Interview with Shane Wolffe, P.Eng. – Award-Winning Sustainability Consultant in Whitehorse, Yukon

When CBC backed out of covering his Yukon Small Business 2025 Sustainability Award, I decided to interview him myself.

Dmitry Gorodnichy, Ph.D.

Apr 16, 2025

https://dg4vp.substack.com/p/interview-with-shane-wolffe-peng

I had the pleasure and privilege of speaking with Shane Wolffe, P.Eng.—an award-winning sustainability consultant based in Whitehorse, Yukon.

Recently, Shane received the Yukon Small Business 2025 Sustainability Award. The CBC initially expressed interest in interviewing him, but later backed out—allegedly due to views he shared on Facebook that didn’t align with the narrative CBC wished to promote. So, I decided to do the interview myself.

If Shane worked for the Government of Canada, he would likely be a member of PIPSC, like many other professional engineers (P.Eng.) employed across various federal departments. But he runs his own company—which means he doesn’t have to self-censor or tiptoe around the “inconvenient truths” that many government-employed engineers might feel too afraid to speak about publicly.

This candid and wide-ranging conversation covers everything from sustainable infrastructure and climate science, to censorship, government accountability, and what it really means to be “green” in a world where the word is often used more for marketing than for meaningful change. 

Transcript

Dmitry: Okay, here you go. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the show. I have an amazing person today—Shane Wolf from, uh, from Yellowknife—

Shane:  No, Whitehorse. Whitehorse! 

Dmitry: You see, to me, it's almost the same. No, because I'm in Ottawa. 

Shane:  You’d notice the difference if you come up here from Yellowknife. But yeah, we were just talking about—I’m a professional engineer. I work with green buildings and energy efficiency, and I was telling Dmitry how I'm helping my clients. Like, I'm basically the owner's engineer for one of the First Nations here. I'm helping them revamp their water plant because it was overengineered and super complicated.

That's a recipe for disaster when you're talking about infrastructure in remote areas where you have to have specialized skill sets to run certain types of infrastructure. So that's a bad thing to do to northern communities—have them dependent on super advanced technology that the capacity to run is not necessarily in that remote community.

So yeah, that’s where we were when you hit record.

Yeah, yeah. That’s right. That's right.

Dmitry: So again, can you tell me more—how did you  got an award? Like, you got award—right?

Shane:  Yeah, I won the 2025 Yukon Small Business Sustainability Award, which was through an organization called Eco Canada. And Eco Canada—it stands for Environmental Careers Organization. So they do a lot of training for people in environmental fields. I decided to dedicate my career to fighting climate change in 2006. I was working for Saskatchewan Government Insurance at the time as a programmer analyst.

I had heard of climate change and was aware that it would probably be a big issue. I started doing more research. I was working in a field called reinsurance, which is where the insurance industry insures itself. I started trying to promote the idea that, as a company, Saskatchewan Government Insurance should be looking out for climate change—and nobody seemed to care in the organization.

I just decided, basically, I'm going to make myself an expert in green building because buildings are everywhere that humans are. They use more energy than any other sector. They use more resources than any other sector. Wherever there are buildings, there's people. So if I'm an expert in that area, there’s nowhere I can't get a job or have good employment.

Dmitry: Anyway, the reason we're talking—what's your background? Where did you grow up? Where did you get your education?

Shane:  Okay, so I studied electronic systems engineering and software systems engineering at the University of Regina. But after leaving the programmer analyst position, I went to work for Honeywell and got very well-versed in automation—so, HVAC automation. Then I became a consultant working for a company called Integrated Designs in Saskatoon.

We were one of the first companies that did third-party commissioning, energy auditing, energy modeling. I basically worked in commissioning because my field expertise as an automation technician gave me a lot of skills to troubleshoot issues. Third-party commissioning is going through buildings and making sure that things work. I'm like an owner's engineer—an expert who helps the owner and the contractors find any issues during the construction process so that once the project’s done, it’s smooth sailing.

That’s not typically the way construction goes, and I actually found it a very interesting field.

I have a first question for you. So, my daughter would like to vote for Green. Tom, you must be very pro-Green, right? And I told her tonight I will be meeting with a very interesting person who actually dedicated his life to finding environmentally sensitive solutions, and he lives in Whitehorse. I don't think he will be voting for Green.

Dmitry:  So can you just share with us whether you ever voted for Green? Because I think you are very well connected with environmental issues. Can you tell us more about how much you care about the environment and all climate-related things—and then, whom did you vote for, say, five years ago, ten years ago, and whom are you going to vote for now?

