Michael John O'Brien

Born/Raised in Buchans, Newfoundland. Proud Newfoundlander, Irish Heritage. I come from a Mining Town/Mining Family. Studied Mechanical Engineering at MUN.

[MajoMéndezCasariego ⚔️ @MJMendezCasarie]

“Fui marxista, sí. Pero esa teoría nunca fue puesta realmente a prueba. El test es muy simple: si los ricos mantienen pobres a los pobres, entonces los países con más multimillonarios deberían tener también más pobreza. Sin embargo, al comparar los datos, Estados Unidos tiene más multimillonarios que África y Oriente Medio juntos, y aun así el nivel de vida de los pobres en Estados Unidos es más alto que el de la población de esas regiones. Por ese simple criterio, la teoría no se sostiene.”
— Thomas Sowell

[Michael John O'Brien @MichaelOBrien66]

Bullshit.

This is beyond stupid.

Anyone with a set of eyes, the ability to read or even review a few discussions / interviews with people like former Leader of Opposition Tom Mulcair (NDP) knows, the clearance as leader of opposition is in effect a muzzle. Pierre is correct to not obtain it at this time or on a case by case basis, he has had it and will have it again

This is base, knuckle-dragging fear mongering, nothing more.

https://t.co/cHWF5dJAw0

[Royal Newfoundland Constabulary @RNC_PoliceNL]

The RNC has charged three people in connection with the largest fentanyl seizure in the province. Combined, the accused face almost 85 manufacturing, possession, trafficking, and weapons-related charges.
The full release is available on our website - https://t.co/50CTsKsAxE

[Michael John O'Brien @MichaelOBrien66]

Pierre Poilievre is the target of a relentless misinformation campaign, and these claims are flat-out wrong. No evidence exists that he pledged to join Trump’s “war on woke ideology” on Nov 6, 2024—pure fabrication meant to smear him. Endorsements from Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, JD Vance, and Elon Musk are baseless; only Jordan Peterson and Kevin O’Leary have actually voiced support, while the rest are made-up to paint Poilievre as a far-right extremist. The “compromised” claim is a desperate lie with zero proof—CSIS and CPC haven’t flagged him, and no scandal exists. His voting record (e.g., against $10/day childcare, pharmacare, same-sex marriage in 2005) is real but twisted out of context to demonize him; he opposes big government, not progress, and the CPC dropped anti-same-sex marriage stances in 2016. These distortions are a coordinated attack to derail his campaign—don’t buy the lies! #CdnPoli #FactsMatter

[Michael John O'Brien @MichaelOBrien66]

Carbon Tax Shift to Industry Costs ~ $25–$48 billion to our GDP for a 0.005°C Gain in 100 Years

Shifting the carbon tax (e.g., $170/tonne by 2030) to industry may cut Canada’s emissions by 5% (Environment Canada, 2021), reducing warming by ~0.005°C by 2125 (IPCC).

This pales against the immediate economic hit: a $25–$48 billion GDP loss and increased poverty pressures. Canada’s oil/LNG, if exported, could cut global emissions by 150–200 MtCO2/year by replacing dirtier coal (IEA, 2023), while boosting GDP by $30B/year (CAPP, 2023) and lifting millions from poverty (10–20 million/year in China, thread data). The tax shift, by raising costs and slowing growth, undermines this potential, prioritizing speculative long-term gains over urgent human needs

[Michael John O'Brien @MichaelOBrien66]

Emissions Caps Add $5B in Costs, Hiking Prices for Canadians for a 0.01°C Reduction in Warming by 2125

Emissions caps on oil sands (e.g., 100 MtCO2/year limit) might reduce Canada’s emissions by 10% (Environment Canada, 2021), equating to ~0.01°C less warming by 2125 (IPCC).

But they raise production costs by $5B yearly (CAPP, 2023), driving up energy prices (fuel up 30% since 2019, Statistics Canada) and exacerbating energy poverty for 8% of households (Canadian Energy Centre, 2023). Globally, reduced Canadian oil/LNG forces reliance on dirtier sources like Russian gas, adding 200 MtCO2/year (IEA, 2023), and limits energy access for 2.8 billion in poverty (WHO). This policy trades significant immediate harm for a tiny climate benefit, ignoring the urgent needs of millions.

[Michael John O'Brien @MichaelOBrien66]

Decade-Long Delays for Mines, Oil, and LNG Kill $50B in Investment, Slowing Poverty Reduction for a 0.008°C Gain

Delays in approving mines, oil, and LNG projects by a decade reduce Canada’s fossil fuel output, potentially cutting emissions by 5% (Environment Canada, 2021), contributing ~0.008°C less warming by 2125 (IPCC).

However, this halts $50B in annual investment (CAPP, 2023), slashing Canada’s GDP by $20B and 80,000 jobs yearly (Elmira Aliakbari, 2023 study). Globally, it limits LNG exports that could cut 700 MtCO2/year by replacing coal in Asia (IEA, 2023), and denies 1.1 billion people (World Bank) reliable energy. This slows poverty reduction—China lifts 10–20 million yearly with coal (your data)—for a negligible climate gain, prioritizing speculative future risks over immediate human needs.

