Energy
A carbon tax by any other name
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1d8d7/1d8d7569b70ee0171b142b628208c4022129f6b4" alt=""
From Canadians for Affordable Energy
Written By Dan McTeague
It turns out that the story circulating last week from The Toronto Star that the Liberals were considering a “rebranding” of their Carbon Taxation program was true. On Wednesday the Liberals announced that the previously known “Climate Action Incentive Payment,” will now be referred to as the “Canada Carbon Rebate.” This was done “in an attempt to tackle what it calls confusion and misconceptions about the scheme.”
According to Liberal Minister Seamus O’Regan “If we can speak the language that people speak, because people say the words ‘carbon,’ they say the words, ‘rebate,’ right? And if we can speak that language, that’s important, so people understand what’s going on here.”
The Liberals seem to actually believe that the problem Canadians have with the carbon tax, and their growing support for Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives to “Axe the Tax,” has simply been a matter of Canadians not “understand[ing] what is going on.”
The implication, of course, is that Canadians aren’t really struggling to pay their bills, feed their families and heat their homes right now. That their lives haven’t gotten more expensive overall as the cost of fuel has risen steadily.
That they’re just confused by poor branding — probably some high-priced marketing firm’s fault, really — and that once Trudeau & Co. find the right words, people will finally be happy to pay the tax, and be grateful to get some of their money back, since doing so will — somehow — save the planet.
Which is ridiculous.
It’s worth pointing out that this isn’t even the first time Trudeau’s carbon tax has been rebranded. You might recall that prior to 2018, the scheme was referred to as “carbon pricing” or simply the “carbon tax.” If you look back at Hansard records — the records of Parliamentary debate — you can see that in October 2018, Liberal MPs began referring to the scheme as a ‘price on pollution.’ Of course, calling carbon dioxide, a gas on which all life on earth depends, “pollution” was an obvious attempt to justify taxing Canadians for it.
But no matter what they call the thing, they are determined not to let it go.
Recent polls have indicated that the carbon tax is losing support from Canadians. A Nanos poll showed nearly half of Canadians think the carbon tax is ineffective; another poll indicates most Canadians want it reduced or killed altogether.
So why are the Liberals clinging so desperately to this tax that Canadians don’t support? Going so far as to rebrand, reframe, recommunicate rather than scrap it?
I might start to sound like a broken record here, but the only way to understand the context of the carbon tax, the second carbon tax (the Clean Fuel Standard,) an emissions cap, electric vehicle mandates and on and on, is to recognize that they are all components of the insane Net-Zero-by-2050 scheme dreamed up by Justin Trudeau and his UN and World Economic Forum cronies.
A carbon tax is simply one of the pillars of their Net Zero Agenda which they contend will enable Canada to achieve this nebulous goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050.
Though apparently to achieve it, the tax will need to get progressively more punishing. On April 1 the carbon tax goes up another $15, to $80 per ton, and will continue to rise yearly until it hits $170 a ton in 2030. Canadians are already feeling the pinch and it is hard to imagine it getting worse. But Liberals aren’t concerned with the struggles of everyday people and that is the reality. This has become a communications issue to them, not an existential one.
As to the new name itself, the Trudeau Liberals love to pay lip service to their rebate scheme and claim that Canadians are getting back more than they pay. But as we well know even the Independent Parliamentary Budget Officer found that, contrary to what their talking point, a substantial majority of households are paying more in carbon taxes than they get back.
Their communications plan too is so unhinged that they are pitching the carbon tax as an affordability measure designed to help struggling Canadians. Of course this begs the question: If Canadians are getting back more than they pay in carbon taxes, why take the money in the first place?
The rubber is hitting the road and Canadians have had enough. No matter what it’s called, the carbon tax has made our lives worse.
That will continue to be true, no matter what they call it.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy
Daily Caller
Trump’s Energy Secretary Issues Dire Warning To Globalists About Green Energy Lunacy
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f80f8/f80f8e1b2e76a08efb603da78514f7de4fc46e61" alt=""
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By David Blackmon
During a 12-minute video appearance at the 2025 Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) Conference held in London, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told the audience that “Net zero by 2050 “is a sinister goal.”
That is a bold statement, especially given that it was delivered to an audience sitting in the United Kingdom, where both major political parties that have traditionally governed the country – the Conservative “Tories” and the far-left Labour Party – have spent the past decade pushing their country to meet its net zero goals as if it were a matter of religious faith. Regardless of the obvious negative economic and social consequences that have been heaped upon UK citizens, and equally obvious futility of the entire effort, leaders of both parties have kept the country on this ruinous path.
As Wright went on to point out, net zero by 2050 is “both unachievable by any practical means, but the aggressive pursuit of it…has not delivered any benefits, but it’s delivered tremendous costs.” This is objectively true, the most painful example being the rapid deindustrialization of the formerly strong British economy and the accompanying rapacious condemnation of thousands of acres of arable lands to become home to huge wind and solar installations.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!
As Wright points out, “no one’s going to make an energy-intensive product in the United Kingdom anymore.” A clear object lesson in that reality came in September when venerable steelmaker Tata Steel shut down the last existing steelmaking plant in the UK.
Climate zealots in both major parties celebrated that event, but we must ask what there really is to celebrate? Sure, the Labour politicos get to virtue signal about the elimination of X tons of carbon dioxide emissions, but in a global sense, that’s meaningless. The UK still needs steel – the only difference now is that the steel that used to be made by highly-paid workers in domestic mills will now be imported steel made by poverty waged workers in Pakistan, China and other mainly Asian countries.
