The case against Net Zero 2050

Every “net zero by 2050” myth, refuted

Fossil fuels expert Alex Epstein shares everything you need to know about fossil fuels and what the world would really look like if we were “net zero” by 2050.

—

Alex Epstein is a philosopher and energy expert who argues that “human flourishing” should be the guiding principle of industrial and environmental progress. He is the author of the New York Times bestseller, “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” and his latest book, “Fossil Future.”

For months I have been eagerly anticipating a scheduled debate I had at the University of Syracuse on “net zero by 2050” with climate catastrophist and net-zero advocate Tom Rand.

Unfortunately, due apparently to some sort of weird contractual issue between Tom’s agent and the university, Tom did not make it to the debate.

Since I was supposed to be in a debate, but there was no one to debate, I thought the best I could make of the situation would be to give a speech refuting every single argument for “net zero by 2050” that Tom and others make. It ended up being one of my favorite speeches ever; you can watch it here. We’ve also embedded the video below.

Below I have included all the “net zero” myths I covered , and then some. I think you’ll find them, along with the positive points about energy freedom, very valuable.

Myth: The best policy toward CO2 emissions is “net zero by 2050.”

Truth: Net-zero policies have been catastrophically destructive when barely implemented and would be apocalyptically destructive if fully implemented.

They should be abandoned in favor of energy freedom policies.

How to think about the right policy toward fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions

What are “net zero by 2050 policies”?Government (coercive) actions whose primary and binding goal is the net-elimination of CO2 (and other GHG) emissions, whose number one source is fossil fuel use, by 2050.
In practice “net zero” means: rapidly eliminate most fossil fuel use.
One “net zero” policy is an extremely high “carbon tax,” like “$1000/ton.”This would mean, in practice:
- 3-4 times higher prices for gasoline in Texas
- 9 times higher electricity prices in West Virginia
- 4-5 times higher prices for heating with natural gas
What are “energy freedom policies”?Government actions to protect the ability of producers to produce all forms of energy and consumers to use all forms of energy, so long as they don’t engage in reasonably preventable pollution or endangerment of others.
Energy freedom policies include:
- Protecting the freedom to develop fossil fuels and other forms of energy. E.g., deep geothermal development.
- Protecting the freedom to use fossil fuels and all other forms of energy. E.g., “decriminalizing nuclear.”
Interesting: the 2 biggest instances of CO2 reduction have come from energy freedom policies:
- Nuclear: Freedom led to cost-effective and scalable nuclear power until the “green” movement virtually criminalized it.
- Gas: Freedom led to significant substitution of gas vs. coal.
Myth: Net-zero policies are new and exciting.
Truth: Net-zero policies have caused catastrophic energy shortages even with minuscule implementation. Just by slowing the growth of fossil fuel use, not even reducing it, they have caused global energy shortages advocates didn’t warn us of.
Minuscule net-zero policies causing huge problems:
- US: Frequent power shortages (and some disastrous blackouts) after shutting down fossil fuel power plants. E.g., CA
- EU: Deadly fossil fuel dependence after restricting domestic fossil fuel industry
- Poor nations: Can’t afford fuel due to global restrictions¹
The root problem with “net zero by 2050”It violates a basic principle of rational thinking, which is that when evaluating what to do about a product or technology—e.g., prescription drug—you need to carefully weigh the benefits and side-effects of your alternatives.
Myth: If there are negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use we should get them to net-zero as soon as possible.Truth: We should carefully weigh them against the benefits that come with them, including positive climate side-effects, climate mastery abilities, and many broader benefits.
It is particularly crucial to weigh any negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use against the climate mastery benefits that come with them, as those benefits can neutralize or overwhelm negatives.E.g., more energy powering heating and cooling, irrigation, infrastructure-building, etc.
Example of fossil-fueled climate mastery overwhelming negative impacts: Drought.Any contribution of rising CO2 to drought has been overwhelmed by fossil-fueled irrigation and crop transport, which have helped reduce drought deaths by over 100 times over 100 years as CO2 levels have risen.²
An irrefutable method for thinking about policy toward fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions1 Factor in broad benefits
2 Factor in climate mastery benefits
3 Factor in positive and negative climate side-effects (from rising CO2)
No net-zero advocate has refuted it, yet none follow it.
How net-zero advocates fail to weigh benefits and side-effects of fossil fuels
- Factor in broad benefits – Deny or trivialize
- Factor in climate mastery benefits – Deny
- Factor in positive and negative climate side-effects – Deny or trivialize positives, Catastrophize negatives = Overstate, Deny mastery
If we follow the irrefutable principles of weighing benefits and climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use, using undeniable facts and mainstream science, it is obvious that “net zero by 2050” would be apocalyptically destructive and that the right path forward is energy freedom.

