Christmas Letter 2023

 CLICK HERE TO READ MY 2023 CHRISTMAS LETTER

Note - It takes a while to load

The North Shuswap Wildfires - Was the response a lens on the New World Order

Is it possible that what we witnessed in the North Shuswap this summer were glimpses of what we can expect of the new world order? It felt eerily similar to a time when we were being governed by the World Health Organization rather than our own government. Rule by edict, state paternalism that evolved into gross state authoritarianism, civil rights trampled, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ignored. I hope this paragraph is provocative, it is meant to be. When someone as “Liberal” and as respected as Margaret Atwood describes what she is witnessing in Western society as “creeping totalitarianism”, we need to heed her words.   

Nowhere was state paternalism and its folly better demonstrated than by what happened in the North Shuswap this past summer (2023). The local population of the North Shuswap demonstrated extraordinary courage, extraordinary resourcefulness, fortitude, and effectiveness. Were their efforts lauded, supported, and augmented by the government, no, in fact, the government impeded their efforts, confiscated their property, and obstructed them from defending their own property. This blitz of authoritarianism stemmed from the arrogance of administrators in both the BC Wildfire Service and the Columbia Shuswap Regional District (CSRD). It was with absolute dismay that I witnessed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) become the hard edge of bad judgment and disregard for personal liberty. To add insult to injury, mainstream media besmirched the North Shuswap Residents (NSR) as thieves taking equipment and touting the official line, failing to tell the true story of NSRs in a meaningful way.

A story relayed to me went as follows: the CSRD issued an evacuation order. Three homeowners received the directive; two entrusted their homes to the CSRD's care, while one chose to defend his property. He stayed with a pump from the lake and his boat for an escape and fought the fire – he is fine, his house is fine, and his neighbours’ houses are gone. Whose judgment was sound and whose was not – the results indicate clearly.

It was reported to me that the BC Wildfire Service (BCWFS) decided to evacuate their crews due to a too-high level of risk. BCWFS evacuated their crews, but the locals stayed and were effective in staying the advance of the fire. The locals succeeded in that task, they are fine – who had better judgment, the results indicate clearly.

It was reported to me that a man had a tank in the back of his pickup. He was working in his community putting out spot fires – his truck, his gas, his effort – to be of service to his neighbours. He kept working even though authorities had insisted everyone shelter in place. Presumably, he knew, sheltering in place was stupid and ineffective when there are spot fires that threaten to create large fires and that’s why he RIGHTFULLY defied the order. The 'authorities' confiscated his truck and forced him to walk home, purportedly for his safety. Such decisions, made by inexperienced individuals remotely assessing safety concerns, disregarded his autonomy. Retrospective analysis clearly upholds the judgment of NSR and clearly indicates the poor judgment of government actors.

There was some nattering about training, the assertion was that citizens to protect their own property required a course in firefighting. So, this would indicate a 20-something with the life experience of a lab rat and a course was better equipped to fight a fire than the man that had worked in the woods his whole life, donated his own caterpillar to the cause, and began to cut a fireguard. It was reported to me, that the brave, generous citizen that acted was rewarded by being fined. I have used the water device to put out spot fires, and I have made fire guard … these are very basic tasks that you can learn in minutes, no course required – if you can muster up the manual dexterity to urinate, you can manage a Pulaski.

Credentials can be important, the challenge of course the giving of credentials has become an industry, a profit center unto itself. When I was seven years of age, my family had lost our father. My older brother, at 17 years of age, was tasked with putting up the hay. Logistics demanded that the hay be raked while he bailed the hay, and he asked me to help. He showed me how to operate the tractor before, for fun, the raking hay was a new task, he gave me instructions, and I followed them. I was proud to be able to contribute in a meaningful way and I am here to tell the story. I see adults having to take courses to operate a motorcycle or quads and side by sides. I think it would be hard to find a person my age who is absent from the experience of jumping on a machine, figuring out how to use it, and putting it to use. Caution is required of course, but everyone I know my age did and we’re all fine.  One understands the value of training, it can be necessary. One must, however, balance the value of training with stupid false imperatives associated with credentials, credentials that the granting of is a profit center and credentials that are serving as a supply management function under the guise of safety imperatives.  