Shane:  Well, I have voted Green in the past, and I voted NDP. I don't know if I voted Liberal, but I used to be very left-wing. I will definitely be—well, I already did vote Conservative. The insanity over at least the last five years has blown my mind apart.

Dmitry:  We'll talk more about what happened in the last five years separately. Let's just, for now, keep politically correct for all audiences, including my children who don't want to talk about the last five years. Just the environment.

Shane:  The reason we're chatting today is because I gave a presentation just a week or two ago about what I consider true sustainability, and how the system that we live in is not conducive to being sustainable. Literally, everything is designed to fall apart before it needs to. So how are we ever going to have a sustainable world, a sustainable society, if that's the basis of our existence? It’s not possible.

The bottom line is that the same people, the same organizations that create all of this stuff that falls apart intentionally, that uses massive amounts of fossil fuel and resources—you know, think about mining. You need to mine all these different materials from all these places around the world. Then they go to a factory to be turned into different components. Then these components get assembled at different factories, and all these different components finally get into a thing—like our phone, a fridge, a microwave, or whatever. Then they’re designed to fall apart before they need to and go to a landfill.

You think of the amount of resources and fossil fuel and everything that goes into that. When I got my award, I gave an acceptance speech and said to the crowd: my dad built a cabin in the 1960s—my mom says ’68, my dad says ’65. Either way, my dad put a fridge in that cabin from the 1940s that had already been running for about 20 years. That fridge still runs five or six months of the year to this day. That fridge is around 80 years old. You're lucky if you get 10 years out of a fridge now.

So, did they have better engineering in the 1940s? Did they have better technology? Or did they have a better set of priorities? They obviously had a better set of priorities—where things were built to last. Your vehicle would last back then. People came up to me after the acceptance speech saying things like, “We have a vacuum from the 1950s,” or “Our washer/dryer lasted from the ’70s.”

Imagine, on a big scale, if everything was built to last like that. How much less garbage we would produce, how much less fossil fuel we would use, how much less vulnerable our society would be. We have the technology—and we've had it for decades—to meet every single human need. There's no reason why people should be starving, or why there should be homelessness, or this amount of sickness or disparity. And it's getting worse.

This is all by design. This is a system that is designed to keep us like slaves on a hamster wheel.

Dmitry: When did you come to realize that?

Shane:  I've realized it for a long time, but I didn’t see it as clearly until maybe two years ago. You still wouldn’t have convinced me back then that climate change wasn’t a huge threat to humanity. But in the last two years, as I’ve seen more about geoengineering—the fact that they’re literally playing with the weather, and have been experimenting on the weather longer than they’ve been warning us about climate change—that to me is huge.

Because if you’re telling me the data shows that climate is changing (and it’s obvious—I live in the Yukon, and even when I lived in Saskatchewan, you could see it’s warming), you have to ask: why is it changing? Is it because of fossil fuel?

I’ve done the research. The impact of fossil fuel is much less than I had originally thought. They tell us it’s the main issue, but they don’t tell us key parts of the science. You're even ridiculed for asking things like, “Hey, why are those trails in the sky? Why do clouds from planes linger for days? Why do people get sick after that?”

There’s a documentary I watched recently called The Dimming that solidified my suspicions. I also used ChatGPT and asked, “How many patents are there in solar radiation management?” It said between 200 and 400. The first weather modification patent was filed in 1891.

They’ve been playing with the weather for a long time. And if your goal is to control the world, you better have an excuse for the weather changing by the time your experiments are ripe. You better plant a story into the collective consciousness to explain it.

The best lies have elements of truth in them. That’s what’s going on with climate change. The human mind likes to grab on to truth.

CO₂ reflects infrared radiation. That’s a fact. But you have to ask: what frequencies does it reflect? How much CO₂ can the atmosphere hold before it stops having an effect? Apparently, we could double CO₂ levels, and it wouldn’t make a difference, because we’re already reflecting the maximum amount of heat that CO₂ can reflect. It’s a logarithmic relationship.

That’s something I had never heard from scientists warning us about deadly climate change. If this is real science, talk about all the facts. Not just the convenient ones.

Dmitry: Now, because we don’t want to keep our viewers too long in this episode, I have a few questions for you that could help us navigate this federal election campaign.

I have three websites ready for us to start examining. I’ll start sharing my screen—one is from my union, one is from Evidence for Democracy, and one is from other organizations. One website is called For My Canada, and there are many others from concerned Canadians. 

But then there is a website from the union of which I’m a member. In fact, I was even elected to an executive position last year. But I was a minority—just bugging them too much with transparency and accountability. Eventually, they removed me because I wasn’t allowing them to work efficiently or focus on the things that mattered more to them.

