Canada should not want to lead the world on climate change policy

Some commentators in the media want the the federal Conservatives to take a leadership position on climate, and by extension make Canada a world leader on the journey to the low-carbon uplands of the future. This would be a mistake for three reasons.

First, unlike other areas such as trade, defence or central banking, where diplomats aim for realistic solutions to identifiable problems, in the global climate policy world one’s bona fides are not established by actions but by willingness to recite the words of an increasingly absurd creed. Take, for example, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres’ fanatical rhetoric about the “global boiling crisis” and his call for a “death knell” for fossil fuels “before they destroy our planet.” In that world no credit is given for actually reducing emissions unless you first declare that climate change is an existential crisis, that we are (again, to quote Guterres) at the “tip of a tipping point” of “climate breakdown” and that “humanity has become a weapon of mass extinction.” Any attempt to speak sensibly on the issue is condemned as denialism, whereas any amount of hypocrisy from jet-setting politicians, global bureaucrats and celebrities is readily forgiven as long as they parrot the deranged climate crisis lingo.

The opposite is also true. Unwillingness to state absurdities means actual accomplishments count for nothing. Compare President Donald Trump, who pulled out of the Paris treaty and disparaged climate change as unimportant, to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who embraced climate emergency rhetoric and dispatched ever-larger Canadian delegations to the annual greenhouse gabfests. In the climate policy world, that made Canada a hero and the United States a villain. Meanwhile, thanks in part to expansion of natural gas supplies under the Trump administration, from 2015 to 2019 U.S. energy-based CO2 emissions fell by 3 per cent even as primary energy consumption grew by 3 per cent. In Canada over the same period, CO2 emissions fell only 1 per cent despite energy consumption not increasing at all. But for the purpose of naming heroes and villains, no one cared about the outcome, only the verbiage. Likewise, climate zealots will not credit Conservatives for anything they achieve on the climate file unless they are first willing to repeat untrue alarmist nonsense, and probably not even then.

On climate change, Conservatives should resolve to speak sensibly and use mainstream science and economic analysis, but that means rejecting climate crisis rhetoric and costly “net zero” aspirations. Which leads to the second problem—climate advocates love to talk about “solutions” but their track record is 40 years of costly failure and massive waste. Here again leadership status is tied to one’s willingness to dump ever-larger amounts of taxpayer money into impractical schemes loaded with all the fashionable buzzwords. The story is always the same. We need to hurry and embrace this exciting economic opportunity, which for some reason the private sector won’t touch.

There are genuine benefits to pursuing practical sensible improvements in the way we make and use fossil fuels. But the current and foreseeable state of energy technology means CO2 mitigation steps will be smaller and much slower than was the case for other energy side-effects such as acid rain and particulates. It has nothing to do with lack of “political will;” it’s an unavoidable consequence of the underlying science, engineering and economics. In this context, leadership means being willing sometimes to do nothing when all the available options yield negative net benefits.

That leads to the third problem—opportunity cost. Aspiring to “climate leadership” means not fixing any of the pressing economic problems we currently face. Climate policy over the past four decades has proven to be very expensive, economically damaging and environmentally futile. The migration of energy-intensive industry to China and India is a very real phenomenon and more than offsets the tiny emission-reduction measures Canada and other western countries pursued under the Kyoto Protocol.

The next government should start by creating a new super-ministry of Energy, Resources and Climate where long-term thinking and planning can occur in a collaborative setting, not the current one where climate policy is positioned at odds with—and antagonistic towards—everything else. The environment ministry can then return its focus to air and water pollution management, species and habitat conservation, meteorological services and other traditional environmental functions. The climate team should prepare another national assessment but this time provide much more historical data to help Canadians understand long-term observed patterns of temperature and precipitation rather than focusing so much on model simulations of the distant future under implausible emission scenarios.

