Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Economy

The case against Net Zero 2050

Published

1 year ago

32 minute read

From Energy Talking Points

By Alex Epstein

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 Analysis-Fuel crisis cuts electricity in Bangladesh
  • 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 Atmospheric Carbon dioxide vs Death rate from drought
  • 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 Primary Energy Consumption by fuel
  • 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 ERCOT Demond and generation by solar and wind Feb 7 - 14
  • 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 1 day of world energy
  • 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 Monthly primary commodity prices
  • 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 Geographical distribution of the global EV battery supply chain
  • 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 Global nuclear Electricity genration
  • 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 Battery-related minerals vs Renewables-and network-related minerals
  • 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 The vision proposed by studies in refrences
  • 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. Inflation Reduction acts pays $85/ton for CO2 capture
  • 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 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, exhibiting the view
  • 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 Global CO@ emission vs World expectancy and World GDP per capita vs World population
  • 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 Share of people living on less than $1.90 per day
  • 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 Usage of traditional biomass
  • 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 Atmospheric CO2 vs Climate-related disaster deaths
  • 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 World rate from storms vs G7 death rate from storms
  • 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 Atmospheric CO2 vs Death rate from drought
  • 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 Global weather losses as percent of global GDP: 1990-2022
  • 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 Expensive energy may have killed more Europeans than covid-19 last winter
  • 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 Category 4 and 5 Atlantic hurricanes since 1980 Global Major Hurricane frequency
  • 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 Heat and cold Related Deaths, 2000-2019
  • 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 Difference from Average temperature
  • 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 Global crop production Crop yield decreases facts
  • 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 Global mean sea level change relative to 1900
  • 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 Tropical cyclone intensities Globally are projected to increase
  • 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 China no closer to peak coal despite record renewable capacity additions and India rejects net zero corban emissions target, says pathway more important
  • 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

  1. Reuters – ANALYSIS-Fuel crisis cuts electricity in Bangladesh, sparking energy debate↩
  2. 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.

    ↩

  3. Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy↩
  4. U.S. Energy Information Administration – Hourly Electric Grid Monitor↩
  5. 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

    ↩

  6. Energy Monitor – Data shows how the cost of energy transition minerals has soared since 2020↩
  7. Financial Times – How China is winning the race for Africa’s lithium↩
  8. Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy↩
  9. 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

    ↩

  10. Clack et al. (2017) – Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar↩
  11. USA Today News – ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,’ Ocasio-Cortez says↩
  12. Maddison Database 2010 at the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of GroningenWorld Bank Data

    Scripps Institution of Oceanography – The Keeling Curve

    ↩

  13. World Bank Data↩
  14. IEA – Access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for allRobert Bryce – A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations

    ↩

  15. 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.

    ↩

  16. 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.

    ↩

  17. 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.

    ↩

  18. Roger Pielke Jr. – Weather and Climate Disaster Losses So Far in 2022, Still Not Getting Worse↩
  19. The Economist – Expensive energy may have killed more Europeans than covid-19 last winter↩
  20. New York Time – Ian Moves NorthRyan Maue – Global Tropical Cyclone Activity

    ↩

  21. Zhao et al. (2021)Bjorn Lomborg – Climate Change Saves More Lives Than You’d Think

    ↩

  22. NOAA – Climate change rule of thumb: cold “things” warming faster than warm things↩
  23. IPCC AR6, WG1, chapter 4↩
  24. 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

    ↩

  25. IPCC AR6, WG1↩
  26. NOAA – Global Warming and Hurricanes↩
  27. Roger Pielke Jr. – What the media won’t tell you about … Wildfires↩
  28. 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

    ↩

 

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Alberta / 59 mins ago

CBC watchdog accuses outlet of biased coverage of Catholic school trustee opposing LGBT agenda

Business / 3 hours ago

StatsCan Report Confirms Canada’s Middle Class Is Disappearing Under Liberal Mismanagement

Brownstone Institute / 4 hours ago

Information Disorder Syndrome

Business

StatsCan Report Confirms Canada’s Middle Class Is Disappearing Under Liberal Mismanagement

Published on January 30, 2025

By

The Opposition with Dan Knight
Dan Knight

A new Statistics Canada report reveals widening income inequality and a shrinking middle class, all while Trudeau’s Liberals push policies that benefit the wealthy and punish working Canadians.

A newly released report from Statistics Canada on household economic accounts for the third quarter of 2024 confirms what many Canadians have long suspected—while the wealthiest continue to rake in profits, middle- and lower-income families are left struggling under the weight of economic policies that seem designed to work against them. The report, released today, paints a stark picture of a country where financial inequality is not just persisting, but growing.

