Ottawa’s emissions cap will impose massive costs with virtually no benefit

From the Fraser Institute

The resulting reduction in global GHG emissions would amount to a mere four-tenths of one per cent (i.e. 0.004 per cent) with virtually no impact on the climate or any detectable environmental, health or safety benefits.

Last year, when the Trudeau government said it would cap greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from the oil and gas sector at 35 to 38 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030, it claimed the cap will not affect oil and gas production.

But a report by Deloitte, a leading audit and consulting firm, found that the cap (which would go into effect in 2026) will in fact curtail production, destroy jobs and cost the Canadian economy billions of dollars. Under Trudeau’s cap, Canada must curtail oil production by 626,000 barrels per day by 2030 or by approximately 10.0 per cent of the expected production—and curtail gas production by approximately 12.0 per cent.

According to the report’s estimates, Alberta will be hit hardest, with 3.6 per cent less investment, almost 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in the province’s economic output (i.e. GDP) by 2040. Ontario will lose more than 15,000 jobs and $2.3 billion from its economy by 2040. And Quebec will lose more than 3,000 jobs and $0.4 billion from its economy during the same period.

Overall, the whole country will experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of GDP, translating into lower wages, the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues. Canada’s real GDP growth in 2023 was a paltry 1.1 per cent, so a 1 per cent reduction would be a significant economic loss.

Deloitte’s findings echo previous studies on the effects of Ottawa’s cap. According to a recent economic analysis by the Conference Board of Canada, the cap could reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, eliminate up to 151,000 jobs by 2030, reduce federal government revenue by up to $151 billion between 2030 and 2040, and reduce Alberta government revenue by up to $127 billion over the same period.

Similarly, another recent study published by the Fraser Institute found that an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector would inevitably reduce production and exports, leading to at least $45 billion in lost economic activity in 2030 alone, accompanied by a substantial drop in government revenue.

Crucially, the huge economic cost to Canadians will come without any discernable environmental benefits. Even if Canada were to entirely shut down its oil and gas sector by 2030, thus eliminating all GHG emissions from the sector, the resulting reduction in global GHG emissions would amount to a mere four-tenths of one per cent (i.e. 0.004 per cent) with virtually no impact on the climate or any detectable environmental, health or safety benefits.

Given the sustained demand for fossil fuels, constraining oil and gas production and exports in Canada would merely shift production to other regions, potentially to countries with lower environmental and human rights standards such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela.

The Trudeau government’s proposed GHG cap will severely damage Canada’s economy for virtually no environmental benefit. The government should scrap the cap and prioritize the economic wellbeing of Canadians over policies that only bring pain with no gain.

Authors:

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Up Next

Biden-Harris Admin Adds China To Illicit Drug Watchlist After Touting Cooperation In Fighting Fentanyl Crisis

Don't Miss

Scrap the second carbon tax: Taxpayers Federation

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

Ontario Premier Doug Ford Apologizes To Americans After Threatening Energy Price Hike For Millions

Daily Caller / 48 mins ago

Reality Finally Returns To Energy Industry

Carbon Tax / 7 hours ago

Carney’s climate plan will continue to cost Canadians

Business

Ontario Premier Doug Ford Apologizes To Americans After Threatening Energy Price Hike For Millions

Published on March 12, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Wallace White

Ontario Premier Doug Ford apologized to Americans Tuesday after he suspended a 25% electricity surcharge that he initially said he would be “relentless” in pursuing.

Ford implemented a 25% surcharge on electricity to New York, Michigan and Minnesota on Monday, but quickly rescinded the policy and apologized to Americans on WABC’s “Cats & Cosby” radio show the following day. The tariffs were initially a retaliatory measure against President Donald Trump’s flurry of tariffs against Canada since he assumed office.

Canada is highly dependent on U.S. exports, economists told CNN, and the planned electricity surcharge would likely hurt Canada’s energy industry much more than it would the U.S., although an estimated 1.5 million homes and businesses would have been affected.

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!

“I want to apologize to the American people. I spent 20 years of my life in the US, in New Jersey, in Chicago. I love the American people,” Ford said. “I absolutely love them … Secretary Lutnick and President Trump are brilliant businesspeople. They are hard negotiators. We need to put this behind us and move forward and build the two strongest countries in the world.”

