The article references an internal memo from a senior public servant at Natural Resources Canada (NRCan – the federal government department that deals with resource issues such as energy). NRCan Assistant Deputy Minister Mollie Johnson, a senior bureaucrat, is the memo’s author, and in it she notes that the department has been looking into questions on how, amongst other things, the “Net Zero by 2050” campaign will affect affordability for consumers.
“how, amongst other things, the “Net Zero by 2050” campaign will affect affordability for consumers.”
Now, the National Observer provides a customary green dodge on the legitimate question about the costs of Net Zero by 2050, noting that this is the kind of question oil and gas industry players focus on. The National Observer goes on to insist that the real issue is that the costs of the climate crisis are soaring – they do not really specify what costs except to point to weather events and suggest these are getting worse and that the costs of them are becoming unmanageable (both are untrue – we will address in a future blog).
It is as if they are saying “How dare energy companies and their lobbyists have the nerve to ask questions about how government policy will affect their interests! How dare Mollie Johnson suggest questions concerning a policy’s impact on affordability might be appropriate for government officials to consider before advancing the policy!”
To the environmental activists and their friends at the National Observer, the very act of daring to raise one’s hand and ask about the radical green agenda that is Net Zero by 2050, to ask ‘how much will it cost?’, is simply unacceptable. Indeed, to the activists, raising such questions is so unacceptable that asking such questions should be forbidden.
And these green propagandists consistently fall back on the usual apocalyptic rhetoric about a “climate emergency” or “climate crisis”.
ADM Mollie Johnson of NRCan appears to be doing what you would hope a public servant would do: asking how much a policy will cost the taxpayer. Thank you Ms. Johnson!
But in this time of ideological green fervor, in the cult of climate action, you cannot dare ask such heretical and vulgar questions as how policy will affect the economic well-being of citizens.
I encourage all of our readers to do just that. Call your local utility, or bank or insurance company, or a mining company, or any other company that is currently espousing a commitment to Net Zero by 2050 – and ask them how much it will cost. How much will it cost in terms of direct taxpayer dollars? How many jobs will this cost? How much in lost tax revenue will it cost the government when the jobs are gone?
My bet is they can’t answer your question.
They don’t know.
Yet they still commit to Net Zero by 2050.
Net Zero Part 4 will be published on Todayville Thursday, June 10
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.
Trump said in his first cabinet meeting that his administration will soon begin placing tariffs on products from the countries of the EU, accusing the European Union of cheating the US.
President Donald Trump blasted the European Union during the first cabinet meeting of his new administration, saying that “The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States. That’s the purpose of it.”
“I love the countries of Europe,” Trump began, “but the European Union was formed to screw the United States.”
“Let’s be honest. The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States,” he reemphasized. “That’s the purpose of it.”
“And they’ve done a good job of it,” he said, before warning: “But now I’m president.”
Trump said that his administration will soon begin placing tariffs on the products of the countries of the EU.
Asked if he expected the EU to retaliate if the U.S. imposes stiff tariffs, Trump said: “They can’t. I mean they can try, but they can’t.”
“We are the pot of gold,” he explained. “We’re the one that everybody wants, and they can retaliate, but it cannot be a successful retaliation, because we just go cold turkey, we don’t buy any more, and if that happens, we win.”
“Carney wants to run on his economic credibility, but he has no credible plan to cut spending or balance the budget,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “The next time Carney releases a plan to balance the budget, he should remember to include the plan to balance the budget.”
Today Carney released his “approach to federal budgeting.” Carney’s backgrounder acknowledges “the federal government has been spending too much,” but Carney’s plan does not include a plan to balance the budget or cut spending.
Carney plans to separate the government’s operating and capital budgets.
“A Mark Carney-led government will balance the operating budget in three years,” Carney’s backgrounder states. “At the same time, we will run a small deficit on capital spending.”
“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Canadians he would balance the budget after a few small deficits, but instead of balancing the books he ran massive deficits and doubled the debt,” Terrazzano said. “Carney needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a credible plan to balance the budget and cut spending.”
The federal government ran a $62-billion deficit last year. That’s $20 billion higher than its promised fiscal guardrail.
The Trudeau government doubled the debt in less than a decade. Interest charges on the debt are costing taxpayers $54 billion this year. For context, the government is wasting more money on debt interest charges than it sends to the provinces in health-care transfers.
“A balanced budget means the government stops adding to the debt, but Carney’s plan would continue to rack up debt and waste more money on interest charges,” Terrazzano said. “Carney acknowledges the government has a spending problem and now he needs to find concrete ways to save money, balance the budget and cut the debt.”