I have a good deal of respect for people who fight forest fires, the young people on the ground. One understands the imperative to attend to their safety.  One understands the concern of leadership to reduce the risk in a risky endeavour. The challenge is, that there is no reward for risk for the leaders fighting the fire, so they are risk-averse. A person defending their life’s work, a farm, a ranch, a business are willing to fight tooth and nail, they are willing to risk everything, perhaps even their life – no state actor has the right to stand in their way. When one is fighting for their life’s work, they are willing to take risks they would never expect or want the young people who are employed by the government to take.

It is important to note, that people are allowed to risk their lives in defense of themselves and their property – there is a large body of law to support this fact, and obstructing them from doing so excites Section Seven of the Charter.

It is perverse to me that the assertion by members of government and the press that a person defending their life’s work is somehow putting first responders at risk – when a property owner is pursuing an action that involves risk, the decision whether to respond or not should they come under distress lays firmly with the first responder. The actions of the Wildfire Service indicate these judgments were made, they felt it too risky to fight the fire for a time and withdrew, leaving citizens there to defend their properties.

When the government obstructs a citizen from defending their own property, it is taking control of the citizen’s property. This is a de facto act of expropriation. The only time the government is permitted to expropriate property is when there is a clear and pressing public interest. When one’s barn is on fire, the only pressing interest is to put it out; the public interest is inherently satisfied by the owner’s actions, if they have success the fire never spreads.  Government actors are often saying they possess a liability if people defend their property and get harmed – incorrect interpretation of the law. The government has a liability in obstructing (effectively the temporary expropriation of property) and effecting a loss to the landowner. This assertion is made under the rubric of Section 7 law, a law that the BC Emergency Program Act (EPA) is subordinated to.

The manner in which the EPA is being administered is effecting several ills, all vividly displayed in the North Shuswap this summer. The act itself is poorly constructed as such its use generates gross overbreadth and permits an obscene degree of authoritarianism. I have been affected personally by the act. I have arrived at roadblocks personed by varying authorities, in every instance when I’ve requested a copy of the order that is authorizing the roadblock none have produced the order. Often it is just a civilian standing there as opposed to a police officer. It seems then anyone can arbitrarily block a road. At every instance in Canada, when one’s liberty is impaired, it must be done so by fundamental law, the only way a citizen can know this is being attended to is by knowing what law is governing them. By extension, one must have the opportunity for legal recourse, in this case injunctive relief. The only means to seek legal recourse is by knowing what law is affecting one.

In reviewing policy related to Covid 19 I have found interesting reading that indicates the use of government edicts that suppress fundamental freedoms are ineffective, or, rendered mute by public behavior. When a mother is informed that a fire is likely to consume her home and endanger her children, her immediate response is to load them into the car and evacuate. There is no requirement to order her to leave providing the government actors delivering the message are credible. When the government gives notice of impending danger, people are grateful and respond – so that is what the government should do. Issue notices of impending danger and recommend the means to respond to that danger. This transforms the government from descending into state paternalism and all its trapping to an entity providing needed data.

When you say to a rancher who has been running their ranch for 30 years and spent his life taking care of himself and his property, there is a fire coming that is likely to consume your ranch, he’ll look over the hill, contemplate the assertion and makeup is mind whether to stay or go – that is his choice to make. There was this very circumstance at Risky Creek some years ago, the ranchers stayed, fought the fire, and prevailed, had they left all would have been lost. They did so in contravention of an evacuation order, had they left by order of the government, and their property destroyed, the government should have been expected to be held libel.

If you read this and have some antidotes to offer or input to offer please do. This has taken the form of a blog post, it is excerpted from a government report I am preparing. Any data you might add may serve to help effect a change in the behaviour of the government and its subordinates. 

 Dear Mayor and Council

RE: The City of Kamloops Climate Action Plan (KCAP)

In an effort to effect action in combating climate change, there has been an exaggeration generated by proponents of climate action, an exaggeration that has a very serious challenge elevated to a “climate emergency”.  This exaggeration has wrought the public's map of reality with respect to environmental challenges and most egregious, it has taken our collective “eye” off of very real environmental challenges; environmental challenges we can do something about.  The document associated with this policy initiative reads as much as a social engineering initiative as it does an environmental initiative, as is often the case, social initiatives come under the guise of environmental concern. It is a combination of climate “emergency” exaggeration and environmental issues being highjacked for social purposes that has generated a mountain of ineffective environmental policy – as the Kamloops Climate Action Plan largely is.  

I submit that the KCAP will have no positive effect on climate whatsoever. The KCAP was very lean on financial data by which to judge the cost/benefit picture, so I have no idea what the total cost will be. One thing I am certain of, there will be costs. So, there will be costs and no effect on climate whatsoever.