The numbers don’t lie. Income inequality has increased, with the top 40% of earners pulling even further ahead of the bottom 40%. The gap in disposable income between these two groups expanded to 46.9 percentage points, up from 46.3 just a year ago. The highest-income households saw their disposable income rise by 6.8%, largely driven by soaring investment gains, while the poorest Canadians saw only a 3.7% increase, barely enough to keep up with the cost of living. Meanwhile, middle-income earners experienced sluggish wage growth of just 2.7%, well below the national average.

Despite declining interest rates, lower-income households found themselves paying more on mortgages and consumer credit, while the wealthy reaped the benefits of higher investment yields. The data shows that middle-income households, who are already feeling the squeeze from inflation and stagnating wages, saw their share of national income shrink.

The most revealing statistic is in net worth distribution. The top 20% of wealthiest Canadians control nearly two-thirds (64.7%) of the country’s net worth, averaging an eye-watering $3.3 million per household. Meanwhile, the bottom 40% hold just 3.3%, barely scraping by with an average of $83,189 in assets.

However, the real estate market has provided a rare silver lining for some lower-wealth households, as they were able to take advantage of slightly more favorable conditions to buy homes, increasing their net worth at the fastest pace. But even that gain is tempered by the reality that housing costs remain unaffordable for many, and young Canadians under 35 continue to pull back from homeownership altogether.

Let’s be clear—this isn’t happening by accident. This is what happens when you let a government of self-serving narcissists run the country into the ground. Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party have spent nearly a decade dismantling the Canadian economy, pushing a radical, ideologically driven agenda that benefits their elite donor class while leaving working Canadians behind. And now, as the country crumbles under the weight of their incompetence, Trudeau is running for the exits, leaving the mess to whoever’s foolish enough to take the job.

And what do they do on the way out? Do they work to secure our economy? To make life more affordable? To protect Canadian workers? No. Instead, they decide to pick a fight with the United States. Donald Trump, who actually puts his country first—imagine that—announces a 25% tariff on Canadian imports, a move meant to address drug trafficking and illegal immigration, and what’s the Liberals’ response? Do they try to work out a deal? Do they negotiate in good faith to protect Canadian jobs? No. Instead, Chrystia Freeland comes out swinging, proposing retaliatory tariffs that will hurt Canadian businesses just as much, if not more, than they’ll hurt the U.S.

This isn’t about protecting Canada. This isn’t about securing the border or fighting for our economy. This is about pure, partisan politics. The Liberal base wants conflict with the U.S. Not because it’s good for the country, but because their fragile, self-righteous worldview depends on it. They hate Trump, and they hate that his America-First policies are actually working for American workers. So instead of finding a solution, they escalate. They antagonize. Because their base loves it. Not because Canada benefits, but because Liberals benefit.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

And meanwhile, what’s Jagmeet Singh doing? The man who loves to talk about standing up for the working class? He could pull the plug on this corrupt government today with a non-confidence motion. But he won’t. Because, like every other member of the political elite in this country, he’s more interested in protecting his own position than actually doing his job. He makes noise about fighting for Canadian workers, but when the moment comes to act, he folds—again.

So here we are. The economy is in shambles. The wealth gap is growing. The middle class is getting squeezed to death. And the people in charge are too busy playing partisan games to do anything about it. Trudeau is leaving, but his legacy of economic destruction, division, and incompetence will live on through the same out-of-touch Liberal elites who put us in this mess.

But here’s the thing—Canada is better than this. We are a nation built on hard work, freedom, and opportunity, not on government control, reckless spending, and endless excuses. We are a country that thrives when its people—not bureaucrats in Ottawa—decide their own future.

It’s time for Canadians to take their country back. It’s time to put an end to this cycle of economic ruin and government failure. We don’t need more empty promises, more excuses, or more Liberal arrogance. We need an election. We need leaders who believe in the strength of Canadians, not the power of government.

Enough is enough. If we want a future where hard work is rewarded, where families can afford to buy a home, and where our economy is built to benefit all Canadians—not just the elite—then we must act. This country belongs to you, not the Liberal Party, not the special interests, and certainly not the self-serving political class in Ottawa.

Canada deserves better. And the time to demand it is now.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Long Ignored Criminal Infiltration of Canadian Ports Lead Straight to Trump Tariffs

Published on January 30, 2025

By

Sam Cooper

Briefings to Liberal Government on Chinese Infiltration of Vancouver Port and Canada’s Opioid Scourge Ignored

Trump Tariffs Loom as Critics Decry Ottawa’s “Fox in the Hen House” Approach to Border Security

As President Donald Trump readies sweeping tariffs against Canada on Saturday—citing Ottawa’s failure to secure its shared North American borders from fentanyl originating in China—The Bureau has obtained a remarkable December 1999 document from a senior law enforcement official, revealing Ottawa’s longstanding negligence in securing Vancouver’s port against drug trafficking linked to Chinese shipping entities.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The letter, drafted by former Crown prosecutor Scott Newark and addressed to Ottawa’s Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), urged the body to reconsider explosive findings from a leaked RCMP and CSIS report detailing the infiltration of Canada’s “porous” borders by Chinese criminal networks.