Applying fossil fuel policy principle 1: Factoring in the broad benefits of continuing fossil fuel use

Myth: The benefit of continuing fossil fuel use is trivial at best.Truth: The benefit of continuing fossil fuel use is a world in which 8 billion people have the energy they need to survive and flourish—vs. an energy-starved world in which most of the world’s 8 billion people suffer from poverty and premature death.
Myth: There are no real benefits of continuing fossil fuel use because it can be rapidly replaced by mostly solar and wind.Truth: fossil fuels are and for decades will remain uniquely cost-effective: affordable, reliable, versatile—on a scale of billions of people in thousands of places.
Myth: Fossil fuels are being rapidly replaced in an “energy transition” to solar and wind.Truth: Fossil fuel use is 80% of the world’s energy and still growing despite 100+ years of aggressive competition and 20+ years of political hostility and massive solar and wind favoritism.³
Myth: Fossil fuel use will soon rapidly decline because countries know “green” energy will be cheaper.Truth: Countries that care most about cheap energy are pro-fossil fuels.
E.g., China, which uses mostly coal to produce “green” tech, has over 300 planned new coal plants designed to last over 40 years.
Myth: Solar and wind are growing fast by outcompeting fossil fuels with superior economics.Truth: Solar and wind are growing fast only when given massive government preferences—mandates, subsidies, and no penalty for unreliability—along with crippling government punishments of fossil fuels.
Myth: Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels.Truth: For the overwhelming majority of the world’s energy needs, solar and wind either can’t do what fossil fuel can—e.g., non-electricity energy uses such as airplanes or cargo ships—or are far more expensive.
Myth: Solar and wind electricity is getting so cheap that will lead to rapid electrification of the 4/5ths of today’s energy that is not electricity.Truth: When you factor in the full cost of the 24/7 life support that unreliable solar and wind electricity need, they are far more expensive.⁴
Myth: Solar and wind plus batteries will inevitably be super-cheap because of efficiency increases driving lower production costs and higher performance.Truth: Their cost is astronomical today and has a large mining component whose costs will increase if scaled artificially quickly.⁵
Even relatively mild increases in demand for critical minerals in recent years have led to scaling issues and cost increases—reversing a trend of falling prices that solar and wind advocates pretended would last forever.What will rapid scaling plus anti-mining policies do?⁶
Myth: Rapidly eliminating fossil fuels will make us more energy-secure.Truth: We’d be far less energy secure because 1) we’d have drastically less energy, period, and 2) we’re far more dependent on China for key components of solar, wind, and batteries than we are on Russia for fossil fuels.⁷
Myth: Reliable alternatives to fossil fuels, such as nuclear and geothermal, can rapidly replace fossil fuels.Truth: While these industries have potential that we should unleash, they are generations away from providing, on a global scale, energy that’s affordable, reliable, and versatile.⁸
Myth: Academics have rigorous plans to replace fossil fuels with mostly solar and wind
Truth: All these “plans” involve 2 absurdities: 1. Unprecedented mining and construction in today’s anti-development political environment will be cheap.
2. Untested schemes will be cheap, everywhere, the first time.
“Net zero” plans to scale solar and wind involve more than doubling the supply of half a dozen major mined materials per decade.I know of no example, ever, of any major mined mineral doubling that fast, even with pro-development governments—let alone today’s anti-development governments.⁹
All “net zero” by 2050 plans involve totally untested schemes, both for
1. Electricity: Solar and wind somehow being the basis of cheap, reliable electricity.
2. Other energy: Myriad electric or hydrogen vehicles (e.g., planes, ships) that are nowhere near commercial reality.¹⁰
Myth: Carbon capture will soon allow us to have global cost-effective energy without CO2 emissions.Truth: While cost-effective carbon capture is worth exploring (e.g., using CO2 for industry or agriculture), there’s no evidence that most emissions can be captured cheaply.
Summary: Fossil fuels are, and for decades will remain, uniquely cost-effective: affordable, reliable, versatile—on a scale of billions of people in thousands of places.

