Economy
FLOP28 – Climate proposals would devastate economy
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f279a/f279ab47283a4ab7f13c884b9a087ccd5a4d1f0d" alt=""
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Ian Madsen
” Most CO2 comes from natural sources like forest fires, volcanoes and ocean evaporation – not your SUV or natural gas furnace. The human portion of this tiny amount is the equivalent of 6 pennies in a jar of 10,000. “
Politicians, academics, celebrities, self-appointed activists, protesters, and green energy industry lobbyists recently gathered in Dubai at their annual Climate Crisis jamboree (COP28). Their central belief, from their computer models, is that human-generated global warming will lead to a rise in average global temperatures of two degrees Celsius, ‘2 C’ or even more frighteningly, as much as 3 C to 4 C by 2100. They claim that this will cause widespread health, environmental, and economic devastation.
From this hypothesis comes their solution: drastic reductions in so-called greenhouse gas emissions, principally carbon dioxide, ‘CO2’, and rapidly so. To their minds, this would require widespread adoption of their preferred solutions – ending fossil fuels in favour of wind and solar power; pervasive and intensive electrification of the world economy, including the mandated adoption of electric vehicles, ‘EVs’, and batteries, everywhere.
They insist that slashing CO2 levels will not only benefit the world, but also the economy – as these new industries would provide jobs and other benefits.
The hard reality is that CO2, is a life-giving gas that is crucial for photosynthesis and thus the flourishing of all life on Earth. It is a trace gas – making up only .04% of our atmosphere. Most CO2 comes from natural sources like forest fires, volcanoes and ocean evaporation – not your SUV or natural gas furnace. The human portion of this tiny amount is the equivalent of 6 pennies in a jar of 10,000. Very awkwardly, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are uncorrelated with temperatures. It may look so in government computer models, but remember those catastrophically wrong Covid models that gave us devastating lockdowns, failed vaccines and exploding debt and inflation?
Even if we assume that CO2 is “pollution that is warming the planet” their wild proposals’ math doesn’t work out.
Professor Richard Tol of the University of Sussex, United Kingdom, wrote in a special issue of Climate Economics a sobering assessment of the ‘bad deal’ climate crusaders are trying to sell to the world, including Canada. He estimates their proposed climate policies’ costs to be 3.8 to 5.6% of GDP in 2100 compared to benefits of 2.8% to 3.2% of GDP – or excess costs of $900 billion to $1.98 trillion in today’s $90 trillion world economy.
The prohibitively large subsidies required fail the cost benefit test. To summarize: Tol suggests that the whole Green Transition ‘enterprise’ would lose money – in vast amounts. His view is not even the worst assessment of such radical disruptive policies.
Another expert who engages the “CO2 is pollution” bubble and has done the math is Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus think tank and a Hoover Institution Senior Fellow.
He assesses MIT researchers’ studies of the costs of attaining Net Zero (no net GHG emissions) by 2050, in the same journal, Climate Economics, and observes that these Paris policies would cost 8% to 18% of annual GDP by 2050 and 11% to 13% annually by 2100…. Averaged across the century, these promises would create benefits worth $4.5 trillion (in 2023 dollars) annually: “dramatically smaller than the $27 trillion annual cost that Paris promises would incur, as derived from averaging the three cost estimates from the two Climate Change Economics papers through 2100.”
To remove any doubt, these forecast costs would exceed total global annual capital investment of all kinds, and would crowd out everything else, impoverishing all humanity. Expensive, destructive ‘solutions’, for a dubious, unproven catastrophe.
The Dubai COP28 flopped as all others have.
We need to stop the madness.
Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Economy
Ottawa must end disastrous energy policies to keep pace with U.S.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9a36c/9a36c476537f60c1ddc408525c04702169809e8b" alt=""
From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
This negative perception of Canada’s regulatory environment is hardly a surprise, given Ottawa’s policies over the last decade.
During last night’s Liberal leadership debate, there was a lot of talk about Donald Trump. But whatever your views on President Trump, one thing is certain—he’s revitalized his country’s energy sector. Through a set of executive orders, Trump instructed agency heads to identify “actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy source” and “exercise any lawful emergency authorities available” to facilitate energy production and transportation. In other words, let’s become an energy superpower.
Clearly, to avoid falling further behind, Canada must swiftly end policies that unduly restrict oil and gas production and discourage investment. Change can’t come soon enough.
Before Trump’s inauguration, red tape was already hindering Canada’s oil and gas sector, which was less attractive for investment compared to the United States. According to a survey conducted in 2023, , 68 per cent of oil and gas investors said uncertainty about environmental regulations deterred investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector compared to 41 per cent in the U.S. Similarly, 54 per cent said Canada’s regulatory duplication and inconsistencies deterred investment compared to only 34 per cent for the U.S. And 55 per cent of respondents said that uncertainty regarding the enforcement of existing regulations in Canada deterred investment compared to only 37 per cent of respondents for the U.S.