Shane:  That’s not democracy. 

Dmitry: But that’s the nature of democracy— fortunately, or unfortunately—majority rules. Now, what happens? 

Shane:  We should have the ability to vote on everything. I’m using my phone to chat with you. We could be voting on every single bill that’s passed—or even put forward. That’s what politicians should get: how their constituents and the whole country feel about what they’re trying to do.

Instead, they push things past us, hide it, and use the media to sugarcoat or lie about what those things are. It’s unbelievable what the Liberals have done to us in the last five years. Blows my mind apart.

Dmitry: Now you see, both of us come from scientific backgrounds. And we’re really trying to understand how it’s become possible that in Canada—a well-developed country—we're not in Russia or China or in Ukraine (which is really in a tough situation—and I’m originally from Ukraine). We are in a country where people live without stress. We have everything we want, and yet we find ourselves in a very peculiar situation.

We started talking about this. It seems like there are two countries living physically in the same space—but they don’t intersect. They don’t interact. Some see that the country has no longer become the one they grew up in—or came to as immigrants. The country that defends freedoms and rights, where everyone feels secure. It’s more like a reality than a country.

Shane:  Two different realities.

Dmitry: Two different realities—right. That’s right.

And we talked about the fact that it’s possible for two communities to live in different realities. We see the world one way, and that’s why both of us will be voting for Conservatives. I’m trying to convince my children to vote Conservative too—not Green, like last time.

I’ve also, by the way, previously—since I became a citizen in 2000—always voted Liberal, including in 2021.

Shane:  Wow.

Dmitry: Because Conservatives were bad. I used to believe that too. I never thought I’d vote Conservative. Never. You would have laughed and laughed at anyone who told me that five years ago.

That’s right. And this is—if we examine this phenomenon, just you, Shane, and myself, Dmitry—we examine how we were so pro-Liberal before. What has happened in our understanding of Canada that we are now not only not voting Liberal, but believe the Liberals probably destroyed the way this country used to be?

And most importantly—we're trying to understand the nature of it. How is it possible that there’s still a majority of Canadians who think everything done in the last five years is for the better?

So what is your wake-up moment? When did you change your understanding and stop voting Liberal?

Shane:  In 2018, I had bladder cancer—removed. Seeing it grow inside me freaked me out. I said, “I’m going to learn whatever I need to. I’m going to do whatever it takes. This thing isn’t going to kill me.” I was going to survive.

So I started doing research on the pharmaceutical industry—and how evil they are with regard to cancer and cancer research. It’s a big money-making scheme. They don’t tell you your body can fight cancer if you do the right things.

Then COVID hit. I was suspicious from the beginning. Why weren’t they talking about the immune system—that protects us from all illnesses? Instead, they told us to stand six feet apart, put up plastic barriers, put pieces of cloth on our faces. All of it nonsensical.

But it had little elements of truth, like I said earlier. A virus isn’t a spider you can stay six feet away from to avoid. It’s floating in the air. It’s so small it can go through mask pores. Trying to stop it with a mask is like using a chain-link fence to stop mosquitoes.

So as soon as I saw all these false solutions being pushed on us, I got very, very suspicious. And that made me relook at the science behind climate change too.

Anyway, watching Trudeau lie nonstop—and demonize people who asked logical, scientific questions—was alarming. My sister’s best friend had COVID in April 2021. It was like a cold—she recovered in about a week. But then she took the vaccine so she could travel. She took it on my sister’s birthday, October 13, 2021. I told her, “Don’t take it. Your body already knows what to do. You’re likely to have an overreaction.” She died four days later.

Her four kids don’t have a mom. My nieces and nephews lost an auntie.

It’s completely unscientific to tell someone to take a vaccine for a disease they already survived—especially when that vaccine doesn’t teach the immune system how to handle it properly. I could go into antibody-dependent enhancement, and how credible super-experts like Dr. Robert Malone were blackballed, censored, silenced.

All that made me say, “Wait a second. We’re not seeing science here. This is propaganda.”

Dmitry: You know, there is so much importance in what you're saying that it deserves a separate episode. The story—the tragic, horrendous story of your friend being essentially killed—we’ll talk about that in a separate episode.

And another thing—you told me you had major surgery. Maybe we’ll have another episode just about other ways you found for yourself to stay healthy and in good spirits.

Okay, we only have a few minutes left in this session. We’ll restart, and I’ll merge the two portions together.

Now, just between us—because I’ll cut this portion—my idea is we’ll quickly go through the elections happening now. It’s a good moment to create a video as an interaction with an interesting person in times of decision—about who to vote for.

