TRC #534: Measles vs Anti-Vax Parents + Canada’s Forests & Carbon Emissions + Quebec Politician Falls Flat?

Cristina brings the stats and facts behind recent measles outbreaks and highlights the importance of teaching young people how to think critically. Darren explores whether Canada’s forests actually emit more carbon than they absorb. Lastly, Adam investigates whether comments about flat earth and ‘Islamophobia’ by a Quebec-based city councillor were taken out of context.

Download direct: mp3 file

Measles vs Anti-Vax Parents

Daily Beast Australia

Toronto Star

Washington Post

Global News

Oregon Live

USA Today

Vox: Measles Outbreak Clark County

Vox: Measles Outbreak Virus Vaccine


Wiki: MMR Vaccine

Canada Public Health

National Post

Vox: Andrew Wakefield

Washington Post: Mother is an anti-vaxxer

Canada’s Forests and Carbon Emissions


The Reality Check #38

Lowell Green FB post


Wiki: Hectare

Quebec Politician Falls Flat

Résultats officiels du scrutin – District de Touraine (10) – Gatineau

Propos sur l’islamophobie: la conseillère gatinoise Nathalie Lemieux s’explique – Le Droit

Il n’y a pas d’islamophobie au Québec, affirme François Legault – Radio Canada

Il y a de l’islamophobie au Québec, concède Legault – Radio Canada

Quebec ban on face covering – Wikipedia

This entry was posted in The Reality Check Episodes and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to TRC #534: Measles vs Anti-Vax Parents + Canada’s Forests & Carbon Emissions + Quebec Politician Falls Flat?

  1. Jeff Canadian long time listener says:

    I was about to un-subscribe, in part because I’m not your target audience and in part because I tend to listen to other podcasts first and in part because I recalled the 2009 podcast on forests. Has it been that long, must be time for a change. Then I listen to this one and find myself motivated to comment on every topic. For me that alone is reason enough to subscribe and say, keep up the good work!

    Here I’ll just post the least controversial part of my triggered response, the part talking about Canada’s forests and climate change (anthropogenic).

    If Canada has not always been and is not currently sinking more carbon than Canada emits what hope is there for other nations? What hope is there for the planet?

    Canada with roughly 3.5 people per sq/km and some of the worlds largest carbon sinks, including the worlds longest coastline and the most wetlands per capita, is already Net Zero carbon.

    Canada is already carbon sustainable.

    That has to be the case otherwise there would be little point in suggesting lower emissions. If Canada, given it’s huge land and water mass combined with low population density is not already low enough, not already sinking more than emitting there would be no hope for other nations becoming carbon sustainable.

    This is particularly the case for nations with 10X the population density like the USA, Madagascar, and South Africa. That would be even more so the case for those with 100X Canada’s Population Density such as India, Belgium and Japan.

    Then consider how difficult sustainability would be for Nations with 1000X or more the population density of Canada such as Malta or Bahrain.

    And would could there be any hope at all for Nations with 10,000X Canada’s population density such as Macao, Monaco or even Hong Kong?

    The message Canada needs to tell the world is that Carbon Net Zero is possible and Canada is one example of how it can be done.

    Talking about forests (one of Canada’s smaller carbon sinks) or suggesting Canada needs to lower emissions is being used to divert the discussion away from Canada’s success, Canada’s positive example to the world. Why would anyone want to hide such success, or suggest sustainability isn’t possible when it is?

    The example gets even more dramatic when people learn that Canada is sustainable in so many other ways.

    Canada’s population density of 3.5 includes the 20% of Canadians born in other, non-sustainable countries and 20% who have at least one parent not born in Canada. The key to sustainability for many nations in the 21st century is dramatic population decline, reducing the environmental load.

    Even in those nations that need to destroy old models and make new ones lower population density will help. Canada shows the world another way of achieving that decline and remaining sustainable.

    And Canada, at less than one half of one percent of the worlds population, has a standard of living most of the other 99.5% of the planet would be more than happy with if it meant sustainability.

    Canadians must speak up for Canada and it successes so that the world can see what can work. Canadians must stand up for Canada because no one else will, no one else has that responsibility in these the most competitive of times.

    As for forests yes it is an important detail. Other nations like Bhutan claim their forests make them Net Zero, and obviously Net Zero countries cannot be punished for the effects of climate change, and it’s good to point out such details. But it seems to me those details get more air time than the far more important and hopeful messages, which include Canada’s example of sustainability.

    OTHO how sustainable is Confederation, Canada itself? I’ll leave that topic for a future post. 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *