Article from Canadians For Affordable Energy, AffordableEnergy.ca
As I continue to offer comment on the whole Net Zero by 2050 discussion, I am starting with a series of pieces to lay some groundwork. My recent blog, Net Zero Part One: Defining the Terms explained the challenges with the language used by the “Net Zero” lobby.
Today’s blog digs a bit further on the problematic language behind the Net Zero by 2050 agenda.
The advocates of Net Zero by 2050 talk in very rosy terms about how they want to eliminate the bad practices.
In particular, they say their plan is to de-carbonize society and thereby eliminate carbon dioxide pollution. Trudeau’s carbon taxes are all about achieving these ends. You have to pay more, but that’s necessary because Trudeau says we need to de-carbonize and eliminate carbon dioxide pollution.
But stop and think about that.
Trudeau and his ideological allies are twisting language here to advance their agenda. This is part of a trend of course – remember the Liberals don’t use the term tax when describing their carbon taxes, instead calling them by misleading terms such as “Clean Fuel Standard” or “CFS”. It isn’t only a Trudeau trend either – Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole has endorsed carbon taxes in his so-called climate plan but insists on calling them by other names. And so the trend continues in respect to terms like de-carbonization and carbon dioxide pollution.
First, remember from high school science that carbon is an abundant element and every living thing contains it. You can’t de-carbonize the world, nor should you want to: doing so would bring a very quick end to any life on the planet. That is enabling a bad outcome, not ending a bad practice. De-carbonization has become a term of common usage. But using it suggests you support an incoherent agenda. Reducing emissions is one thing and can have merit, but de-carbonization is incoherent.
Second (and still from high school science) remember that carbon dioxide is a molecule that is essential for life: plants thrive on it, we exhale it with every breath we have. CO2 levels swing up and down over centuries and millennia and geologic cycles in ways we are only beginning to understand. We know human activity is producing a lot of CO2 right now, but the levels are well below what they have been in the past. And as societies become more affluent, they become more efficient in their use of resources and the CO2 levels per unit of human activity drop.
Moreover, we have observed in the last few decades a dramatic increase in global green vegetation cover. That makes sense. CO2 is food for plants – just go to a greenhouse and note how they try to heighten CO2 levels to improve growth rates – so more CO2 means more abundant forests, more productive farms, etc. This isn’t pollution: this is life.
But saying these things – obvious things I remind you, that we learned as adolescents – gets you into trouble these days. The Net Zero crowd wants to deny the obvious as a means to advance their green agenda. It is easy to fall into the trap of using the language of “de-carbonization” or “carbon dioxide pollution” but both terms lead down a deceptive road that is inconsistent with the science we know, and ultimately leading to a more and more costly society.
Trudeau’s carbon taxes – as expensive as they are – are just a foretaste of what the misleading language around Net Zero really means: less affordable energy, higher food bills, and a higher cost of living.
Net Zero Part 3 will be published on Todayville Tuesday, June 8
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.
According to a recent study, living standards in Canada have declined over the past five years. And the country’s economic growth has been “ugly.” Crucially, all 10 provinces are experiencing this economic stagnation—there are no exceptions to Canada’s “ugly” growth record. In 2026, reversing this trend should be the top priority for the Carney government and provincial governments across the country.
Indeed, demographic and economic data across the country tell a remarkably similar story over the past five years. While there has been some overall economic growth in almost every province, in many cases provincial populations, fuelled by record-high levels of immigration, have grown almost as quickly. Although the total amount of economic production and income has increased from coast to coast, there are more people to divide that income between. Therefore, after we account for inflation and population growth, the data show Canadians are not better off than they were before.
Let’s dive into the numbers (adjusted for inflation) for each province. In British Columbia, the economy has grown by 13.7 per cent over the past five years but the population has grown by 11.0 per cent, which means the vast majority of the increase in the size of the economy is likely due to population growth—not improvements in productivity or living standards. In fact, per-person GDP, a key indicator of living standards, averaged only 0.5 per cent per year over the last five years, which is a miserable result by historic standards.
