Canadians should understand costs of Ottawa’s Emissions Reduction Plan

On its first day in office, the Trump administration withdrew from the Paris climate agreement and began a regulation effort aimed largely at the energy sector. Meanwhile, the Trudeau government wants to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 to satisfy its commitment to the Paris agreement that Trudeau signed back in 2016.

But far from “building a strong economy” and making Canada “more competitive,” as the government claims, its Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) will hurt Canada’s already struggling economy while failing to meet its own emission reduction targets.

In essence, the ERP has two components. The first one, and probably the most well-known to Canadians, is the carbon tax, which places a cost on fossil fuel use based on the amount of GHG emissions produced. The tax increased to $80 per tonne on April 1, 2024 and is scheduled to reach $170 per tonne by 2030.

The second—and least discussed—ERP component is the Trudeau government’s cascade of regulatory measures and mandates including requirements for fuel producers and importers to reduce the carbon content of their fuels, and electric vehicle mandates that require all new (light-duty) vehicles sold to be zero-emission by 2035 (with interim targets of 20 per cent by 2026 and 60 per cent by 2030). Additional measures include restrictions on fertilizer use in agriculture, emissions caps in the oil and gas industry, energy efficiency mandates for buildings, and more. With more regulations come increased costs to producers, and these costs are largely passed to consumers in the form of higher prices.

But aside from vague and unsupported claims that the ERP will strengthen the economy, the government hasn’t provided a detailed assessment of the plan’s costs and benefits. In other words, while the government has outlined how it plans to reduce emissions—carbon taxes, regulations, mandates—we still don’t know how much these policies will cost or how they will benefit Canadians.

But a recent study published by the Fraser Institute evaluate the economic and environmental impacts of the ERP.

According to the study’s projections, the carbon tax alone will cost $1,302 per worker annually by 2030, reduce employment by an estimated 57,000 jobs, and shrink the Canadian economy by 1.5 per cent compared to a scenario without the ERP. Considering that the economy grew just by 1.3 per cent in 2023, this cost is significant.

After you account for the ERP’s additional regulatory measures and mandates, the economic cost rises. By 2030, the full implementation of the ERP—which includes the carbon tax, regulatory measures and mandates—will shrink the economy by 6.2 per cent, cost Canadian workers $6,700 annually, and reduce employment by 164,000 jobs. Alberta, of course, will bear a large portion of these costs.

To make matters worse, the ERP will still fall short of the Trudeau government’s 2030 emission-reduction target. According to the study, the ERP will reduce Canada’s GHG emissions by about 26.5 per cent between 2019 and 2030, achieving only approximately 57 per cent of the government’s target. In short, Trudeau’s climate plan won’t deliver the economic growth or environmental impact the government anticipates.

Canadians should understand the costs of the Trudeau government’s Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP), which won’t achieve its targets while making Canadians worse-off. Any government should reject climate targets and policies where Canadians are merely an afterthought.

Up Next

Alberta government should rely on dividends—not ‘political will’—to grow Heritage Fund

Don't Miss

Trump orders federal employees to remove pronouns from email signatures by end of day

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

Pierre Poilievre Declares War on Red Tape and Liberal Decay in Osoyoos

Alberta / 3 hours ago

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

International / 4 hours ago

Biden Lied About Everything, Including Nuclear Risk, During Ukraine Operation

Banks

Wall Street Clings To Green Coercion As Trump Unleashes American Energy

Published on April 6, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Isaac

The Trump administration’s recent move to revoke Biden-era restrictions on energy development in Alaska’s North Slope—especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)—is a long-overdue correction that prioritizes American prosperity and energy security. This regulatory reset rightly acknowledges what Alaska’s Native communities have long known: responsible energy development offers a path to economic empowerment and self-determination.

But while Washington’s red tape may be unraveling, a more insidious blockade remains firmly in place: Wall Street.

Despite the Trump administration’s restoration of rational permitting processes, major banks and insurance companies continue to collude in starving projects of the capital and risk management services they need. The left’s “debanking” strategy—originally a tactic to pressure gun makers and disfavored industries—is now being weaponized against American energy companies operating in ANWR and similar regions.

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!

This quiet embargo began years ago, when JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank, declared in 2020 that it would no longer fund oil and gas development in the Arctic, including ANWR. Others quickly followed: Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup now all reject Arctic energy projects—effectively shutting down access to capital for an entire region.

Insurers have joined the pile-on. Swiss Re, AIG, and AXIS Capital all publicly stated they would no longer insure drilling in ANWR. In 2023, Chubb became the first U.S.-based insurer to formalize its Arctic ban.

These policies are not merely misguided—they are dangerous. They hand America’s energy future over to OPEC, China, and hostile regimes. They reduce competition, drive up prices, and kneecap the very domestic production that once made the U.S. energy independent.

This isn’t just a theoretical concern. I’ve experienced this discrimination firsthand.

In February 2025, The Hartford notified the American Energy Institute—an educational nonprofit I lead—that it would not renew our insurance policy. The reason? Not risk. Not claims. Not underwriting. The Hartford cited our Facebook page.

“The reason for nonrenewal is we have learned from your Facebook page that your operations include Trade association involved in promoting social/political causes related to energy production. This is not an acceptable exposure under The Hartford’s Small Commercial business segment’s guidelines.”