Titled “Re: S.I.R.C. Review in relation to Project Sidewinder,” Newark’s letter alleges systemic failures that enabled Chinese State Council owned shipping giant COSCO and Triads with suspected Chinese military ties to penetrate Vancouver’s port system. He further asserts that federal authorities ignored repeated briefings and warnings from Canadian law enforcement—warnings based on intelligence gathered by Canadian officials in Hong Kong, who initiated the Sidewinder review.

Newark also warned that Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s decision to dismantle Canada’s specialized Ports Police and privatize national port control had left the country dangerously exposed to foreign criminal networks, noting he had personally briefed the Canadian government on these concerns as early as 1996.

Addressing his letter to SIRC’s chair, Quebec lawyer Paule Gauthier, Newark wrote:

“As the former (1994-98) Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, I was assigned responsibility for dealing with the issue of the federal government’s changes to control of the national ports and policing therein.”

“This involved close examination of matters such as drug, weapon, and people smuggling through the national ports and, in particular, both the growing presence of organized criminal groups at ports and the ominous hazard control of those ports by such groups represented.”

Newark’s letter goes on to allege widespread failures in Ottawa that facilitated Chinese Triad infiltration of Vancouver’s port, revealing federal authorities’ reluctance to act on warnings from RCMP officer Garry Clement and immigration control officer Brian McAdam—former Canadian officials based in Hong Kong who had sounded the alarm, prompting the Sidewinder review.

Newark explained to SIRC’s chair that, during his tenure as Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, he prepared approximately fifty detailed policy briefs for the government and regularly appeared before parliamentary committees and in private ministerial briefings.

“I can assure you that in all of that time, no clearer warning was ever given by Canada’s rank and file police officers to the national government than what was done in our unsuccessful attempt to prevent the disbandment of the specialized Canada Ports Police in combination with the privatization of the ports themselves,” Newark’s letter to SIRC states.

The letter continues, noting that in October 1996, Newark met with Chrétien’s Transport Minister David Anderson—later addressing the Transport Committee—to highlight the imminent threat posed by Asian organized crime’s infiltration of port operations. Newark’s written briefing to the Minister underscored the gravity of the situation with a blunt question:

“Who exactly are the commercial port operators?”

Citing the Anderson briefing document, Newark’s letter to SIRC states that Anderson had been warned:

“We are, for example, aware of serious concerns amongst the international law enforcement community surrounding the ownership of ports and container industries in Asia and, in particular, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the People’s Republic of China. There is simply no longer any doubt that drugs like heroin are coming from these destinations through the Port of Vancouver, moved by organized criminal gangs whose assets include ‘legitimate’ properties.”

The Anderson briefing also referenced a British Columbia anti-gang unit report, titled “Organized Crime on Vancouver Waterfront,” which made clear that the Longshoreman’s Union had been infiltrated by the Hells Angels.

“The movement of goods through Canada’s ports requires an independence in policing that is impossible without public control,” the report warned.

It concluded:

“This report should be taken as a specific warning to this Government that, prior to downloading operational control over the ports themselves to private interests, Government be absolutely certain as to who owns what—and that it can continue that certainty with power to refuse acquisition of port assets in the future.”

Scott Newark’s letter to SIRC then turns to new intelligence—gathered from Canadian and U.S. officials—that further underscored the vulnerability created by Chrétien’s border policies.

“To now learn that law enforcement and public officials in Canada and the United States have linked a company (COSCO), granted docking and other facilities in Vancouver, to Asian organized crime, arms and drug smuggling is, to say the least, disturbing,” Newark’s December 1999 letter states.

“That this company, its principals, subsidiaries, and partners have been associated with various military agencies of a foreign government—agencies themselves identified by Canadian and American officials as having unhealthy connections to Triad groups—makes a bad situation even worse.”

Newark next addressed the broader implications of Canada’s failure to enforce border security, particularly in relation to the deportation of foreign criminals—a process he had sought to reform while serving with the Canadian Police Association.

Drawing on his experience, he described a deeply flawed immigration enforcement system, one that allowed individuals with serious criminal records to remain in Canada indefinitely. The problem, he wrote, was twofold: not only were foreign criminals able to enter Canada with ease, but authorities also failed to deport those with outstanding arrest warrants.

Newark recounted how, in 1996, a Cabinet Minister requested that he meet with Brian McAdam, a former senior foreign service officer in Hong Kong who had spent years uncovering organized crime’s grip on Canada’s immigration system. McAdam’s detailed revelations, he wrote, had directly led to the launch of Project Sidewinder.