Policy implications:
- Energy freedom —> global cost-effective energy
- Net zero —> very little cost-effective energy
When “net zero by 2050” advocates are forced to concede that their policies would (at minimum) dramatically reduce the availability of energy, they revert to the myth that cost-effective energy is only of modest importance compared to CO2 emissions reductions.
Myth: Cost-effective energy isn’t nearly as important as CO2 reductions, which affect Earth’s livability.Truth: The cost-effectiveness of energy determines Earth’s livability because it allows us to use machines turn a naturally inhospitable planet into an abundant and safe place.¹¹
Myth: The Earth will be a highly livable place—stable, sufficient in resources, and safe—as long as we don’t impact it too much.Truth: Earth is very inhospitable—dynamic, deficient, dangerous—unless we have the productive ability to transform and impact it to be abundant and safe.
Myth: Energy is just one of many factors affecting to what extent we can flourish on this naturally inhospitable planet.Truth: The cost-effectiveness of energy is fundamental to human flourishing because it determines our ability to use machines to become super-productive.
Myth: Fossil Fuels aren’t the reason the Earth is so livable now—it’s much more medical care, sanitation, scientific progress, and technological progress.Truth: Cost-effective fossil fuels underlie them all: freeing up time for them, powering their machines, and providing raw materials.¹²
Myth: The benefits we’ve gotten from uniquely cost-effective fossil fuel energy are modest at best compared to their downsides.Thanks to our fossil-fueled productivity, longevity and income have been skyrocketing, with extreme poverty (<$2/day) plummeting from 42% in 1980 to less than 10% today.¹³
Myth: Rapidly eliminating uniquely cost-effective fossil fuel energy won’t be that bad because we can save a lot energy via efficiency.Truth: Not only could people in the wealthy world benefit from more energy, the vast majority of the world needs much more energy to get out of poverty.
The desperate need for far more of the global-scale cost-effective energy that only fossil fuels can provide near-term:
- 1/3 of the world uses wood and animal dung for heating and cooking.
- 3 billion use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator.¹⁴
Myth: Poor countries will “leapfrog” fossil fuels and go right to solar and wind.Truth: No rich country has been able to abandon fossil fuels even at huge cost, while every dramatic increase in wealth has involved fossil fuels: Japan, Singapore, South Korea, China, etc.
Poor countries are not guinea pigs.
Any invocation of “efficiency” to pretend that the world doesn’t need far more energy amounts to cruel indifference to the enormous energy needs of the world’s poorest people.
Summary: Fossil fuels are a near-term irreplaceable source of the cost-effective energy humans need to flourish.Policy implications
- Energy freedom —> Billions more will have the opportunity to flourish.
- Net zero —> Billions of energy-starved people plunge into poverty and early death.

Applying fossil fuel policy principle 2: Factoring in the climate mastery benefits of continuing fossil fuel use

Myth: Our weak “adaptation” abilities are already overwhelmed by climate changes.Truth: Our fossil-fueled climate mastery abilities have completely overwhelmed any negative changes plus huge natural danger—meaning we can overcome almost any conceivable future climate challenge.
Myth: We are more endangered than ever by climate because of fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions.Truth: We have a 98% decline in climate disaster deaths due to our enormous fossil-fueled climate mastery abilities: heating/cooling, infrastructure-building, irrigation, crop transport.¹⁵
Myth: Climate-related disaster X shows that fossil fuels are making climate unlivable.Truth: If we look at trends, not anecdotes, the drastic decline in extreme weather deaths shows that fossil fuels have made our naturally dangerous climate more livable than ever.¹⁶
Myth: The decline in climate disaster deaths is due to storm warning systems, not fossil fuels.Truth:
1. Fossil fuels power storm warning and evacuation systems.
2. Drought, not storm, deaths are the leading source of climate death reduced.¹⁷
Myth: Even if climate-related disaster deaths are down, climate-related damages are way up, pointing to a bankrupting climate future.Truth: Even though there are many incentives for climate damages to go up—preferences for riskier areas, government bailouts—GDP-adjusted damages are flat.¹⁸
Myth: Adaptation to future climate changes is expensive, while “mitigation”—avoiding CO2 emissions—is relatively cheap.Truth: We’ve seen that using fossil fuels we can be ever-wealthier and safer from climate, vs. even minor “mitigation” has caused deadly energy shortages and poverty.¹⁹
Myth: Even if we’re safe from climate now, we can expect future emissions to lead to disaster.Truth: Since today’s unprecedented safety exists after 100+ years of rising CO2, and with 1° C warming, we should be skeptical that further CO2 rises will somehow overwhelm us.
Summary: A crucial benefit of uniquely cost-effective fossil fuel energy is enormous climate mastery abilities.Policy implications
- Energy freedom —> We’ll get ever-better at mastering climate danger, natural or manmade.
- Net zero —> Climate danger will dramatically increase.