Meanwhile, the emissions created by making the steel in those other countries with lower environmental regulations will be far larger than from steel that used to be made in the UK. As Wright pointed out at the ARC conference, “This is not energy transition. This is lunacy.”
He isn’t wrong.
On Feb. 13, the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) published a report showing that construction of new coal-fired power plants in China reached a ten-year high in 2024. CREA finds that “China approved 66.7 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity in 2024, with approvals picking up in the second half after a slower start to the year.” It all belies the favored narrative on the political left that China is leading the world in converting its power systems to renewables. In reality, the expansion of its coal sector may actually be accelerating again.
That renewed Chinese focus on expanding its coal power fleet is driven in large part by the zealous focus by globalist leaders in the UK and other western countries – Germany is another great example – on deindustrializing their own economies to satisfy their obsession over atmospheric plant food.
The making of steel and other heavy industrial processes requires reliable, affordable power generation that runs 24 hours every day, 7 days every week. Whether politicians like it or not, coal is the fuel that most reliably and consistently meets all those tests.
Thus, if China and other Asian nations are destined to inherit all the heavy industries being killed off by virtue signaling Western nations, they will need many more coal power plants to power them. This really isn’t complicated.
Meanwhile, the UK can no longer manufacture its own steel or myriad other industrial products that are essential to modern human existence. If the Labour government continues its policy of condemning vast swaths of British farmland to house more and more wind and solar sites, the kingdom will soon no longer be able to even feed its people.
All to satisfy this odd religious dogma based on an obsession over plant food. Lunacy, indeed.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Alberta
New children’s book demonstrates how the everyday world is connected to natural resources
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/372db/372dbd4f260505b504991a98eadf2bf4e0844b70" alt=""
From the Canadian Energy Centre
‘Today’s youth have the opportunity to lead us into the future with innovative solutions for environmental challenges’
After a 24-year career in oil sands land reclamation, author Tanya Richens is sharing her knowledge with young minds.
Her new book, From the Earth to Us: Discovering the Origins of Everyday Things, explores the relationship between natural resources and the things we use in everyday life, from computers and water bottles to batteries and solar panels.
“There is a gap in society’s understanding of where things come from. We are a society driven by consumerism and immediate gratification. We order something online, and it arrives on our doorstep the next day. We don’t stop to think about where it really came from or how it was made,” Richens says.
“There’s an ever-increasing societal position that mining is bad, and oil is even worse… But there’s a simple hypocrisy in those beliefs, since so many things in our lives are made from the raw materials that come from mining and oil and natural gas,” she says.
The book, illustrated by reclamation artist Shannon Carla King, follows young Hennessy Rose and her Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Riley on a trip to a children’s summer camp.
Hennessy’s mom is a guest speaker on the origin of everyday items and the relationship between humans and the earth. Through detailed explanations of items surrounding her, Hennessy’s mom teaches the kids how rocks, minerals, oil and gas from the earth are used to power and aid our lives, creating items such as building supplies, food and hair products, camping and sports equipment, and cell phones.
Author Tanya Richens poses with her two books for children about natural resources. Photo for Canadian Energy Centre
“I thought a simple and fun book explaining the raw materials needed to make everyday items would be valuable for all ages,” Richens says.
“When people feel personally connected to natural resources, they are more likely to promote sustainable practices. Today’s youth will have the opportunity to lead us into the future with innovative solutions for environmental challenges.”
Richens‘ career began with Alberta Environment, where she was a coordinator of reclamation approvals in the oil sands. She oversaw technical reviews of oil sands reclamation applications, communicated with statement of concern filers, coordinated public hearings and provided support for legislative changes.
She moved from government to Suncor Energy, ensuring the company’s compliance on reclamation projects and led initiatives to obtain reclamation certificates. She now works as an independent consultant.
Drawing on her wealth of experience in the field, Richens’ first book, Adventures in Land Reclamation: Exploring Jobs for a Greener Future, seeks to excite kids aged 9-12 years about jobs related to the environment and land reclamation.
Hoping to get From the Earth to Us into the hands of teachers, Richens is heading to the Edmonton Teachers Convention in late February. She says the book supports multiple learning outcomes in Alberta’s new science curriculum for grades 3, 4, 5 and 6.
“Ultimately, I’d like people to understand and acknowledge their individual part in the need for mining and oil and natural gas development. Until the naivety and hypocrisy in the world is addressed, I’m not sure that real environmental change is possible.”
Richens’ books can be purchased on her website at tcrenvironmental.com.
-
Alberta1 day ago
Snapshots of Alberta and Canadian trade with the US
-
Censorship Industrial Complex22 hours ago
Germany’s Shocking War on Online Speech: Armed Police Raids for Online “Insults,” “Hate Speech,” and “Misinformation”
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Is Our Five-Year Nightmare Finally Over?
-
Opinion1 day ago
Two New Studies Find Fewer Clouds Cause Warmer Temps
-
Health1 day ago
The FDA is trying to shut down his successful cancer treatments. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s patients are outraged
-
Bruce Dowbiggin21 hours ago
With Carney On Horizon This Is No Time For Poilievre To Soften His Message
-
Health2 days ago
RFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Trump’s Energy Secretary Issues Dire Warning To Globalists About Green Energy Lunacy