I’m finding the parking in the downtown a deterrent; I find myself going elsewhere to shop. The envisioned reconfiguration to a “10 Minute” neighbourhood should terrify anybody in the present retail space.

There was a suggestion that funds for the plan may come in part from an increase in Development Cost Charges. I was unable to ascertain a total figure for DCCs from the bylaw data on the city’s website. Anything that increases the cost of housing attacks Kamloop's livability. It is important to remember young people purchasing a home, in the main, do so with credit. While interest rate dependent, as a rule of thumb, triple any cost you add to a home to account for the total mortgaged amount paid. Transaction costs on homes are astronomical when contextualized to this reality.

Rebutting the Premise of the KCAP

“Unfortunately, climate change threatens this future, and many of its impacts are already being felt, including increasing extreme summer heat waves and droughts, more frequent and intense wildfires, seasonal flooding, warmer winter temperatures leading to pine beetle infestations, changes to stream flow affecting salmon populations, and stresses to natural ecosystems and agriculture. Climate scientists predict that these impacts will only intensify as average global temperatures continue to rise.”

This Excerpt from the KCAP is the kind of comment that presents an emergency where a challenge exists. Attributing short-term analysis to a long-term problem is always foolhardy, the degree to which people attribute every event as proof positive climate change is real is embarrassing. We had the dust bowls of the 1930s, millions displaced and starved, and there were large forest fires during that decade.  This has been true throughout history.

I share people’s concerns regarding issues like habitat depletion, pollution, and extinction. What is never mentioned, nor entered into the cost-benefit analysis, are the benefits of a warmer climate. Canada has millions of acres of marginal farmland, farmland marginalized by cold climate. Where we can only grow forage crops now, we’ll be able to grow grain. Just a marginal increase in temperature will allow a farmer to transition from Barley to Wheat for example. The Climate issue tends to have people touting fantasy solutions. We will never feed humanity on little local gardens; they can contribute but they’ll never be the solution – the green revolution and all the trappings of modern agriculture is what is needed to feed the world.

“But the worst impacts of climate change are not inevitable. By working together as a community and with all levels of government, we can minimize our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change and increase our resilience to its impacts. This plan is a call to action, and it will require municipal, public, and private collaboration to combat climate change.”

There is nothing in this plan that will impact climate change. The only thing we can be sure of is that there will be disasters befall us, weather and otherwise. So, a call for preparedness makes sense. If we are prepared for weather events we are prepared for war, food shortages, and other negative events.

Framing the Issue

A full-sum discussion on the issue of climate change is outside the scope of this document, however, allow me to make a couple points. Please note the infographic below. If Canada eliminated all emissions, we’d have no effect on CO2 emissions and no real impact on climate change since the non-OECD nation’s gains in emissions would negate our reduction in emissions. So rather than directing funds toward something that no domestic effort can impact, we should direct resources to preparedness and adaptation. 

These graphs indicate that non-OECD countries will be growing their carbon footprint. Please note the thin green line, that is renewables. People tout them as the solution, they are in fact predicted to have very little impact on emissions.

I think any rational person can look at these facts and deduce that nothing Kamloops does will have any effect on climate change. That is true of Canada also. There is only one solution to carbon emissions, an emission-free $50 / barrel of oil equivalent. I should note also that these estimates are very optimistic given even Canada seems unable to meet climate targets.

What to do

They say, if you criticize absent a suggested course of action, you’re just complaining.

Environmental Actions

Reducing the impact on the environment is always a good thing, so seeking efficiencies in transportation and housing makes sense. The plan recognizes this as an important part of the way forward. We can pursue that goal absent seeking to restructure our society, that is to say, we can do business as we do now and effect better use of resources.

The Fraser Basin Watershed is a gift to be treasured. A constructive thing that Kamloops can do is reduce the city’s downstream effect on the watershed. I’ve observed several instances where our “storm drainage” system spills directly into the North and South Thompson Rivers, this is a detrimental event, particularly for Salmon. We can take measures to direct runoff in a manner that prevents debris from road surfaces from finding its way into the river. We could put building code requirements that segregate gray water from black water, better allowing us to manage waste flow, perhaps directing gray water to irrigation – a practice used in other jurisdictions. We can encourage the use of composting toilets; if properly done, human waste becomes an asset rather than a liability.

We could have and should, transform our water system from pumping water from the river to using the abundance of high-elevation water near the city, thus, saving money and energy in the delivery of water – freeing up grid space for charging electric cars perhaps.