Applying fossil fuel policy principle 3: Factoring in the positive and negative climate impacts of continuing fossil fuel use (with precision)

Myth: Mainstream science shows that rising CO2 is an “existential threat” that will soon cause global catastrophe and then apocalypse.Truth: Mainstream science shows that rising CO2 levels will lead to levels of warming and other changes that we can master and flourish with.
Myth: Media “expert” claims of future climate disaster are likely to be credible.Truth: Such claims are only credible if the expert factors in climate mastery (which almost none do) and does not engage in the popular practice of distorting climate science for effect.²⁰
Myth: If mainstream science concludes that we will experience more warming, storm intensity, or sea level rises, that means catastrophe or worse.Truth: Given climate mastery, catastrophe could only occur with changes that are a total difference in kind from rising CO2 so far.
Climate mastery is so powerful that for CO2 emissions to be apocalyptic enough to justify rapid fossil fuel restriction, let alone elimination, they’d need to have unprecedented impacts, such as
- Seas rising feet per decade
- 2X more powerful storms
Science shows nothing like this.
Myth: Future warming is ominous because heat-related death is already such a catastrophic problem.Truth: Even though Earth has gotten 1°C warmer, far more people still die from cold than heat (even in India)! Near-term warming is expected to decrease temperature-related mortality.²¹
Myth: Future warming is ominous because it will be worst in hot areas.Truth: The mainstream view in climate science is that more warming will be concentrated in colder places (Northern latitudes) and at colder times (nighttime) and during colder seasons (winter). Good news.²²
Myth: Future warming will accelerate as CO2 levels rise.Truth: Mainstream science is unanimous that the “greenhouse effect” is a diminishing effect, with additional CO2 leading to less warning.
Even IPCC’s most extreme, far-fetched scenarios show warming leveling off.²³
Myth: Climate science says Earth will be a scorching desert, like “Mad Max.”There is no Mad Max scenario, even considering emissions and warming higher than we can expect. Agricultural productivity is estimated to increase massively under a 4-5°C warming scenario.²⁴
Myth: Even if we won’t be overwhelmed by warming driven by rising CO2, we’ll be overwhelmed by other climate changes, such as sea level rises and storms.Truth: Even the IPCC, with many catastrophist tendencies, projects climate changes that would be masterable with fossil fuels.
Myth: We face catastrophically rapid sea level rises, which will destroy and submerge coastal cities.Truth: Extreme UN sea level rise projections are just 3 feet in 100 years. Future generations can master that. (We already have 100M people living below high-tide sea level.)²⁵
Myth: Hurricane intensity is expected to get catastrophically higher as temperatures rise.Truth: Mainstream estimates say hurricanes will be less frequent and between 1-10% more intense at 2° C warming. This is not at all catastrophic if we continue our fossil-fueled climate mastery.²⁶
Myth: We face catastrophic increases in dangerous wildfires, an “Earth on fire.”While the media increasingly reports on fires and draws connections to warming, the world burns less than 20 years ago and far less than 100 years ago. Fire danger primarily depends on human mastery.²⁷
Myth: Science says that if we hit 2° C warming, let alone beyond, since the 1800s, we face catastrophe followed by apocalypse.Truth: The 2° C number is activist fiction. The climate mastery abilities that have made life far better through 1° C warming so far will continue to keep us safe.
Summary: Continuing fossil fuel use will lead to levels of warming and other changes that we can master and flourish with.Policy implications
- Energy freedom —> CO2 levels rise, life continues to get better and better
- Net zero —> CO2 levels rise more slowly, billions of lives ruined
Energy freedom policies are more likely to lead to long-term emissions reductions.
Because they accelerate the rate at which nuclear and other alternatives become globally cost-competitive.(The only moral and practical way to reduce global emissions.)²⁸
Net zero by 2050, by failing to recognize the unique benefits of fossil fuels, is catastrophic when barely implemented and would be apocalyptic if fully implemented.Energy freedom gives billions more people the energy they need to flourish and unleashes truly cost-effective alternatives.
QED

