. At the same time, these private rights are balanced with public interests to ensure environmental protection, public health, and economic stability.

For example, zoning laws and environmental regulations exist to prevent harmful practices that could damage neighbouring properties or shared resources, like water and air. These do not undermine property rights but protect the broader community.

Sustainability Goals Enhance Long-Term Property Value

Global sustainability goals, such as those outlined in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)(noted in the counter to Point 1), often support measures that protect farmland, reduce pollution, and mitigate climate risks—all of which enhance the long-term value and viability of private property.

Farmland Protection: Policies that prevent urban sprawl or soil degradation help preserve agricultural productivity and land value.
Climate Resilience: Sustainable practices reduce vulnerability to climate-related risks, such as floods or droughts, safeguarding the productivity of farmland and the security of businesses.

Autonomy Comes with Responsibility

Property ownership carries responsibilities, especially when individual actions can have broader societal and environmental impacts. For example:

Overuse of pesticides or poor land management on one property can contaminate water sources or degrade neighbouring lands. Regulations ensure such actions do not infringe on the rights and well-being of others.
Sustainable land management practices, supported by global goals, help balance individual autonomy with collective needs.

Global Goals Empower Farmers and Small Businesses

Far from undermining autonomy, global sustainability frameworks often provide resources, support, and market opportunities for farmers and small businesses. For example:

Access to Funding: Sustainability programs frequently include grants and subsidies for adopting environmentally friendly practices or upgrading infrastructure.
Market Opportunities: Sustainable certification programs open up premium markets for farmers and businesses adhering to green practices.
Innovation Support: Programs like ICLEI provide tools and expertise to help local landowners implement efficient, sustainable solutions.

The False Threat of “Global Agendas”

The claim that global sustainability goals threaten property rights relies on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of these frameworks. Initiatives like the SDGs are voluntary, non-binding, and adaptable to local contexts. They do not impose mandates but provide a set of shared goals to guide action.

SDG 15 (“Life on Land”) encourages sustainable land use to combat desertification and soil erosion—measures that directly benefit property owners.
Regulations based on these goals are developed through democratic processes at the national and local levels, ensuring they align with Canadian values and priorities.

Failing to Act Threatens Property Rights

Ignoring sustainability goals and the climate crisis poses a far greater threat to property rights. Rising sea levels, extreme weather, and soil degradation directly reduce property value and usability. Proactive policies that align with global goals help mitigate these risks, protecting landowners’ investments.

Resilience Through Self-Reliance

Declaration Text:

“Canada’s resilience depends on fostering strong local economies, sustainable agriculture, and vibrant rural communities.
Municipalities will prioritize investments in infrastructure, emergency preparedness, and local food systems to protect against natural and economic disruptions.”

Rebuttal:

The claim identifies the importance of local economies, sustainable agriculture, and rural communities in fostering resilience, but oversimplifies the interconnected nature of modern challenges. Building true resilience requires a combination of local efforts and strategic collaboration, including partnerships at regional, national, and international levels.

Resilience is Both Local and Global

Issues like climate change, supply chain disruptions, and natural disasters do not respect municipal or national borders. Addressing them requires collaboration across jurisdictions and leveraging shared expertise and resources.

Local Food Systems Benefit from Broader Collaboration

While strengthening local food systems is crucial, Canada relies on international trade for food security, particularly in regions with short growing seasons or limited agricultural diversity.

Policies that blend local production with diversified import strategies reduce vulnerabilities to both local and global disruptions. For instance, investing in cold storage and food processing infrastructure enhances the value of local harvests while ensuring year-round food availability.

Investments in Infrastructure and Emergency Preparedness are Enhanced by Collaboration

Local investments in infrastructure and emergency preparedness are critical, but municipalities often lack the capacity or resources to address large-scale disruptions on their own.

Federal programs, like the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, provide critical funding for local infrastructure projects to reduce climate risks.
Global networks, like ICLEI, help municipalities learn from each other’s experiences in disaster preparedness and recovery.