There’s so much we can talk about with you, Shane. 

Shane:  Can I summarize it?

We need to vote for people who are not going to hand our country and freedom over to unelected billionaire elites—who are probably Satan-worshipping child molesters. And I don’t know that for certain, but I don’t understand how these people think they can own all of us, own everything, and we’ll own nothing and be happy.

These people are giving us nothing but fake solutions to a crisis they’re claiming.

From my presentation—which I’m sure resonated with you—look at all these fake solutions.

I have your presentation right here. We’ll talk about that. But one thing—as we restart, try not to use swear words, especially about people. I see my mission as bringing this to my colleagues, who are entirely on the other side of this debate.

Every time we talk about Malone or other things we know, we have to be careful how we frame it. I suggest we only stick to things you know personally. Your experience—your professional background—what you’ve seen and lived. That’s the lie you’ve witnessed.

And I’ve put together questions I’d like to ask political party candidates—questions that my union or Evidence for Democracy are not asking. They say nothing about freedom.

The thing is, all the proposed solutions—carbon taxes, carbon accounting, treating you and me like it’s our fault for climate change—are about controlling us. We’re not the ones who produce the products designed to fall apart.

I’d be happy to buy one fridge that lasts a lifetime. One TV. One car. It’s not our fault.

The same people behind the climate agenda, telling people it’s their fault, are the same ones creating the problem. They’re manipulating the weather. They profit from this system, perpetuate it, and want to make it even more detrimental to human life.

That’s the key.

If they really cared about fighting climate change—if they really cared about people and the planet—we would regenerate the Earth. We would build things to last. We would help people become smarter—not dumber through constant consumption. We wouldn’t be filled with fear. We’d be filled with solutions.

“Here are the solutions, everyone. Let’s get to work.”

We could solve these problems in a decade or two. It wouldn’t be hard.

If we just said: here’s the solution—let’s all get to work.

That would be it.

Video - Part 2 

Dmitry: Tell us about your meeting with Pierre and your other ideas.

Shane:  Well, actually, I met him in September, I think two years ago almost now. Basically, I went out to him—I had a funny shirt on with Trudeau on the front, and it said, “I’m about to do something horrible to you.” But I also said, like, we need to deal with these people who are handing our government over to foreign interests. These people cannot be allowed to get away with this.

The World Economic Forum is being... like Freeland is on the board, Carney was on the board. These people are handing over our country. You can go and watch Klaus Schwab say, “I know that more than half of Mr. Trudeau’s cabinet are members of our World Economic Forum Young Global Leaders Program.” Like, how can you trust someone like that?

They talk about helping everybody, but really what they’re trying to do is enslave us. And they’ve written it all down—they talk about it. Most people don’t have the time to look into it. I do. That’s why I’m like, “I’m not interested in these people running the country,” and I hope to God that the Conservatives stay away from that organization. That we do everything we can to distance Canada from that organization and from this globalist agenda that seeks to enslave everyone.

That’s what I’m voting against.

The Liberals would probably fund the type of projects that I do more than the Conservatives, but I’m more concerned about the freedom of all Canadians and all people than I am about my own benefit. I think that we need to fund infrastructure anyway. If you want to have a strong country, you need to have good infrastructure.

These tariff things are basically an indicator of how much we’ve sold out our country to this globalist agenda. We should be as self-sufficient as possible, and that’s what we should be using this as an opportunity to do.

And I hope that any government that gets in—it doesn’t matter who it is—I hope it’s not the Liberals, because I know that Carney’s just going to sell us out to the globalist agenda. He’s going to give us a whole bunch of fake solutions to climate change. His wife has made millions of dollars off of climate consulting. I can guarantee you I know far more about fighting climate change and doing things about climate change than she does. And I haven’t made millions of dollars.

This is a great big club. And it’s not about helping the environment. It’s a bunch of greenwashing. How to Futureproof Your Home—that’s the book that I wrote to try and teach people that if we build as self-sufficiently as possible, we can actually become better off financially. We’re less dependent on a system that’s damaging the planet.

I’m standing there in front of an innovation I came up with for solar air heating. That’s a solution in the right direction—solar and wind. But in this presentation—people have created free energy devices. Even Nikola Tesla, who gave us the modern world, went bankrupt trying to give us free energy. This system does not want people to be self-sufficient.

That slide there—“New technologies can make our problems disappear”—that’s the type of thinking. People at one time thought the streets of London and New York would be buried in nine feet of horse manure. That’s because they couldn’t see that a new technology would make the old technology completely irrelevant and solve the problem immediately.