References

Reuters – ANALYSIS-Fuel crisis cuts electricity in Bangladesh, sparking energy debate ↩
UC San Diego – The Keeling CurveFor every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 per year during the 2010s.
Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.

Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.

↩
Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy ↩
U.S. Energy Information Administration – Hourly Electric Grid Monitor ↩
Global primary energy consumption in 2022 was 604.04 EJ or about 460 TWh (= 460,000,000 MWh) per day.
According to Tesla Megapacks cost about $413,000 per MWh. Tesla – Order Megapack Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy
↩
Energy Monitor – Data shows how the cost of energy transition minerals has soared since 2020 ↩
Financial Times – How China is winning the race for Africa’s lithium ↩
Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy ↩
IEA – The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions“Meeting such unprecedented mineral demands will require opening far more mines than now exist, and far faster than at any time in history. (The global average time from the qualification of a property to bringing a new mine into operation is 16 years.)”
Mark Mills – The “Energy Transition” Delusion A Reality Reset
↩
Clack et al. (2017) – Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar ↩
USA Today News – ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,’ Ocasio-Cortez says ↩
Maddison Database 2010 at the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen World Bank Data
Scripps Institution of Oceanography – The Keeling Curve

↩
World Bank Data ↩
IEA – Access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all Robert Bryce – A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations
↩
UC San Diego – The Keeling CurveFor every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 in per year during the 2010s.
Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.

Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.

↩
Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).Population estimates come from World Bank Data.
↩
UC San Diego – The Keeling CurveFor every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 in per year during the 2010s.
Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.

Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.

↩
Roger Pielke Jr. – Weather and Climate Disaster Losses So Far in 2022, Still Not Getting Worse ↩
The Economist – Expensive energy may have killed more Europeans than covid-19 last winter ↩
New York Time – Ian Moves North Ryan Maue – Global Tropical Cyclone Activity
↩
Zhao et al. (2021)Bjorn Lomborg – Climate Change Saves More Lives Than You’d Think
↩
NOAA – Climate change rule of thumb: cold “things” warming faster than warm things ↩
IPCC AR6, WG1, chapter 4 ↩
Our World in Data – Data Explorer: IPCC Scenarios Patrick Brown – The IPCC Report on the Impacts of Climate Change is Depressing; But not for the reasons you might think
↩
IPCC AR6, WG1 ↩
NOAA – Global Warming and Hurricanes ↩
Roger Pielke Jr. – What the media won’t tell you about … Wildfires ↩
Reuters – Analysis: China no closer to peak coal despite record renewable capacity additions Reuters – India rejects net zero carbon emissions target, says pathway more important
Alex Epstein – A pro-human, pro-freedom policy for CO2 emissions

↩

Related Topics:#AlexEpstein #EnergyTalkingPoints #NetZeroBy2050

Up Next

Leslyn Lewis warns WHO pandemic treaty amendments violate Canadian sovereignty

Don't Miss

10 ways Justin Trudeau made Canada even worse in 2023

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

Trump, Zelensky clash represents seismic shift in world politics

International / 1 hour ago

Pope Francis has two episodes of ‘acute respiratory failure’ in hospital today

National / 2 hours ago

Mark Carney, Justin Trudeau both deeply tied to WEF, Communist China: report

Economy

Here’s how First Nations can access a reliable source of revenue

Published on March 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By John Ibbitson

According to Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative government would permit First Nations to directly receive tax revenues from resource development on their ancestral territories. Political leaders of all parties should commit to such direct taxation. Because time is short.