That’s a direct quote from their nonrenewal notice.

Let’s be clear: The Hartford didn’t drop us for anything we did—they dropped us for what we believe. Our unacceptable “exposure” is telling the truth about the importance of affordable and reliable energy to modern life, and standing up to ESG orthodoxy. We are being punished not for risk, but for advocacy.

This is financial discrimination, pure and simple. What we’re seeing is the private-sector enforcement of political ideology through the strategic denial of access to financial services. It’s ESG—Environmental, Social, and Governance—gone full Orwell.

Banks, insurers, and asset managers may claim these decisions are about “climate risk,” but they rarely apply the same scrutiny to regimes like Venezuela or China, where environmental and human rights abuses are rampant. The issue is not risk. The issue is control.

By shutting out projects in ANWR, Wall Street ensures that even if federal regulators step back, their ESG-aligned agenda still moves forward—through corporate pressure, shareholder resolutions, and selective financial access. This is how ideology replaces democracy.

While the Trump administration deserves praise for removing federal barriers, the fight for energy freedom continues. Policymakers must hold financial institutions accountable for ideological discrimination and protect access to banking and insurance services for all lawful businesses.

Texas has already taken steps by divesting from anti-energy financial firms. Other states should follow, enforcing anti-discrimination laws and leveraging state contracts to ensure fair treatment.

But public pressure matters too. Americans need to know what’s happening behind the curtain of ESG. The green financial complex is not just virtue-signaling—it’s a form of economic coercion designed to override public policy and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

The regulatory shackles may be coming off, but the private-sector blockade remains. As long as banks and insurers collude to deny access to capital and risk protection for projects in ANWR and beyond, America’s energy independence will remain under threat.

We need to call out this hypocrisy. We need to expose it. And we need to fight it—before we lose not just our energy freedom, but our economic prosperity.

The Honorable Jason Isaac is the Founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.

Automotive

Tesla Vandals Keep Running Into The Same Problem … Cameras

Published on April 6, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hudson Crozier

People damaging Teslas in anger toward their owners and Elon Musk aren’t picking up on the fact that the vehicles have multiple cameras capable of catching them in the act.

At least nine perpetrators have been caught on video keying, writing graffiti or otherwise defacing Tesla vehicles in parking lots across the U.S. in the month of March alone. Most have led to an arrest or warrant based partly on the footage, which Tesla’s “Sentry Mode” automatically films from the side of the unattended vehicle when it detects human activity nearby.

“Smile, you’re on camera,” Tesla warned in a March 20 X post about its Sentry Mode feature. Musk’s company has been working to upgrade Sentry Mode so that the vehicles will soon blast music at full volume when vandals attack it. The camera system, however, has not stopped an increasing number of vandals from singling out Tesla owners, usually in protest of Musk’s work in the Trump administration for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

One incident happened on March 29, the same day leftists coordinated protests around the country for a “Global Day of Action” against Musk. That Saturday also saw alleged instances of violence at protests. The demonstrations stemmed from an online call to action by groups such as the Disruption Project, which encourages activists to foment “uprisings,” find a “target’s” home address and other confrontational tactics.

Tesla’s press team did not respond to a request for comment.

One man allegedly caught on camera keying a Tesla SUV on March 24 apologized to the owner who confronted him in a parking lot in Pennsylvania, police and media reports said. The man faces charges of criminal mischief, harassment and disorderly conduct for allegedly carving a swastika onto the vehicle.

“I have nothing against your car, and I have nothing against you,” the suspect said while the owner filmed him in the parking lot. “Obviously, I have something against Elon Musk.” The man called his own behavior “misguided.”

The defendant’s lawyer told Fox News his “client is a proud father, long-time resident, and is currently undergoing cancer treatment” and that he would not comment publicly “pending the outcome of the case.”

One of the most aggressive acts caught by Sentry Mode was in the case of a man who drove an ATV-style vehicle into a Tesla on March 25. Texas police identified the man as Demarqeyun Marquize Cox, arrested him and said he allegedly gave two other nearby Teslas the same treatment while also writing “Elon” on them. The public defender office representing Cox did not respond to a voicemail from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Tesla cameras also caught three other people in Florida, Texas and Arizona keying and smearing bubble gum on the vehicles in March. The three suspects named by police do not have attorneys listed in county records available for contact.

Many of the vandalism cases since Trump’s return have reportedly caused thousands of dollars in damage for individual owners. For example, the bubble gum incident in Florida brought $2,623.66 in costs, while another keying incident in Minnesota brought $3,200.

Some reported attacks on Tesla vehicles and chargers have gotten the attention of federal law enforcement, including cases of alleged firebombing or shooting.

Two other suspected vandals in New York, one in Minnesota and one in Mississippi have reportedly avoided arrest for now — with one owner declining to press charges — but were all seen on the Teslas’ cameras scratching up the vehicles. Police identified the Mississippi suspect as an illegal migrant from Cuba.

One Tesla owner in North Dakota ridiculed a man who allegedly carved the letter “F” into his Cybertruck in a Costco parking lot — as seen on the Cybertruck’s camera. The defendant faces charges of criminal mischief, and county records say he is representing himself in court.

“I can’t believe this guy is potentially ruining his life to follow a political ideology,” the owner told WDAY News.

“If you’re going to vandalize these vehicles, you’re going to get caught,” the owner said.