Self-Reliance Includes Transitioning to Sustainable Agriculture

Sustainable agriculture is vital for rural resilience, but achieving it often requires access to innovations, funding, and training that come from regional or international partnerships.

Programs like Canada’s AgriInnovate Program fund the adoption of technologies that increase farm sustainability and productivity.

Research and development partnerships improve soil management practices and reduce the use of harmful chemicals, enhancing long-term agricultural resilience.

Global Challenges Demand Shared Solutions

Climate change, biodiversity loss, and economic instability are global challenges that cannot be addressed through self-reliance alone. Ignoring these broader dynamics risks leaving local economies and rural communities unprepared for systemic shocks.

Collaborative sustainability initiatives provide tools and frameworks that empower municipalities to act locally while addressing broader risks.

In short, while reasonable at face value, the claim that resilience can be enhanced solely through self-reliance, with the corollary withdrawal from mutually beneficial relationships, is, in fact, a truly radical proposal made without reason or supporting evidence.

Defending Privacy Rights

Declaration Text:

“Canadians’ privacy must not be compromised by digital surveillance, data-sharing agreements, or intrusive technologies justified under global security or environmental pretexts.”

Rebuttal:

The claim that digital surveillance, data-sharing agreements, or intrusive technologies threaten Canadians’ privacy under the guise of global security or environmental goals oversimplifies the balance between privacy protection and the responsible use of data to address societal challenges. Here’s why this concern is overstated:

Privacy Protections in Canada are Strong and Evolving

Canada has robust privacy legislation, such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and provincial privacy laws, which regulate how personal data is collected, used, and shared.

These laws ensure transparency, accountability, and consent when handling Canadians’ data, including in contexts like environmental monitoring or smart infrastructure.

Data collected by smart grids for energy efficiency, for example, is anonymized and aggregated, ensuring individual privacy while optimizing energy use, which helps minimize costs for consumers, and reducing emissions.

Responsible Data Use is Essential for Public Good

Certain global and environmental challenges, such as climate change and disaster preparedness, require the responsible collection, analysis, and use of data. For instance, data-sharing agreements between countries help predict extreme weather events and mitigate their impact.

It’s worth noting, though in no way detracts from the general need for enhanced and robust privacy regulations and oversight, that the author of this declaration uses multiple social media platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, X, and Substack, seemingly without concern to the privacy implications.

Restoring Democratic Accountability

Declaration Text:

“Policies that affect Canadians must be developed through transparent, inclusive consultation processes that respect local knowledge and priorities.
Governments must be held accountable for upholding the values of fairness, freedom, and equal opportunity for all Canadians.”

Rebuttal:

The call for transparency, inclusivity, and local input in policy development is valid, but the claim that this is incompatible with global sustainability initiatives misrepresents how democratic accountability works in Canada. Far from undermining these principles, sustainability initiatives and global frameworks often enhance accountability by promoting evidence-based, participatory governance.

Transparency and Accountability are Core to Sustainability Initiatives

Global sustainability initiatives, such as those promoted by ICLEI or the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), prioritize participatory governance and transparency. These frameworks are designed to align with local contexts, requiring input and collaboration from governments, communities, and stakeholders.

Democratic Processes Already Govern Policy Implementation

In Canada, all policies, whether influenced by global frameworks or not, must go through established democratic processes, including public consultations, legislative debate, and regulatory review.

Global Collaboration Enhances Fairness and Inclusivity

Collaborating with global initiatives does not diminish local voices; it strengthens them by incorporating diverse perspectives and sharing best practices.

Participation in frameworks like ICLEI allows municipalities to learn from successes and avoid costly mistakes, benefiting taxpayers while respecting local priorities.

Local knowledge is often central to these initiatives, as seen in Indigenous-led conservation projects that align with global sustainability goals while respecting traditional knowledge.

Sustainability Goals Uphold Fairness and Equal Opportunity

Sustainability policies often aim to address systemic inequities by promoting access to clean air, water, affordable energy, and economic opportunities. These align with Canadian values of fairness and equal opportunity.

