Climate ambassador’s Paris stay costs taxpayers $428 per night

Climate Change Ambassador Catherine Stewart charged taxpayers $428 per night for her stay at a downtown Paris hotel while promoting Canada’s carbon tax, according to Access To Information records. Blacklock's Reporter says the hotel, located near the Eiffel Tower, also charged $22 for croissants and coffee.“Ambassador Stewart engaged in outreach with the carbon markets bureau in London, Paris, and Geneva to advance the Prime Minister’s global carbon pricing outreach,” stated the Department of Environment. “In-person outreach was required to have candid conversations to help inform the development of a strategy to advance this initiative the Prime Minister has mandated Ambassador Stewart to lead.”Stewart’s trip included participation in events in London and Paris at the invitation of Canada’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and Canada’s Ambassador to France. The purpose was to showcase Canada’s leadership in climate change initiatives.Details of the January 2023 trip show Stewart initially billed $3,350 for her stay in London, including a $412-per-night stay at the Club Quarters Hotel at Trafalgar Square. She then moved to Paris, staying at the three-star Hotel Alison for $428 per night. The Hotel Alison, described as “perfectly located” near the Tuileries Garden, offers proximity to the Champs Elysées, Grand Palais, Opéra Garnier, and major department stores. The Eiffel Tower is just a two-minute walk from the hotel lobby..TripAdvisor reviews rate the Hotel Alison positively, though one visitor noted that “breakfast was kind of expensive,” with charges for a croissant and coffee at $22.The London-to-Paris trip was part of $254,089 in travel expenses incurred by Stewart in her 23 months on the job.Stewart’s appointment followed a $79,015 focus group research by the Department of Environment to determine the most fitting phrase to describe climate change.“Participants were asked which of the following descriptors they would prefer: ‘climate change,’ ‘extreme weather,’ ‘climate crisis,’ and ‘climate emergency,’” stated the Nature Based Solutions And Cleaner Environment Advertising Campaign Testing report. Preferences were split between ‘climate change’ and ‘climate crisis.’“Those who favoured ‘climate change’ felt it is a widely known and familiar phrase and should be used to appeal to a broader audience, and also not to turn off people who are skeptical about the seriousness of climate change,” the report noted.“Those who favoured ‘climate crisis’ did so because they believe it is a crisis and should be called as such. They argued that ‘climate change’ has been around for a long time and has lost emotional impact,” researchers wrote. “‘Climate crisis’ is better at evoking an emotional response and a sense of urgency.”