Activist shares how Canadians can fight globalism through local action

Maggie Braun, the founder of Kicking International Council out of Local Environmental Initiatives, told LifeSiteNews that there are ‘small wins happening every day’ against globalism by pro-local Canadians.

A pro-freedom advocate told LifeSiteNews that many Canadians have already successfully stood up to the meddling of the United Nations’ globalist agenda, encouraging all citizens to know their rights under the law to protect their local communities.

During a November 20 discussion at the Rankin Culture and Recreation Centre in Pembroke, Ontario, about the ways in which the United Nations are breaking municipal laws and violating property rights in an effort to achieve their globalist goals, Maggie Braun, the founder of Kicking International Council out of Local Environmental Initiatives (KICLEI), shared just what Canadians have been doing to successfully stand up for their local communities.

“There’s small wins happening every day,” Braun told LifeSiteNews in an interview before the discussion.

“Counselors opening up and communicating with the community and our concerns and just bridging that gap and sharing and exchanging information with them and slowly watching them start to make moves to withdraw from the programs or shut down renewable energy projects that don’t make sense in their area,” she shared as an example of successful pushback.

KICLEI is an organization dedicated to empowering local governments to address the needs in their community, and not to blindly follow the direction of groups like the UN.

The group also works to ensure “every Canadian enjoys the right to privacy, property, and self-determination, while fostering respect for our cultural and regional diversity.”

According to Braun, her goal is to “advocate for local environmental stewardship programs over globally mandated climate action plans” by informing Canadians of their property rights, particularly with respect to the attempted implementation of the UN’s climate policies.

“We’ve discovered that these programs are coming in through an organization called ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, who have brought certain programs down to the municipal level to drive climate action plans,” Braun explained.

Following this discovery, Braun has been working to bring awareness to the issue and persuade city and town councils to vote against UN recommendations which would undermine their citizens’ sovereignty. She revealed that her first victory was in Thorold, Ontario.

“We did four delegations in a row and by the end of it the staff recommended that they withdraw from the program,” Braun stated. “We just had to show up and do the basic work and it worked.”

“That was our first big win and now we’ve taken those strategies, developed tools that we can bring across the country” to help citizens “push back on the climate action plan.”

Earlier in November, Maggie Hope Braun told LifeSiteNews via email that the meeting will address how global agendas, “particularly UN climate initiatives,” are reshaping municipal priorities and policies across Canada.

Braun voiced concerned over local governments feeling pressured to adopt policies set by international organizations rather than responding to local priorities.

“Programs aligned with UN climate goals often come with strings attached, especially regarding federal funding, which can compel municipalities to follow UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to access resources,” she wrote. “This reliance can dilute local autonomy, making it difficult for municipalities to allocate budgets according to their own needs, as funding is often tied to specific climate-related expenditures—like electric fleets—that may not suit every community’s practical or economic realities.”

She added that these programs often introduce costly mandates, increase taxes, and, in some cases, affect privacy through the use of data-monitoring smart technologies, all of which can strain communities financially and socially.

“Canadians are beginning to feel these pressures, and many are questioning the long-term impacts on their rights, privacy, and economic well-being,” Braun stated.

Braun’s concerns are hardly unfounded as in March, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued an “urgent” call for countries around the world to sign on to their sovereignty-undermining “Pandemic Accord” by May. However, as May came around, countries were still unable to agree on the treaty, with many refusing to sign away their sovereign rights.

As a result, the treaty was not signed into law, but critics have warned that the WHO will likely continues its efforts to coerce countries to sign the document.

Similarly, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “pandemic prevention and preparedness” bill is set to become law despite concerns raised by Conservative senators that it gives sweeping powers to government, particularly over agriculture.

Up Next

Parents in every province—not just Alberta—deserve as much school choice as possible

Don't Miss

Putin calls out Biden for ‘escalating’ war in Ukraine right before Trump takes office

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Landmark 2025 Study Says Near-Death Experiences Can’t Be Explained Away

Focal Points / 7 hours ago

STUDY: TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube Shorts Induce Measurable “Brain Rot”

Health / 12 hours ago

Tens of thousands are dying on waiting lists following decades of media reluctance to debate healthcare

Business

Canada is failing dismally at our climate goals. We’re also ruining our economy.