A similar story holds in other provinces. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Saskatchewan all experienced some economic growth over the past five years but their populations grew at almost exactly the same rate. As a result, living standards have barely budged. In the remaining provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta), population growth has outstripped economic growth, which means that even though the economy grew, living standards actually declined.
This coast-to-coast stagnation of living standards is unique in Canadian history. Historically, there’s usually variation in economic performance across the country—when one region struggles, better performance elsewhere helps drive national economic growth. For example, in the early 2010s while the Ontario and Quebec economies recovered slowly from the 2008/09 recession, Alberta and other resource-rich provinces experienced much stronger growth. Over the past five years, however, there has not been a “good news” story anywhere in the country when it comes to per-person economic growth and living standards.
In reality, Canada’s recent record-high levels of immigration and population growth have helped mask the country’s economic weakness. With more people to buy and sell goods and services, the overall economy is growing but living standards have barely budged. To craft policies to help raise living standards for Canadian families, policymakers in Ottawa and every provincial capital should remove regulatory barriers, reduce taxes and responsibly manage government finances. This is the great policy challenge for governments across the country in 2026 and beyond.
The dawn of a new year is an opportune time to ponder the recent performance of Canada’s $3.4 trillion economy. And the overall picture is not exactly cheerful.
Since the start of 2025, our principal trading partner has been ruled by a president who seems determined to unravel the post-war global economic and security order that provided a stable and reassuring backdrop for smaller countries such as Canada. Whether the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement (that President Trump himself pushed for) will even survive is unclear, underscoring the uncertainty that continues to weigh on business investment in Canada.
At the same time, Europe—representing one-fifth of the global economy—remains sluggish, thanks to Russia’s relentless war of choice against Ukraine, high energy costs across much of the region, and the bloc’s waning competitiveness. The huge Chinese economy has also lost a step. None of this is good for Canada.
Yet despite a difficult external environment, Canada’s economy has been surprisingly resilient. Gross domestic product (GDP) is projected to grow by 1.7 per cent (after inflation) this year. The main reason is continued gains in consumer spending, which accounts for more than three-fifths of all economic activity. After stripping out inflation, money spent by Canadians on goods and services is set to climb by 2.2 per cent in 2025, matching last year’s pace. Solid consumer spending has helped offset the impact of dwindling exports, sluggish business investment and—since 2023—lacklustre housing markets.
Another reason why we have avoided a sharper economic downturn is that the Trump administration has, so far, exempted most of Canada’s southbound exports from the president’s tariff barrage. This has partially cushioned the decline in Canada’s exports—particularly outside of the steel, aluminum, lumber and auto sectors, where steep U.S. tariffs are in effect. While exports will be lower in 2025 than the year before, the fall is less dramatic than analysts expected 6 to 8 months ago.
Although Canada’s economy grew in 2025, the job market lost steam. Employment growth has softened and the unemployment rate has ticked higher—it’s on track to average almost 7 per cent this year, up from 5.4 per cent two years ago. Unemployment among young people has skyrocketed. With the economy showing little momentum, employment growth will remain muted next year.
Unfortunately, there’s nothing positive to report on the investment front. Adjusted for inflation, private-sector capital spending has been on a downward trajectory for the last decade—a long-term trend that can’t be explained by Trump’s tariffs. Canada has underperformed both the United States and several other advanced economies in the amount of investment per employee. The investment gap with the U.S. has widened steadily since 2014. This means Canadian workers have fewer and less up-to-date tools, equipment and technology to help them produce goods and services compared to their counterparts in the U.S. (and many other countries). As a result, productivity growth in Canada has been lackluster, narrowing the scope for wage increases.
Preliminary data indicate that both overall non-residential investment and business capital spending on machinery, equipment and advanced technology products will be down again in 2025. Getting clarity on the future of the Canada-U.S. trade relationship will be key to improving the business environment for private-sector investment. Tax and regulatory policy changes that make Canada a more attractive choice for companies looking to invest and grow are also necessary. This is where government policymakers should direct their attention in 2026.
