Economy
The case against Net Zero 2050

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
- Electricity: Solar and wind somehow being the basis of cheap, reliable electricity.
- 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:
- Fossil fuels power storm warning and evacuation systems.
- 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 MegapackEnergy 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 GroningenWorld Bank Data
- World Bank Data↩
- IEA – Access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for allRobert 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 NorthRyan 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 ScenariosPatrick 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 additionsReuters – India rejects net zero carbon emissions target, says pathway more important
Alex Epstein – A pro-human, pro-freedom policy for CO2 emissions
Alberta
Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

David Clinton
Contrasting the principle of equalization with the execution
Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).
So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light.
You’ll need to search long and hard to find a Canadian unwilling to help those less fortunate. And, so long as we identify as members of one nation¹, that feeling stretches from coast to coast.
So the basic principle of Canada’s equalization payments – where poorer provinces receive billions of dollars in special federal payments – is easy to understand. But as you can imagine, it’s not easy to apply the principle in a way that’s fair, and the current methodology has arguably lead to a very strange set of incentives.
According to Department of Finance Canada, eligibility for payments is determined based on your province’s fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity is a measure of the taxes (income, business, property, and consumption) that a province could raise (based on national average rates) along with revenues from natural resources. The idea, I suppose, is that you’re creating a realistic proxy for a province’s higher personal earnings and consumption and, with greater natural resources revenues, a reduced need to increase income tax rates.
But the devil is in the details, and I think there are some questions worth asking:
- Whichever way you measure fiscal capacity there’ll be both winners and losers, so who gets to decide?
- Should a province that effectively funds more than its “share” get proportionately greater representation for national policy² – or at least not see its policy preferences consistently overruled by its beneficiary provinces?
The problem, of course, is that the decisions that defined equalization were – because of long-standing political conditions – dominated by the region that ended up receiving the most. Had the formula been the best one possible, there would have been little room to complain. But was it?
For example, attaching so much weight to natural resource revenues is just one of many possible approaches – and far from the most obvious. Consider how the profits from natural resources already mostly show up in higher income and corporate tax revenues (including income tax paid by provincial government workers employed by energy-related ministries)?
And who said that such calculations had to be population-based, which clearly benefits Quebec (nine million residents vs around $5 billion in resource income) over Newfoundland (545,000 people vs $1.6 billion) or Alberta (4.2 million people vs $19 billion). While Alberta’s average market income is 20 percent or so higher than Quebec’s, Quebec’s is quite a bit higher than Newfoundland’s. So why should Newfoundland receive only minimal equalization payments?
To illustrate all that, here’s the most recent payment breakdown when measured per-capita:
![]() |
For clarification, the latest per-capita payments to poorer provinces ranged from $3,936 to PEI, $1,553 to Quebec, and $36 to Ontario. Only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC received nothing.
And here’s how the total equalization payments (in millions of dollars) have played out over the past decade:
Is energy wealth the right differentiating factor because it’s there through simple dumb luck, morally compelling the fortunate provinces to share their fortune? That would be a really difficult argument to make. For one thing because Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).
So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light. Perhaps that stand is correct or perhaps it isn’t. But it’s a stand they probably couldn’t have afforded to take had the equalization calculation been different.
Of course, no formula could possibly please everyone, but punishing the losers with ongoing attacks on the very source of their contributions is guaranteed to inspire resentment. And that could lead to very dark places.
Note: I know this post sounds like it came from a grumpy Albertan. But I assure you that I’ve never even visited the province, instead spending most of my life in Ontario.
Which has admittedly been challenging since the former primer minister infamously described us as a post-national state without an identity.
This isn’t nearly as crazy as it sounds. After all, there are already formal mechanisms through which Indigenous communities get more than a one-person-one-vote voice.
Carbon Tax
The book the carbon taxers don’t want you to read