Newark told SIRC that even after leaving the Canadian Police Association in 1998, he remained in contact with McAdam and other officials working to expose this vast and complex national security risk posed by foreign criminal networks.

It was this ongoing communication that led to an even more alarming discovery. Newark wrote that he was stunned to learn that Canada’s government had not only terminated Project Sidewinder but had gone so far as to destroy some related files.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Newark suggests SIRC’s chair, in her review of Sidewinder, should determine whether “Sidewinder should not have been cancelled … why such inappropriate action was taken and at whose direction this was done.”

He concludes that SIRC should also freshly examine why intelligence reporting from the Canadian officials in Hong Kong, Brian McAdam and Garry Clement had been ignored in Ottawa.

Newark’s letter to SIRC says these failures to act on intelligence included the “Inappropriate granting of visas to Triad members or associates” and “Granting of docking facilities with attendant consequences to COSCO”—and “Failure of CIC and Foreign Affairs to respond appropriately to the various information supplied by McAdam and Clement in relation to material pertaining to Sidewinder.”

In an exclusive interview with The Bureau, Garry Clement, who contributed to investigations referenced in Newark’s letter, corroborated many of its claims and provided further insight. Clement recalled his role in Project Sunset, a 1990s investigation into Chinese Triads’ efforts to gain control over Vancouver’s ports.

“I can remember having a discussion with Scott when he wrote that to SIRC because Scott and I go back a long time,” Clement said. “I knew about him writing on it, but I knew it was also buried.”

He described his own intelligence work during the same period:

“I wrote in the nineties when I was the liaison officer in Hong Kong, a very long intelligence brief on the Chinese wanting to basically acquire or build out a port at the Surrey Fraser Docks area. And it was going to be completely controlled by that time, with Triad influence, but it was going to be controlled by China.”

Clement expressed frustration that decades of warnings had gone unheeded:

“The bottom line is that here we are almost 40 years later, talking about an issue that was identified in the ‘90s about our ports and allowing China to have free access—and nothing has been done over that period of time.”

Newark’s urgent recommendation for SIRC to reconsider Sidewinder’s warnings on Vancouver’s ports was never acted upon.

“We still don’t have Port Police. We got nobody overseeing them,” Clement added. “The ports themselves, it’s sort of like putting a fox in the hen house and saying, ‘Behave yourself.’”

Finally, when asked about the Trudeau government’s claim this week that Canada is responsible for only one percent of the fentanyl entering the United States—a figure reported widely in Canadian media—Clement’s response was unequivocal.

“The fact that we’ve become a haven for transnational organized crime, it’s internationally known,” he said. “So when I read that, with the fentanyl—Trump is wrong in that there’s less than 1% of our fentanyl going to the United States. That’s a crock of shit. If you look at the two super labs that were taken down in British Columbia—I think there’s three now—the amount they were capable of producing was more than the whole Vancouver population could have used in 10 years. So we know that Vancouver has become a transshipment point to North America for opiates and cocaine and other drugs because it’s a weak link, and enforcement is not capable of keeping up with transnational organized crime.”

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

That opinion is evidently acknowledged by British Columbia Premier David Eby, according to documents from Canada’s Foreign Interference Commission that say Eby sought meetings with Justin Trudeau’s National Security Advisor.

A record from the Hogue Commission, sanitized for public release, outlines the “context and drivers” behind Eby’s concerns, including “foreign interference; election security; countering fentanyl, organized crime, money laundering, corruption.”

The documents state Ottawa’s Privy Council Office—which provides advice to Justin Trudeau’s cabinet—had recommended that British Columbia continue to work with the federal government on initiatives like the establishment of a new Canada Financial Crimes Agency to bolster the nation’s ability to respond swiftly to complex financial crimes.

Additionally, the PCO highlighted that Canada, the United States, and Mexico were supposedly collaborating on strategies to reduce the supply of fentanyl, including addressing precursor chemicals and preventing the exploitation of commercial shipping channels—a critical area where British Columbia, and specifically the Port of Vancouver, plays a significant role.

Eby acknowledged the concerns again this week in an interview with Macleans.

“I understood Trump’s concerns about drugs coming in. We’ve got a serious fentanyl problem in B.C.; we see the precursor chemicals coming into B.C. from China and Mexico. We see ties to Asian and Mexican organized crime groups. We’d been discussing all of that with the American ambassador and fellow governors. That’s why it was such a strange turnaround, from ‘Hey, we’re working together on this!’ to suddenly finding ourselves in the crosshairs.”

Yet, despite Eby’s claims of intergovernmental efforts, critics—including Garry Clement—argue that nothing has changed. Vancouver’s port remains alarmingly vulnerable, a decades-old concern that continues to resurface as fentanyl and other illicit drugs flood North American markets.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X