Accountability Mechanisms are Built into Global Frameworks

Global sustainability initiatives include monitoring and reporting mechanisms to ensure progress and accountability. These frameworks are not imposed mandates but tools to track and improve local performance transparently.

Ignoring Global Challenges Threatens Democracy

Failing to address global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and economic instability undermines democratic stability. Ignoring these issues leads to increased economic inequality, resource scarcity, and social unrest, which erode trust in democratic institutions.

Proactive engagement with global sustainability initiatives helps safeguard democratic values by ensuring long-term prosperity and security.

Call to Action

Declaration Text:

“We call on all Canadians—citizens, communities, and elected representatives—to unite behind this declaration and commit to:

1. Advocating for local solutions that respect the unique needs of their communities.
2. Rejecting international pressures that undermine Canada’s independence, economy, or freedoms.
3. Holding governments accountable for policies that serve Canadians first and foremost.
4. Supporting environmental stewardship efforts that are practical, measurable, and locally driven.”

Rebuttal:

While the call to action appeals to values like local empowerment and accountability, it frames international collaboration and sustainability efforts as threats to Canadian independence and prosperity. This mischaracterization creates a false dichotomy between local and global efforts. Here’s why the underlying assumptions are flawed and how the goals stated can be better achieved:

Advocating for Local Solutions

Local solutions are essential, but they are most effective when informed by global knowledge and practices.

International collaboration provides access to funding, technologies, and expertise that help municipalities implement innovative and cost-effective solutions tailored to their specific needs.

Additionally, these relationships with others provide opportunities to establish market and trade relationships in which local expertise can be deployed to the benefit of local communities.

Rejecting International Pressures

One of Canada’s long-recognized strategic pillars is a robust and diverse engagement with international partners. In part, this addresses the reliance Canada has on its southern neighbour, both as a trade partner and as a politically aligned ally. Contrary to what Ms. Braun claims, maintaining more diverse international relationships enhances Canada’s economic and political autonomy.

Again, Canada voluntarily participates in international agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement and sustainability initiatives. What international pressure might occur does not infringe on Canada’s sovereignty, but is a product of the fact that Canada is part of an international community of other sovereign states, each with distinct sets of interests that can overlap or conflict.

Engagement and collaboration strengthens Canada’s economy by positioning it as a leader, including in clean energy, sustainable agriculture, and environmental innovation. These are sectors that are increasingly central in global markets.

Holding Governments Accountable

Canada has democratic, regulatory, and judicial accountability, none of which is threatened either by its transition towards renewable energy or by its engagement with international bodies, like ICLEI or the United Nations.

Policies influenced by international fora and frameworks must pass through Canadian legislative and regulatory processes.

Supporting Practical, Measurable, and Locally Driven Environmental Stewardship

Global sustainability goals, like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), are practical, measurable, and locally adaptable. They provide a road map for addressing complex challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource management.

Conclusion

Declaration Text:

“This KICLEI Localism Over Globalism Declaration is not a rejection of international cooperation but a reaffirmation of our belief that strong, resilient communities are the foundation of a strong, resilient nation. By prioritizing localism over globalism, we can ensure that Canada remains the true North, strong, free, and rooted in the values that unite us all.

Together, we will forge a future where Canada’s prosperity, environment, and freedoms are protected for generations to come.

Signed,
The Advocates of Canadian Sovereignty and Localism”

Rebuttal:

The conclusion of the Localism Declaration frames itself as a balanced statement, suggesting that prioritizing localism over globalism strengthens Canada’s communities and safeguards its prosperity, environment, and freedoms. However, this framing oversimplifies complex issues and misrepresents the relationship between local and global efforts. Here’s why:

Local and Global Efforts Are Not Opposed

The idea that localism and globalism are in conflict ignores the interconnected nature of modern challenges like climate change, trade, and public health. These issues transcend borders and require collaborative solutions.