Initially, Ford had a much more aggressive tone when he instituted the tariffs.

“We will not back down. We will be relentless. I apologize to the American people that President Trump decided to have an unprovoked attack on our country, on families, on jobs, and it’s unacceptable,” Ford said on MSNBC in response to Trump’s hiking of steel and aluminum tariffs.

Trump, in turn, threatened to increase the steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada to 50%, with the increase going into effect the next day.

Ford then talked with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, with the premier describing the call as “productive.” Once Ford backed down on his plan to implement the export fees, Trump reversed his planned hike to 50% on steel and aluminum tariffs. Ford is expected to meet with Lutnick Thursday in Washington, D.C.

If a deal is not reached by the April 2 deadline, the tariffs will resume.

Ontario sold around 12 terawatt hours of electricity to America in 2023, with the U.S. being Ontario’s largest energy customer outside Canada. The tariff would have likely added “100$ a month” to the bill of Americans in the affected states, Ford claimed according to CNN.

The U.S. and Canada have entered into a contested debate over trade policies, with Canada announcing an additional $20 billion in retaliatory tariffs on American goods in response to Trump’s initial 25% steel and aluminum tariffs.

Trump initially gained concessions from Canada in February, forcing them to aid in curtailing the illegal fentanyl trade in exchange for a pause on a 25% general goods tariff enacted Feb. 1. However, Trump eventually let the pause expire, with the tariff resuming in March.

“Canada is a tariff abuser, and always has been, but the United States is not going to be subsidizing Canada any longer,” Trump said on Truth Social Mar. 10.

The Ontario Premier’s office did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Carbon Tax

Carney’s climate plan will continue to cost Canadians

Published on March 12, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Mark Carney, our next prime minister, has floated a climate policy plan that he says will be better for Canadians than the “divisive [read: widely hated] consumer carbon tax.”

But in reality, Carney’s plan is an exercise in misdirection. Under his plan, instead of paying the “consumer carbon tax” directly and receiving carbon rebates, Canadians will pay more via higher prices for products that flow from Canada’s “large industrial emitters” who Carney plans to saddle with higher carbon taxes, indirectly imposing the consumer carbon tax by passing those costs onto Canadians.

Carney also wants to shift government subsidies to consumer products of so-called “clean technologies.” As Carney told the National Observer, “We’re introducing changes so that if you decide to insulate your home, install a heat pump, or switch to a fuel-efficient car, those companies will pay you—not the taxpayer, not the government, but those companies.” What Carney does not mention is that much of the costs imposed on “those companies” will also be folded into the costs of the products consumers buy, but the cause of rising prices will be less distinguishable and attributable to government action.

Moreover, Carney says he wants to make Canada a “clean energy superpower” and “expand and modernize our energy infrastructure so that we are less dependent on foreign suppliers, and the United States as a customer.” But this too is absurd. Far from being in any way poised to become a “clean energy superpower,” Canada likely won’t meet its own projected electricity demand by 2050 under existing environmental regulations.

For example, to generate the electricity needed through 2050 solely with solar power, Canada would need to build 840 solar-power generation stations the size of Alberta’s Travers Solar Project, which would take about 1,700 construction-years to accomplish. If we went with wind power to meet future demand, Canada would need to build 574 wind-power installations the size of Quebec’s Seigneurie de Beaupre wind-power station, which would take about 1,150 construction years to accomplish. And if we relied solely on hydropower, we’d need to build 134 hydro-power facilities the size of the Site C power station in British Columbia, which would take 938 construction years to accomplish. Finally, if we relied solely on nuclear power, we’d need to construct 16 new nuclear plants the size of Ontario’s Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, taking “only” 112 construction years to accomplish.

Again, Mark Carney’s climate plan is an exercise in misdirection—a rhetorical sleight of hand to convince Canadians that he’ll lighten the burden on taxpayers and shift away from the Trudeau government’s overzealous climate policies of the past decade. But scratch the surface of the Carney plan and you’ll see climate policies that will hit Canadian consumers harder, with likely higher prices for goods and services. As a federal election looms, Canadians should demand from all candidates—no matter their political stripe—a detailed plan to rekindle Canada’s energy sector and truly lighten the load for Canadians and their families.