The government should also move to extinguish “climate liability,” a legal hook on which dozens of costly nuisance lawsuits are proliferating here and elsewhere. Canada should also use its influence in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reverse the mission creep, clean out the policy advocacy crowd and get the focus back on core scientific assessments. And we should lead a push to move the annual “COPs”—Conferences of the Parties to the Rio treaty—to an online format, an initiative that would ground enough jumbo jets each year to delay the melting of the ice caps at least a century.

Finally, the new Ministry of Energy, Resources and Climate should work with the provinces to find one region or municipality willing to be a demonstration project on the feasibility of relying only on renewables for electricity. We keep hearing from enthusiasts that wind and solar are the cheapest and best options, while critics point to their intermittency and hidden costs. Surely there must be one town in Canada where the councillors, fresh from declaring a climate crisis and buying electric buses, would welcome the chance to, as it were, show leadership. We could fit them out with all the windmills and solar panels they want, then disconnect them from the grid and see how it goes. And if upon further reflection no one is willing to try it, that would also be useful information.

In the meantime, the federal Conservatives should aim merely to do some sensible things that yield tangible improvements on greenhouse gas emissions without wrecking the economy. Maybe one day that will be seen as real leadership.

Author:

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

Related Topics:#CanadaEconomy #CanadaEnergy #FraserInstitute #RossMcKitrick CanadaEnvironment ClimateChangePolicy feature

Up Next

Musk Reveals To Tucker Why He Thinks 2024 Will Be Last Election If Dems Win

Don't Miss

Free Money? What a UBI Would Really Do to People … and the National Debt

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

MAHA report: Chemicals, screens, and shots—what’s really behind the surge in sick kids

Automotive / 53 mins ago

Measure overturning California’s gas car ban heading to Trump’s desk

National / 1 hour ago

We Tried To Warn Them

Business

New fiscal approach necessary to reduce Ottawa’s mountain of debt

Published on May 21, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Apparently, despite a few days of conflicting statements from the government, the Carney government now plans to table a budget in the fall. If the new prime minister wants to reduce Ottawa’s massive debt burden, which Canadians ultimately bear, he must begin to work now to reduce spending.

According to the federal government’s latest projections, from 2014/15 to 2024/25 total federal debt is expected to double from $1.1 trillion to a projected $2.2 trillion. That means $13,699 in new federal debt for every Canadian (after adjusting for inflation). In addition, from 2020 to 2023, the Trudeau government recorded the four highest years of total federal debt per person (inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history.

How did this happen?

From 2018 to 2023, the government recorded the six highest levels of program spending (inflation-adjusted, on a per-person basis) in Canadian history—even after excluding emergency spending during COVID. Consequently, in 2024/25 Ottawa will run its tenth consecutive budget deficit since 2014/15.

Of course, Canadians bear the burden of this free-spending approach. For example, over the last several years federal debt interest payments have more than doubled to an expected $53.7 billion this year. That’s more than the government plans to spend on health-care transfers to the provinces. And it’s money unavailable for programs including social services.

In the longer term, government debt accumulation can limit economic growth by pushing up interest rates. Why? Because governments compete with individuals, families and businesses for the savings available for borrowing, and this competition puts upward pressure on interest rates. Higher interest rates deter private investment in the Canadian economy—a necessary ingredient for economic growth—and hurt Canadian living standards.

Given these costs, the Carney government should take a new approach to fiscal policy and begin reducing Ottawa’s mountain of debt.

According to both history and research, the most effective and least economically harmful way to achieve this is to reduce government spending and balance the budget, as opposed to raising taxes. While this approach requires tough decisions, which may be politically unpopular in some quarters, worthwhile goals are rarely easy and the long-term gain will exceed the short-term pain. Indeed, a recent study by Canadian economist Bev Dahlby found the long-term economic benefits of a 12-percentage point reduction in debt (as a share of GDP) substantially outweighs the short-term costs.