By Franco Terrazzano
Prime Minister Mark Carney wrote a 500-page book praising carbon taxes.
Well, I just wrote a book smashing through the government’s carbon tax propaganda.
It tells the inside story of the fight against the carbon tax. And it’s THE book the carbon taxers don’t want you to read.
My book is called Axing the Tax: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Carbon Tax.
Axing the Tax: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Carbon Tax
Every now and then, the underdog wins one.
And it looks like that’s happening in the fight against the carbon tax.
It’s not over yet, but support for the carbon tax is crumbling. Some politicians vow to scrap it. Others hide behind vague plans to repackage it. But virtually everyone recognizes support for the current carbon tax has collapsed.
It wasn’t always this way.
For about a decade now, powerful politicians, government bureaucrats, academics, media elites and even big business have been pushing carbon taxes on the people.
But most of the time, politicians never asked the people if they supported carbon taxes. In other words, carbon taxes, and the resulting higher gas prices and heating bills, were forced on us.
We were told it was good for us. We were told carbon taxes were inevitable. We were told politicians couldn’t win elections without carbon taxes, even though the politicians that imposed them didn’t openly run on them. We were told that we needed to pay carbon taxes if we wanted to leave a healthy environment for our kids and grandkids. We were told we needed to pay carbon taxes if we wanted to be respected in the international community.
In this decade-long fight, it would have been understandable if the people had given up and given in to these claims. It would have been easier to accept what the elites wanted and just pay the damn bill. But against all odds, ordinary Canadians didn’t give up.
Canadians knew you could care about the environment and oppose carbon taxes. Canadians saw what they were paying at the gas station and on their heating bills, and they knew they were worse off, regardless of how many politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and academics tried to convince them otherwise. Canadians didn’t need advanced degrees in economics, climate science or politics to understand they were being sold a false bill of goods.
Making it more expensive for a mom in Port Hope to get to work, or grandparents in Toronto to pay their heating bill, or a student in Coquitlam to afford food won’t reduce emissions in China, Russia, India or the United States. It just leaves these Canadians, and many like them, with less money to afford everything else.
Ordinary Canadians understood carbon taxes amount to little more than a way for governments to take more money from us and dictate how we should live our lives. Ordinary Canadians also saw through the unfairness of the carbon tax.
Many of the elites pushing the carbon tax—the media, politicians, taxpayer-funded professors, laptop activists and corporate lobbyists—were well off and wouldn’t feel the brunt of carbon taxes. After all, living in a downtown condo and clamouring for higher carbon taxes doesn’t require much gas, diesel or propane.
But running a business, working in a shop, getting kids to soccer and growing food on the farm does. These are the Canadians the political class forgot about when pushing carbon taxes. These are the Canadians who never gave up. These are the Canadians who took time out of their busy lives to sign petitions, organize and attend rallies, share posts on social media, email politicians and hand out bumper stickers.
Because of these Canadians, the carbon tax could soon be swept onto the ash heap of history. I wrote this book for two reasons.
The first is because these ordinary Canadians deserve it. They worked really hard for a really long time against the odds. When all the power brokers in government told them, “Do what we say—or pay,” they didn’t give up. They deserve to know the time and effort they spent fighting the carbon tax mattered. They deserve all the credit.
Thank you for everything you did.
The second reason I wrote this book is so people know the real story of the carbon tax. The carbon tax was bad from the start and we fought it from the start. By reading this book, you will get the real story about the carbon tax, a story you won’t find anywhere else.
This book is important because if the federal Liberals’ carbon tax is killed, the carbon taxers will try to lay blame for their defeat on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. They will try to say that carbon taxes are a good idea, but Trudeau bungled the policy or wasn’t a good enough salesman. They will try to revive the carbon tax and once again make you pay more for gas, groceries, and home heating.
Just like with any failed five-year plan, there is a lingering whiff among the laptop class and the taxpayer-funded desk rulers that this was all a communication problem, that the ideal carbon tax hasn’t been tried yet. I can smell it outside my office building in Ottawa, where I write these words. We can’t let those embers smoulder and start a fire again.
This book shows why the carbon tax is and always will be bad policy for ordinary Canadians.
Franco’s note: You can pre-order a copy of my new book, Axing the Tax: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Carbon Tax, here: https://www.amazon.ca/Axing-
-
International1 day ago
Germany launches first permanent foreign troop deployment since WW2
-
COVID-191 day ago
Maxime Bernier slams Freedom Convoy leaders’ guilty verdict, calls Canada’s justice system ‘corrupt’
-
Automotive18 hours ago
Tesla Vandals Keep Running Into The Same Problem … Cameras
-
espionage18 hours ago
U.S. Experts Warn Canada Is Losing the Fight Against PRC Criminal Networks—Washington Has Run Out of Patience
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Poilievre To Create ‘Canada First’ National Energy Corridor
-
2025 Federal Election9 hours ago
Liberals Replace Candidate Embroiled in Election Interference Scandal with Board Member of School Flagged in Canada’s Election Interference Inquiry
-
International2 days ago
FREE MARINE LE PEN!’: Trump defends French populist against ‘lawfare’ charges
-
COVID-198 hours ago
5 Stories the Media Buried This Week