[Michael John O'Brien @MichaelOBrien66]

Tanker Ban Blocks $16B in Oil Exports, Raising Global Emissions for a Mere 0.005°C Gain by 2125

Bill C-48 bans oil tankers off BC’s north coast, aiming to reduce spill risks, but its climate impact is minimal—shifting oil exports to pipelines or rail might add 0.005°C to 2125 warming if fully curtailed (IPCC, proportional to Canada’s 1.5% global emissions).

Yet, it blocks $16B in annual oil exports (CAPP, 2023), costing Canada $5B in GDP and 20,000 jobs yearly (Jairo Yunis, 2023 study). Globally, it prevents cleaner Canadian oil from displacing dirtier sources like Venezuela’s heavy oil, increasing emissions by 100 MtCO2/year (IEA, 2023). This deprives energy-poor regions of reliable fuel, stunting development for 2.8 billion in energy poverty (WHO), who face 4 million deaths yearly from lack of access (WHO), all for an insignificant climate benefit.

[Michael John O'Brien @MichaelOBrien66]

Protecting C-69 (Impact Assessment Act) - bad move! C-69 Stalls $25B in Energy Projects, Costing Jobs for a Negligible 0.01°C Less Warming by 2125:

•Minimal 100-Year Benefit: C-69’s stringent reviews delay oil/LNG projects, contributing to Canada’s emissions reductions (10% per capita drop, 2010–2020, IPCC AR6). If fully effective, Canada’s cuts might reduce global warming by 0.01°C by 2125 (IPCC models, as Canada emits ~1.5% of global CO2).
•Immediate Costs: C-69 stalls $25B in energy projects annually (CAPP, 2023), costing Canada $10B in lost GDP yearly and 50,000 jobs, per economist G. Kent Fellows (2023 study). Globally, it limits ethical LNG exports that could replace China’s coal (5,742 TWh in 2023, Ember), missing a chance to cut global emissions by 500 MtCO2/year (IEA, 2023) while denying energy-poor nations (1.1 billion without electricity, World Bank) reliable power.

The Impact Assessment Act (C-69) imposes rigorous environmental reviews that delay oil and LNG projects, stunting Canada’s energy sector. These delays contribute to a 10% per capita emissions drop (2010–2020, IPCC AR6), but Canada’s 1.5% share of global emissions means this might reduce warming by just 0.01°C by 2125 (IPCC models). Meanwhile, C-69 stalls $25B in annual energy projects (CAPP, 2023), costing Canada $10B in lost GDP and 50,000 jobs yearly (G. Kent Fellows, 2023 study). Globally, it limits ethical LNG exports that could replace China’s coal (5,742 TWh in 2023, Ember), missing a chance to cut 500 MtCO2/year (IEA, 2023). This denies 1.1 billion people without electricity (World Bank) reliable power, slowing development and poverty reduction, while the climate gain remains trivial compared to immediate economic harm.

[Michael John O'Brien @MichaelOBrien66]

@kinsellawarren Quick to make excuses for Carney. Same old story, Liberals get a pass…

[Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff]

25% tariffs on goods coming in from Mexico and Canada are not a disaster for Canada or Mexico. There will be declines in U.S. sales, but those countries can still consume those goods domestically or export to other nations. So companies making those goods will see profits fall for the portion of their sales that go to the next highest bidders.

But Americans will be paying higher prices on all Canadian and Mexican imports they buy, or for higher-priced domestic substitutes where available. But many lower-income Americans will be priced out of the market for those goods entirely.

So the tariffs portend more negative consequences for Americans than they do for Canadians or Mexicans. If either Mexico or Canada retaliates with tariffs of their own, the effect will be the same. Their own citizens will suffer more than Americans. That is the unique nature of a trade war. Each side suffers most from its own offensive.

The best way for Mexico and Canada to win is not to retaliate. That would include not providing any subsidies to exporters or any attempt to weaken their currencies. That would only reduce the sting tariffs have on Americans, shift the burden to their own people, and prolong the trade war.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

This is so crazy

[Pierre Poilievre @PierrePoilievre]

Dead last!

The worst per person income growth in the G7 after 9 years of Jagmeet and Justin.

[American AF 🇺🇸 @iAnonPatriot]

Joe Rogan has updated his X bio, in regards to Whoopi Goldbergs comment about him.

Never deleting this app. 🤣🤣

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Inflation is caused by the Federal government spending more than it earns, because they just print more money to make up the difference.

To solve inflation, reduce wasteful government spending. Your tax dollars should be spent well, not poorly.

[Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki @MatthewWielicki]

This is too easy.

[Thomas Sowell Quotes @ThomasSowell]

Instead of trying to propagandize children to hug trees and recycle garbage, our schools would be put to better use teaching them how to analyze and test what is said by people who advocate tree-hugging, recycling, and innumerable other causes across the political spectrum.

The point is not to teach them correct conclusions but to teach them to be able to use their own minds to analyze the issues that will come up in the years ahead, which may have nothing to do with recycling or any of the other issues of our time.