Faced with the prospect of tariffs and other hostile American actions, Canada must build new energy infrastructure, mine critical minerals and diversify trade.

First Nations participation is critical to these plans. But too often, proposed infrastructure and resource projects on their territories become mired in lengthy negotiations that benefit only bureaucrats and lawyers. The First Nations Resource Charge (FNRC), a brainchild of the First Nations Tax Commission, could help cut through some of that red tape.

Currently, First Nations, the federal government and businesses negotiate agreements through a variety of mechanisms that establish the financial, environmental and cultural terms for a proposed development. As part of any agreement, Ottawa collects tax revenue from the project, then remits a portion of that revenue to the First Nation. The process is bureaucratic, time-consuming and paternalistic.

Under one version of the proposed charge, the First Nation would directly collect a portion of the federal corporate tax from the developer. The federal government, in turn, would issue the corporation an equivalent tax credit.

In effect, Ottawa would transfer tax points to First Nations.

“The Resource Charge doesn’t mean we won’t say no to bad projects where the costs to us are too high,” said Chief Darren Blaney of B.C’s Homalco First Nation, when the Conservatives first laid out the proposal last year. “It could mean, however, that good projects happen faster. This is what we all want.”

Poilievre referenced the proposed tax transfer in his Feb. 15 rally when he vowed to remove regulatory obstacles to fast-track resource development projects.

“We will incentivize Indigenous leaders to support these projects by letting companies pay a share of their federal corporate taxes to local First Nations,” he declared. “I want the First Nations people of Canada to be the richest people in the world.”

The First Nations Tax Commission first came up with the idea. Poilievre’s federal Conservatives are the first political party to embrace it. But there’s no reason why support for resource charges could not be bipartisan.

Mark Carney, the frontrunning candidate to succeed Justin Trudeau as Liberal Leader and prime minister, has vowed to use “all of the powers of the federal government… to accelerate the major projects that we need.” Supporting the FNRC would further that goal.

That said, resistance has already emerged.

“Most Indigenous leaders would see right through (what Poilievre said) because we’ve been around that corner a few times,” Dawn Martin-Hill, professor emeritus of Indigenous Studies at McMaster University, told the Canadian Press. “Selling your soul to have what other Canadians have, which is access to clean drinking water coming out of your tap, is highly problematic.”

But Prof. Martin-Hill inadvertently makes the case for the FNRC. Municipal governments raise funds by taxing the property of individuals and businesses and using the revenue to, among other things, provide clean drinking water. A First Nation that taxed a business operating on its territory, and used the revenue to provide clean drinking water for people on reserve, would simply be doing what governments are supposed to do.

Existing agreements, though cumbersome, have brought major new revenues to some reserves. The FNRC could increase revenues and First Nations autonomy.

Given the complexities of the tax code, and the limited administrative capacity of some First Nations, some agreements might see the federal government continuing to collect taxes and then remitting the First Nation’s portion to that government. The goal would be to ensure that revenues streams are transparent, predictable and support the greatest possible autonomy for each First Nation.

Any government committed to implementing the FNRC should convene a working group of First Nations leaders, private-sector executives and government officials to work out a framework agreement.

If the Conservatives win the next election, the working group could be part of a task force on tax reform that Poilievre said he intends to establish.

The FNRC would be voluntary. Communities could opt in or opt out. Provincial governments might also participate, sharing a portion of their taxes with First Nations.

If it works, a First Nations Resource Charge could speed the approval of lumber, mining, pipelines and other resource-related projects on the traditional lands of First Nations. It could provide reserves with stable and autonomous funding.

It’s an idea worth trying, regardless of which party forms the next government.

John Ibbitson

Business

Trump and fentanyl—what Canada should do next

Published on February 28, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Ross McKitrick

During the Superbowl, Doug Ford ran a campaign ad about fearlessly protecting Ontario workers against Trump. I suppose it’s effective as election theatre; it’s intended to make Ontarians feel lucky we’ve got a tough leader like Ford standing up to the Bad Orange Man. But my reaction was that Ford is lucky to have the Bad Orange Man creating a distraction so he doesn’t have to talk about Ontario’s high taxes, declining investment, stagnant real wages, lengthening health-care wait times and all the other problems that have gotten worse on his watch.