We could and should encourage the creative use of low-carbon, local materials in building processes. I had given some thought to this challenge; I prepared a discussion paper in 2013 that I submitted to the City of Kamloops and the Regional district – neither saw fit to reply.  Click Here to View  I should note that the building system is well established, it was substantiated as good and safe by the government of Manitoba so First Nations people could build homes from scrub timber.

 

There are thousands of piles like the one above in our region slated to be burnt, just wasted, I could likely build 2 or more houses out of this pile alone, inexpensive and enviro-friendly. Cooperation from authorities is required to pursue this type of solution for environmental and low-cost housing challenges.

I submit that the forest fire challenge we’ve been experiencing and our very expensive response to it is in large measure a manageable problem. I submit that successive provincial governments have failed to manage the forest aggressively enough, so once again the municipalities are forced to. I have noticed around the city that some initiative has been taken in interface areas, others are still in need of attention.

We need to expend more effort on developing wildlife corridors. Our city has an abundance of wildlife, we need to manage the wildlife. They often come into conflict with human activities. They often cross thoroughfares to access water, for example, with undesirable results. Simple actions like putting watering facilities to permit the deer to drink without going to the river; this simple act would have saved a dozen or so deer/car encounters on Westside Road that I am aware of.

Kamloops has large tracts of land left unattended that are a source of pestilence. Noxious weeds are growing in population. While efforts have been made in this regard, greater effort is required to avoid the city contributing to negative externalities. 

Kamloops is blessed with an abundance of park space; the challenge is to access it, one nearly always needs to get in a car. What is deficient in the city is urban green space. Go to any 7-Eleven in the city and buy a Coffee and a muffin, then look for a place to sit and eat, you’ll be frustrated.

There are many opportunities for our city to contribute to, and make a difference to the environment, we should focus our efforts on what we can do to effect positive impacts.

Preparedness

Preparedness tends to be a bit of an abstraction or a hypothetical, so people tend to turn a blind eye to it. No level of government in the country is investing at a sufficient level. As with most issues, like homelessness, when higher levels of government neglect the problem municipal governments are forced to deal with it.

At the risk of sounding alarmist, our circumstances have never been as perilous since the Cuban Missile Crisis. There are several viable scenarios that could lead to war. Tensions are very high.  A disruption to the life of Kamloops citizens is as likely to come from a political misjudgment as a climate issue.

As we learned with something as normal as the Fraser River flooding, food and the basics of life can run out very quickly. Credit to retailers for making the adjustments necessary to the supply chain to get food to us from the east, had that corridor been blocked for some reason our lives would have become very difficult. If we allow our minds to go to WW2-type experiences where European cities experienced famine, we might begin to think about substantive means to ensure food security. While local producers are a critical element of the food security picture, they would likely be unable to fill the gap in a scenario of extended disturbance to the food supply.

One method that may be cost-effective is to have the Railroads leave railcars intended for the port of Vancouver loaded with eatable crops, lentils for example at a designated siding to be cycled out to ensure the food’s viability. The constant rotation of eatable crops would require some management. It may be a fee could be paid to hold them here for a time. It may mean the city purchases and sells the eatable crops; in bulk – one car in one car out. This would ensure a large enough volume of food stored in our city to feed people for an extended period of time at a fairly low cost. A “winter’s” supply perhaps. The rail transport of LNG may be a viable option in the future, the same arrangement may apply. One can contextualize the value of this strategy to Germany’s present circumstances.

There may be merit in approaching local producers like Blackwell Dairies to formulate a plan to expand production in the event of an extended interruption to our food supply. There is a substantive supply of beef in our area, the use and processing of this resource should be considered.

Of course, we need to coordinate with provincial and federal governments – they are seemingly unconcerned. If the Covid response is any indication of how governments would react to a “war” type threat, we’d better take the initiative to take care of ourselves.

In a war-type scenario, we’d have the prospect of the lower mainland’s population needing to be cared for inland. I am unsure where the city is on this issue, it would be a herculean task.

We have had the good fortune in Canada to have been free of war and to live with limited exposure to natural disasters. We did have the great depression and the dirty 80s. The great depression brought on by weather events was a painful chapter; the 80’s less so. If you put your head on the pillow believing that this condition is bound to continue, you are engaged in a failure of leadership.  I’m not suggesting we build a Diefenbunker for us all to jump into, we do need to be prepared.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Neil E. Thomson