Published on November 20, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Short-term climate pledges simply chase deadlines, not results

The annual meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties, or COP, which is dedicated to implementing international action on climate change, is now underway in Brazil. Like other signatories to the Paris Agreement, Canada is required to provide a progress update on our pledge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. After decades of massive government spending and heavy-handed regulations aimed at decarbonizing our economy, we’re far from achieving that goal. It’s time for Canada to move past arbitrary short-term goals and deadlines, and instead focus on more effective ways to support climate objectives.

Since signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, the federal government has introduced dozens of measures intended to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions, including more than $150 billion in “green economy” spending, the national carbon tax, the arbitrary cap on emissions imposed exclusively on the oil and gas sector, stronger energy efficiency requirements for buildings and automobiles, electric vehicle mandates, and stricter methane regulations for the oil and gas industry.

Recent estimates show that achieving the federal government’s target will impose significant costs on Canadians, including 164,000 job losses and a reduction in economic output of 6.2 per cent by 2030 (compared to a scenario where we don’t have these measures in place). For Canadian workers, this means losing $6,700 (each, on average) annually by 2030.

Yet even with all these costly measures, Canada will only achieve 57 per cent of its goal for emissions reductions. Several studies have already confirmed that Canada, despite massive green spending and heavy-handed regulations to decarbonize the economy over the past decade, remains off track to meet its 2030 emission reduction target.

And even if Canada somehow met its costly and stringent emission reduction target, the impact on the Earth’s climate would be minimal. Canada accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions, and that share is projected to fall as developing countries consume increasing quantities of energy to support rising living standards. In 2025, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), emerging and developing economies are driving 80 per cent of the growth in global energy demand. Further, IEA projects that fossil fuels will remain foundational to the global energy mix for decades, especially in developing economies. This means that even if Canada were to aggressively pursue short-term emission reductions and all the economic costs it would imposes on Canadians, the overall climate results would be negligible.

Rather than focusing on arbitrary deadline-contingent pledges to reduce Canadian emissions, we should shift our focus to think about how we can lower global GHG emissions. A recent study showed that doubling Canada’s production of liquefied natural gas and exporting to Asia to displace an equivalent amount of coal could lower global GHG emissions by about 1.7 per cent or about 630 million tonnes of GHG emissions. For reference, that’s the equivalent to nearly 90 per cent of Canada’s annual GHG emissions. This type of approach reflects Canada’s existing strength as an energy producer and would address the fastest-growing sources of emissions, namely developing countries.

As the 2030 deadline grows closer, even top climate advocates are starting to emphasize a more pragmatic approach to climate action. In a recent memo, Bill Gates warned that unfounded climate pessimism “is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” Even within the federal ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the tone is shifting. Despite the 2030 emissions goal having been a hallmark of Canadian climate policy in recent years, in a recent interview, Minister Julie Dabrusin declined to affirm that the 2030 targets remain feasible.

Instead of scrambling to satisfy short-term national emissions limits, governments in Canada should prioritize strategies that will reduce global emissions where they’re growing the fastest.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Environment

The Myths We’re Told About Climate Change | Michael Shellenberger

Published on November 11, 2025

Todayville

Jan Jekielek

Is the era of climate extremism ending? That’s what I wanted to find out when I sat down with Michael Shellenberger, author of ‘Apocalypse Never’ and founder of the non-profit Environmental Progress.

Why is it, I asked him, that Bill Gates recently rejected “doomsday” predictions and started calling for a more pragmatic, human-centered approach?

From rising sea levels to surging forest fires to dying polar bears to disappearing coral reefs, much of what we’ve been told about climate change is not true, he says.

The rising sea level narrative, for example, rests entirely on computer models that were manipulated to produce the desired outcome, Shellenberger says.

“It’s clear that the activist scientists were manipulating models to show an acceleration in sea level rise when the only long-term, reliable source of data, which is called tide gauge data…shows no acceleration from the 1850s on,” he says.

How is data cherry-picked or skewed to create misleading narratives? What’s behind the sudden embrace of nuclear energy—after it had been demonized for decades? How might it be related to the global AI race?