President Trump’s obnoxious and erratic rhetoric also seems to have put his own advisors on the defensive. Peter Navarro, Kevin Hassett and Howard Lutnick have taken pains to clarify that what we are dealing with is a “drug war not a trade war.” This is confusing since many sources say that Canada is responsible for less than one per cent of fentanyl entering the United States. But if we are going to de-escalate matters and resolve the dispute, we should start by trying to understand why they think we’re the problem.

Suppose in 2024 Trump and his team had asked for a Homeland Security briefing on fentanyl. What would they have learned? They already knew about Mexico. But they would also have learned that while Canada doesn’t rival Mexico for the volume of pills being sent into the U.S., we have become a transnational money laundering hub that keeps the Chinese and Mexican drug cartels in business. And we have ignored previous U.S. demands to deal with the problem.

Over a decade ago, Vancouver-based investigative journalist Sam Cooper unearthed shocking details of how Asian drug cartels backed by the Chinese Communist Party turned British Columbia’s casinos into billion-dollar money laundering operations, then scaled up from there through illicit real estate schemes in Vancouver and Toronto. This eventually triggered the 2022 Cullen Commission, which concluded, bluntly, that a massive amount of drug money was being laundered in B.C., that “the federal anti–money laundering [AML] regime is not effective,” that the RCMP had shut down what little AML capacity it had in 2012 just as the problem was exploding in scale, and that government officials have long known about the problem but ignored it.

In 2023 the Biden State Department under Anthony Blinken told Canada our fentanyl and money laundering control efforts were inadequate. Since then Canada’s border security forces have been shown to be so compromised and corrupt that U.S. intelligence agencies sidelined us and stopped sharing information. The corruption went to the top. A year ago Cameron Ortis, the former head of domestic intelligence at the RCMP, was sentenced to 14 years in prison after being convicted of selling top secret U.S. intelligence to money launderers tied to drugs and terrorism to help them avoid capture.

In September 2024 the Biden Justice Department hit the Toronto-Dominion Bank with a $3 billion fine for facilitating $670 million in money laundering for groups tied to transnational drug trafficking and terrorism. Then-attorney general Merrick Garland said “TD Bank created an environment that allowed financial crime to flourish. By making its services convenient for criminals, it became one.”

Imagine the outcry if Trump had called one of our chartered banks a criminal organization.

We are making some progress in cleaning up the mess, but in the process learning that we are now a major fentanyl manufacturer. In October the RCMP raided massive fentanyl factories in B.C. and Alberta. Unfortunately there remain many gaps in our enforcement capabilities. For instance, the RCMP, which is responsible for border patrols between ports of entry, has admitted it has no airborne surveillance operations after 4 p.m. on weekdays or on weekends.

The fact that the prime minister’s promise of a new $1.3-billion border security and anti-drug plan convinced Trump to suspend the tariff threat indicates that the fentanyl angle wasn’t entirely a pretext. And we should have done these things sooner, even if Trump hadn’t made it an issue. We can only hope Ottawa now follows through on its promises. I fear, though, that if Ford’s Captain Canada act proves a hit with voters, the Liberals may distract voters with a flag-waving campaign against the Bad Orange Man rather than confront the deep economic problems we have imposed on ourselves.

A trade dispute appears inevitable now that Trump has signaled the 25 percent tariffs are back on. The problem is knowing whom to listen to since Trump is openly contradicting his own economic team. Trump’s top trade advisor, Peter Navarro, has written that the U.S. needs to pursue “reciprocity,” which he defines as other countries not charging tariffs on U.S. imports any higher than the U.S. charges. In the Americans’ view, U.S. trade barriers are very low and everyone else’s should be, too—a stance completely at odds with Trump’s most recent moves.

Whichever way this plays out Canada has no choice but to go all-in on lowering the cost of doing business here, especially in trade-exposed sectors such as steel, autos, manufacturing and technology. That starts with cutting taxes including carbon-pricing and rolling back our costly net-zero anti-energy regulatory regime. In the coming election campaign, that’s the agenda we need to see spelled out.

How much easier it will be instead for Canadian politicians to play the populist hero with vague anti-Trump posturing. But that would be poor substitute for a long overdue pro-Canadian economic growth agenda.