Global collaboration enhances local strength by providing access to resources, technology, and knowledge that help communities thrive. For example, participation in global climate initiatives like ICLEI supports municipalities in developing locally tailored solutions to environmental challenges.

Global Partnerships Support Local Resilience

Far from undermining resilience, global cooperation provides tools and frameworks that enable communities to better prepare for and adapt to disruptions, whether environmental, economic, or social.

Prosperity Requires Interdependence

Canada’s prosperity is deeply tied to its participation in global trade networks, partnerships, and agreements. Prioritizing localism to the exclusion of global collaboration risks isolating Canada, stifling innovation, and limiting access to markets and resources.

A strong economy requires both local strength and active engagement in international systems that sustain economic growth and stability.

Environmental Protection Demands Global Action

Climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution are global issues that cannot be solved through local action alone. While local solutions are vital, they must be part of a coordinated global effort to address the root causes of environmental degradation.

Rejecting international collaboration on environmental issues weakens Canada’s ability to protect its natural resources for future generations.

Freedom and Sovereignty Are Not at Risk

The claim implicitly suggests that global cooperation threatens Canada’s sovereignty and freedoms, but this is unfounded. Participation in international frameworks is voluntary and non-binding, allowing Canada to act in its national interest while benefiting from shared solutions.

Rather than rejecting the benefits of global collaboration, Canada should embrace a balanced approach that integrates local and global efforts. Strong, resilient communities are indeed the foundation of a strong nation, but they cannot thrive in isolation. Global partnerships amplify local strengths, ensuring that Canada’s prosperity, environment, and freedoms are protected for generations to come.

Additional Remarks

The Use of Disclaimers, or Waiving Liability

As a guest on shows like the Christian Heritage Party’s CHP Talks, as well as on her Substack and in deputations to municipal councils, Ms. Braun attempts to portray disclaimers by the Federation of Canadian Municipality and the federal government, included in some documents from the Partnership for Climate Protection, as waiving liability with a goal of shifting costs onto local taxpayers.

Such disclaimers are standard practice, including, for example, on agreements between the federal government and municipalities for infrastructure funding.

While disclaimers are standard, if Ms. Braun remains unconvinced, she should be welcomed to assume responsibility for potential costs associated with her advocacy.

Costs Associated with ICLEI Participation

Ms. Braun claims that participating in the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program incurs costs between $7 million and $192 million.

While implementing climate action plans involves upfront investments, these costs must be weighed against the economic, environmental, and social consequences of inaction.

Avoiding Future Costs Through Mitigation

- Rising Costs of Climate Impacts: Extreme weather events, flooding, heatwaves, and other climate-related impacts are escalating in frequency and severity. In Canada alone, insured losses from severe weather events reached over $2 billion in 2022, according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada. Uninsured damages often far exceed these figures, burdening local governments and taxpayers.

- Cost-Benefit of Mitigation: Studies show that every dollar invested in climate mitigation efforts saves $6 in disaster response and recovery. Participation in PCP encourages municipalities to develop robust plans to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which, in turn, can prevent more costly disasters.

Adaptation Reduces Vulnerability

- Economic Benefits of Adaptation: Climate adaptation measures, such as stormwater management upgrades, energy efficiency retrofits, and resilient infrastructure, not only protect communities from climate impacts but also generate significant long-term savings. For example, retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency reduces operational costs for municipalities and residents.

- Local Benefits: Adaptation projects create jobs, reduce energy poverty, and improve public health outcomes (e.g., reducing heat-related illnesses).

The Cost of Inaction

- Higher Long-Term Expenses: Municipalities that defer action will face ballooning costs as climate impacts intensify. Infrastructure repairs, emergency services, and public health interventions will strain budgets far more than proactive measures would.

- Missed Economic Opportunities: Investing in climate action can position municipalities to access federal or provincial funding, attract green businesses, and stimulate local economies through the creation of jobs in clean energy and infrastructure projects.

