To begin to make real progress on reducing global emissions we must understand the key players in the world as described in the following Global CRUSIble table which considers the global key players of China, Russia, US & India as follows:The Global CRUSIble Table

Now what China has been able to do is to take advantage of climate change alarm in the west to create near monopolies on the manufacture of wind/solar/EVs/heatpumps because they can manufacture these items at a cost lower than any country in the west because they ignore the impact on their environment and they use the cheapest energy in the form of coal, children in Africa and Russian oil and gas.

A perfect example of the Climate Con can be considered during the term of PM Trudeau in Canada and the associated "Just Transition" and the use of a national carbon tax over this period which collected $44.9 billion dollars.

However, what the "Just Transition" ignored from the onset was the fact that CDN as a country was already doing pretty well with the use of cleaner than coal energy for the past 50+ years in the form of hydro, natural gas and CANDU nuclear energy.

However, what CDN did was ignore this in favour of made in China wind/solar/EVs/heatpumps that do not work particularly well in Canada's frigid climate. And further that the use of wind/solar gear needs fossil fuel backup, so that you essentially have two energy systems built, instead of one tried and true reliable hydro, natural gas and CANDU that CDN used for 50+ years. So in essence what CDN did with the carbon tax revenue was used to buy the made in China gear, so that cash and emissions were transferred to China, with no real reduction in global emissions. Hence the use of the term Climate Con, that the combination of China/Russia has taken advantage of the west Net Zero goals. An interesting sidenote is that India has been able to purchase Russian crude through shipping efforts that avoid sanctions against Russia, and then refine that Russian crude and sell that refined oil back to the UK, which may be a different type of con.

The other CDN climate con is the fact that during the PM Trudeau era of a "Just Transition" inspired by US climate alarm NGOs the incumbent federal goverrnment did its best to keep CDN energy in the ground with its concerted attack on one region of Canada-AB's most profitable industry-oil and gas. However, during this period the US under President Obama, Trump 1, Biden and now Trump 2 went on to become the largest producer/exporter of oil and gas in the history of the planet, with its attendent positive impact on the US economy, and conversely the exact opposite impact of the CDN "Just Transition" on the CDN economy.

However, the really strategic point relatd to the Global CRUSIble is that in 2025 all of the key countries, China, Russia, US & India are back burning coal. So really what countries like CDN does with its 1.6% of global CO2 emissions, compared to the 57.46% of global emissions that China, Russia, US & India are responsible, CDN has no real impact given the shift back to coal, by the CRUSIble!

Lastly, I will end with a recent opinion made by the US Energy Secretary Chris Wright to present the other take on the impact of energy on people's lives as follows, that what is needed in the world is not ideology first climate alarm politics, but objetive science and engineering to improve the lives of people globally:

"Energy Secretary Chris Wright key quote from the July 14, 2025 issue of The Economist:"We will treat climate change as what it is: not an existential crisis but a real, physical phenomenon that is a by-product of progress. Yes, atmospheric CO2 has increased over time—but so has life expectancy. Billions of people have been lifted out of poverty. Modern medicine, telecommunications and global transportation became possible. I am willing to take the modest negative trade-off for this legacy of human advancement.The world stands at an energy crossroads and it is time to choose. Do we want an energy policy of exclusion and scarcity that shackles humanity and limits economic potential? Or do we want a policy of inclusion and abundance, bursting all limits to growth and opportunity?America has made its choice in favour of more energy, more manufacturing and more economic activity. We invite others to do the same."