Well, guess what? If we all had free energy devices, we wouldn’t be dependent on this system. We could desalinate the ocean. We could green the desert. We could do all kinds of things—providing food for everybody. That’s why it’s being suppressed.

That book, The Practical Guide to Free Energy Devices, you can go find it—the link is on that slide there. Watch The Lost Century and How to Reclaim It. Those two resources are unbelievable in terms of understanding that there are these devices that have been created, patented, and suppressed. Anybody who tries to commercialize them ends up dead.

My neighbor growing up invented a machine like that, which is why I’ve been obsessed with this idea for most of my life. I remember being a teenager and thinking about this nonstop. You can see the pictures—one is moving, the other is not. There are no wires, no inputs. It just spun.

My friend, whose dad invented that, saw it running. He said they couldn’t keep it from flying apart. But once it got going, it got going so violently that one of the magnets came out and got stuck in the wall of the Atco trailer. He had to pull it out of the wall. The other magnet dented a steel door in that trailer. His uncle got a big gash across his arm.

Yeah, yeah. So it’s possible?

Dmitry:  So it’s driven by magnets?

Shane:  Yes, magnetic forces. That’s what a motor uses—magnets and copper windings. That’s how you make a motor.

Dmitry: I will share this presentation on my Substack and provide a link on the YouTube channel. When you saw that—I would love for you to meet people from Evidence for Democracy. I call them “Cherry-Picked Evidence for Democracy.” They cherry-pick the evidence they like and ignore the rest.

They don’t talk about 5G or geoengineering or weather modification—or anything that conflicts with industrial lobby groups. They talk a lot about the environment, sure—but not about the real issues we want discussed. Like how to make government transparent and accountable.

Shane:  And of course, what you have to remember about government is: its role is to hold power. Very few people who step into power want to give it up. The truly powerful people who want to help the world—like people with real power, like yourself and me—we’re doing things because we want to, because we can.

The people who seek power because they don’t have real power—they won’t give it up. They don’t use it for others; they use it for themselves. And we could get into an esoteric discussion about that, but indeed, the next topic will be: what can we do—what can you do, what can I do—to at least raise awareness among our colleagues who still believe the Liberals have done the best possible job over the last five years, and that there is nothing better.

They murdered many people. Many people are now sick and dying because of what the Liberals did. There was no medical emergency that couldn’t have been dealt with by giving everybody vitamin D—by telling everybody to take vitamin D. And here’s some Ivermectin—it’s super cheap. Take this. Everybody would have been fine.

Dmitry: Indeed, you mentioned the horrible story of your sister’s friend. One story is enough. I’ve seen other parents with children already in wheelchairs. It’s horrible. Some people died.

And of course, we are not allowed to talk about that. I am a public servant, and my employer says I cannot criticize the government—or they will discipline me. But I say: I do not criticize the government. I just provide evidence. And that’s a very subtle line.

I hope with the new government, we will be allowed to talk more about evidence—truth—even when it’s not convenient. Truth when it does not coincide with the WHO narrative or our government narrative.

So may this be a concluding statement for our meeting today: let’s hope that the new government will allow true freedom of scientific expression—or any speech and expression.

Poilievre explicitly said he would cancel Bill C-11, which essentially is a censorship bill that will kill freedom of speech altogether. 

Shane:  You can’t call yourself a scientist if you support censorship, because science is the pursuit of truth. And as soon as you start censoring people rather than disproving them with science, you're no longer practicing science.

Everybody needs to understand: the second there is censorship on any subject, that is no longer science—it’s propaganda. That’s why people got so swept up by lies and slogans like “Follow the science.” Well, if you follow the science, you know that the science they were telling us is bull.

Dmitry:  Exactly. I think, Shane, you just recapitulated—resumed—summed up the whole point of our discussion today. May we elect a government that will allow scientists to speak openly, without fear, without discrimination, without being disciplined—or even the fear of being disciplined—for just saying what they believe is correct.

Shane:  If we don’t do that, we have what the Nazis had in Germany 80 years ago. They censored any information that contradicted the agenda. We’re in a very scary time right now if people can’t speak the truth.

And this truth has been censored so much lately—it’s unbelievable. And that is not what Canada should be about. We should be about truth.

Dmitry: It’s unbelievable, but as I mentioned, it’s exactly understandable why it happened. A lot of funding went into behavioral science, which proactively prepared the population to accept the narrative that was convenient for the government—narratives prepared by external parties like the WHO.

I have to cut here because I have my yoga class, actually. It already started remotely seven minutes ago, and I will catch up.

Thank you very much, Shane. We will continue the discussion.

Shane:  Sounds good. Great to meet you. Bye! Have a great day.