Unfortunately, while Canadians must wait until the fall for a federal budget, the Carney government’s election platform promises to add—not subtract—from Ottawa’s mountain of debt and from 2025/26 to 2028/29 run annual deficits every year of at least $47.8 billion. In total, these planned deficits represent $224.8 billion in new government debt over the next four years, and there’s currently no plan to balance the budget. This represents a continuation of the Trudeau government’s approach to rack up debt and behave irresponsibly with federal finances.

With a new government on Parliament Hill, now is the time for federal policymakers to pursue the long-ignored imperative of reducing government debt. Clearly, if the Carney government wants to prioritize debt reduction, it must rethink its fiscal plan and avoid repeating the same mistakes of its predecessor.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Business

Regulatory reform key to Canada’s energy future

Published on May 21, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Lisa Baiton

Canada has the resources to lead globally in energy, but outdated rules and investment barriers are holding us back

Canada stands at a pivotal moment. A new federal government offers an opportunity to rejuvenate the economy and rethink our approach to natural
resource development.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s plan to build Canada into the best-performing economy in the Group of Seven (G7) is achievable, as is his ambition to build from this country’s energy resource-rich foundation. This aligns with the oil and natural gas industry’s calls to play to our strengths in responsible energy development and exports. To succeed, we need a clear, practical strategy that reflects the realities of investment capital in today’s
unpredictable global economy.

Canada has all the ingredients to become the next global energy superpower. What’s missing is the right recipe. Over the past decade, a layering of policies has reduced investor confidence and made Canadian projects less attractive than those in other countries. Billions in capital have shifted to places like the United States, Brazil and Norway, where regulatory processes are clearer, faster and more investor-friendly.

It’s time to rebuild investor confidence and demonstrate that Canada is open for business. That begins with overhauling the regulatory and fiscal frameworks that govern major energy projects. Current regulations are too often unpredictable, excessively long and vulnerable to legal challenges. For example, some Canadian energy projects can take seven to 10 years to gain approval, compared to three to five years in competing jurisdictions. Approval timelines must be firm, reliable and competitive. Projects of national significance need clear, coordinated assessments that uphold environmental integrity while respecting the jurisdictional roles of provincial governments and Indigenous communities. And we must take the politics out of the regulatory process.

It also means rethinking carbon policy. The current system—layered with federal and provincial rules and complex compliance requirements— is inefficient and uncertain. It needs to be reviewed and reformed, together with provinces and industry, to ensure it is competitive with policies in other top oil- and natural gas-producing nations. A model tailored to regional realities and industrial needs, and one that respects provincial jurisdiction, could restore both flexibility and investor confidence. A national policy should drive investment into emissions reduction, not through
production caps, but by simplifying regulation, creating an attractive fiscal environment and protecting export industries while enabling innovation and growth

Let’s be clear: this is not a call to abandon climate goals or environmental commitments. Canadians care deeply about the environment. But they also care about job security, affordable living and Canada’s place in a rapidly evolving global economy. These values are not in conflict. In fact, the Canadian way—our high standards, our innovation, our sense of fairness—can show the world a model of responsible oil and natural gas development.

We must also ensure Indigenous communities are true partners in growth. Expanding Indigenous loan guarantees at scale will help create infrastructure ownership opportunities that generate long-term prosperity. These guarantees enable First Nations to access affordable financing to invest in projects like pipelines and power generation. But such programs will only succeed if Canada is seen as a competitive place to invest. That foundation must come first.

The mood across Canada has shifted. There is broad public support for oil and natural gas development, not just because of the jobs and revenue, but because Canadians understand the role energy plays in our national and economic sovereignty. Recent polling shows most Canadians believe energy development and climate action can go hand in hand, especially when projects support economic growth.

Amid growing instability in the United States—Canada’s biggest competitor for capital—we have a chance to stand out as a stable and trusted economic partner. But this window of opportunity won’t stay open for long.

We must act decisively. That includes eliminating unnecessary barriers such as production caps and embracing investment in technologies that reduce emissions while growing output.

Canadians are ready. Industry is ready. The time has come to build.

Lisa Baiton is President and CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country