This negative perception of Canada’s regulatory environment is hardly a surprise, given Ottawa’s policies over the last decade. For example, one year after taking office, in 2016 the Trudeau government cancelled the previously approved $7.9 billion Northern Gateway pipeline, which was designed to transport crude oil from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast, expanding Canada’s access to Asian markets.
In 2017, Prime Minister Trudeau undermined the long-term confidence in the sector by vowing to “phase out” fossil fuels in Canada.
In 2019, the Trudeau government passed Bill C-69, introducing subjective criteria including the “gender implications” of energy investment into the evaluation process of major energy projects, causing massive uncertainty around the development of new projects.
Also that year, the government enacted Bill C-48, which bans large oil tankers from B.C.’s northern coast, limiting Canadian exports to Asia.
In 2023, the Trudeau government announced plans to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the oil and gas sector at 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030—an arbitrary measure considering GHG emissions from other sectors in the economy were left untouched. According to a recent report, to comply with the cap, Canadian firms must severely curtail oil and gas production. As one might expect, these policies come at a cost. Over the last decade, investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector has collapsed by 56 per cent, from $84.0 billion in 2014 to $37.2 billion in 2023 (inflation adjusted). Less investment means less funding for new energy projects, technologies and infrastructure, and fewer job opportunities and economic opportunities for Canadians nationwide.
The energy gap between the U.S. and Canada is set to grow wider during President Trump’s second term. While Trump wants to attract investment to the American oil and gas industry by streamlining processes and cutting costs, Canada is driving investment away with costly and often arbitrary measures. If Ottawa continues on its current path, Canada’s leading industry—and its largest source of exports—will lose more ground to the U.S. When Parliament reconvenes, policymakers must move quickly to eliminate harmful policies hindering our energy sector.
Business
Trump: Tariffs on Canada, Mexico to take effect next week
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f01da/f01dae62e211b2fd0aee2cbad3821bfde6d1f53c" alt=""
MxM News
Quick Hit:
President Donald Trump confirmed that a 25 percent tariff on all goods from Canada and Mexico will take effect next week. The move is intended to pressure the neighboring countries to take stronger measures against undocumented migration and fentanyl trafficking into the U.S. Despite discussions with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, Trump stated the tariffs will proceed as scheduled.
Key Details:
- The tariffs were initially set for February 4 but were delayed by 30 days following conversations with Trudeau and Sheinbaum.
- Trump emphasized the need for “reciprocal” tariffs, stating the U.S. has been “mistreated very badly” by many countries.
- Canada and Mexico have threatened to retaliate if the tariffs are implemented, which could impact over $900 billion in U.S. imports.
Diving Deeper:
President Donald Trump announced on Monday that his administration will move forward with imposing a 25 percent tariff on all Canadian and Mexican goods, effective next week. The decision aims to pressure the two countries into taking stronger actions to curb undocumented migration and fentanyl trafficking into the United States.
Speaking at a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, Trump stated, “The tariffs are going forward on time, on schedule.” This declaration comes as the new deadline approaches on March 4, after an initial delay of 30 days from February 4, following phone conversations with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.
During the press conference, Trump emphasized the broader issue of tariff reciprocity, claiming, “We’ve been mistreated very badly by many countries, not just Canada and Mexico.” He stressed the need for fairness in international trade, stating, “All we want is reciprocal. We want reciprocity. We want the same.”
Although Trump did not explicitly mention fentanyl or migration in his remarks, his statements apply additional pressure on Canada and Mexico to address his administration’s concerns. According to the White House, Trudeau informed Trump on Saturday that Canada has achieved a 90 percent reduction in fentanyl crossing the U.S. Northern Border and that Canada’s Border Czar will visit the U.S. next week for further discussions.
Together, Canada and Mexico account for more than $900 billion in U.S. imports, including vehicles, auto parts, and agricultural products. Both countries have indicated that they will retaliate if the tariffs are imposed. In a concession to inflation concerns, Trump noted that energy imports from Canada would face a lower tariff rate of 10 percent.
The move underscores Trump’s continued focus on securing U.S. borders and achieving trade reciprocity, while also setting the stage for potential trade conflicts with America’s closest trading partners.
-
International2 days ago
Vatican reports ‘slight improvement’ in Pope Francis’ condition
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
Wayne’s World Has Moved South. Canadians Are Appalled. Again.
-
Business2 days ago
Biden’s $20B grant to climate groups involved “self-dealing”
-
Energy2 days ago
There is no better time for the Atlantic to follow the Pacific as the next stage of Canadian energy development
-
conflict2 days ago
Trump meets Macron at White House, says Ukraine war ending soon
-
Bjorn Lomborg23 hours ago
We need to get smart about climate
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Migrants Won’t Be Putting Their Feet Up At One NYC Hotel Much Longer
-
Business1 day ago
Trump to Counter Foreign Social Media Censorship Demands and Defend Free Speech Online