Tangible Benefits of the PCP Program

- Framework for Action: The PCP program provides municipalities with tools, resources, and support to identify cost-effective climate solutions. This structured approach prevents wasteful spending and maximizes return on investment.

- Collaboration and Learning: Membership enables knowledge-sharing among municipalities, allowing for the adoption of proven strategies and avoiding redundant effort.

- Access to Funding: Participation often makes municipalities eligible for grants and funding streams designed to support climate action, further offsetting costs.

Local Success Stories

- Halifax’s Climate Plan: The city’s “HalifACT” plan, part of the PCP program, outlines measures to transition to net-zero emissions by 2050 while avoiding $3.6 billion in climate-related damages.

- Toronto’s TransformTO: Investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy have created jobs while significantly reducing the city’s GHG emissions.

The PCP program costs should not be viewed as a financial burden, but as an essential investment in reducing long-term risks and costs associated with climate change. By fostering resilience and sustainability, municipalities not only save money in the long term but also enhance the quality of life for their residents, demonstrating fiscal responsibility and leadership.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Who We Are

Our Mission

Our Approach

Organization

Archives

Member Resources

Media

Advocacy Toolkits

Support Us By Purchasing From Our Shop

Redbubble

The SCGC Print Shop

KICLEI Conspiracy Theories

Countering Misinformation About ICLEI

Forward

Introduction

Natural Disasters

“Most of Antarctica is Cooling and Gaining Ice”

“There are more Polar Bears today than 50 years ago”

“There is Ample Evidence that CO2-Mitigation Measures are as Damaging as they are Costly”

Declaration Text:

Rebuttal:

Confederation is Built on Collaboration

Principles of Confederation Undermine Localism as Isolation

The Need for Compromise and Shared Realities

Respect for Indigenous Peoples and Treaties

Declaration Text:

Rebuttal:

Declaration Text:

Rebuttal:

Declaration Text:

Rebuttal:

The Harm of CO₂ Emissions is Scientifically Established

Climate Change Harms Families, Farmers, and Industries

“Unproven Technologies” is a Vague and Misleading Claim

Declaration Text:

Rebuttal:

Canada’s Energy Independence is Already Strong and Set to Grow

Rural and Remote Communities Need Tailored Solutions

Renewable Energy is a Canadian-Made Solution

Fossil Fuels are Not a Long-Term Solution

“Ideology” vs. Evidence-Based Policy

Declaration Text:

Rebuttal:

Property Rights are Already Protected by Canadian Law

Sustainability Goals Enhance Long-Term Property Value

Autonomy Comes with Responsibility

Global Goals Empower Farmers and Small Businesses

The False Threat of “Global Agendas”

Failing to Act Threatens Property Rights

Declaration Text:

Rebuttal:

Resilience is Both Local and Global

Local Food Systems Benefit from Broader Collaboration

Investments in Infrastructure and Emergency Preparedness are Enhanced by Collaboration

Self-Reliance Includes Transitioning to Sustainable Agriculture

Global Challenges Demand Shared Solutions

Declaration Text:

Rebuttal:

Privacy Protections in Canada are Strong and Evolving

Responsible Data Use is Essential for Public Good

Declaration Text:

Rebuttal:

Transparency and Accountability are Core to Sustainability Initiatives

Democratic Processes Already Govern Policy Implementation

Global Collaboration Enhances Fairness and Inclusivity

Sustainability Goals Uphold Fairness and Equal Opportunity

Accountability Mechanisms are Built into Global Frameworks

Ignoring Global Challenges Threatens Democracy

Declaration Text:

Rebuttal:

Advocating for Local Solutions

Rejecting International Pressures

Holding Governments Accountable

Supporting Practical, Measurable, and Locally Driven Environmental Stewardship

Declaration Text:

Rebuttal:

Local and Global Efforts Are Not Opposed

Global Partnerships Support Local Resilience

Prosperity Requires Interdependence

Environmental Protection Demands Global Action