Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Trudeau’s environment department admits carbon tax has only reduced emissions by 1%

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Trudeau Liberals had first seemed to claim that the unpopular carbon tax had cut emissions by 33%, only to explain that the figure is merely a projection for 2030 and the actual reduction thus far stands at 1%.

The Liberal government has admitted that the carbon tax has only reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 1 percent following claims that the unpopular surcharge had cut emissions by 33 percent.   

During a May 21 House of Commons environment committee meeting, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault testified that the carbon tax cut greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent, before his department backtracked to explain that the figure is a projection for the year 2030, and that the true figure sits at a mere 1 percent.

“I will be the first one to recognize it is complex,” said Guilbeault, according to information obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter 

“If you want simple answers, I am sorry. There is no simple answer when it comes to climate change or modeling,” he said, adding, “Carbon pricing works. This has never been clearer.”  

“Carbon pricing alone accounts for around a third of emission reductions expected in Canada,” said Guilbeault, explaining this number was based on “complex statistical calculations.”  

However, Conservative Members of Parliament (MPs) pointed out that the numbers provided by Guilbeault’s department do not add up to a 33 percent decrease in emissions, as the department had characterized.  

“How many megatonnes of emissions have been directly reduced from your carbon tax since it was introduced?” Conservative MP Dan Mazier questioned.  

According to Guilbeault, after the introduction of the carbon tax, emissions reduced by five megatonnes in 2018, fourteen megatonnes in 2019, seventeen megatonnes in 2020, eighteen megatonnes in 2021, and nineteen megatonnes in 2022.  

According to Blacklock’s, Guilbeault failed to explain how the environment department calculated a 33 percent benefit.

Conservative MP Michael Kram pressed Guilbeault, saying, “I want to make sure I have the math correct.” 

“In 2022 emissions were at 708 megatonnes and the carbon tax was responsible for reducing 19 megatonnes,” he continued. “By my math that works out to a three percent reduction.” 

Associate deputy environment minister Lawrence Hanson explained that the department’s 33 percent emissions cut is a projection of the emissions cut by 2030, not a current statistic.   

“It’s the distinction between how much the carbon price might have affected emissions in one year versus how much in 2030,” said Hanson. “So when you heard us talking about its responsible for one third of reductions we were talking about the 2030 number.” 

This explanation was echoed by Derek Hermanutz, director general of the department’s economic analysis directorate, who said, “When we talk about one third, it’s one third of our expected reductions. That’s getting to 2030.” 

“Yes, but three percent of the total emissions have been reduced as a result of carbon pricing?” Kram pressed.   

“No, emissions have declined three percent in total,” assistant deputy minister John Moffet responded.  

“And so only one percent of that three percent is from the carbon tax?” Kram asked.  

“To date,” Moffet replied. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax, framed as a way to reduce carbon emissions, has cost Canadian households hundreds of dollars annually despite rebates. 

The increased costs are only expected to rise. A recent report revealed that a carbon tax of more than $350 per tonne is needed to reach Trudeau’s net-zero goals by 2050. 

Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne, but the Trudeau government has a goal of $170 per tonne by 2030. 

On April 1, Trudeau increased the carbon tax by 23 percent despite seven out of 10 provincial premiers and 70 percent of Canadians pleading with him to halt his plan. 

Despite appeals from politicians and Canadians alike, Trudeau remains determined to increase the carbon tax regardless of its effects on citizens’ lives. 

The Trudeau government’s current environmental goals – which are in lockstep with the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades. 

The reduction and eventual elimination of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum, the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved. 

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

Business

The Snack Attack: Are Major Food Brands Making Kids Addicted?

Published on

By Christof Plothe, DO

A lawsuit has just dropped that could send shockwaves through your pantry.

Eleven major food manufacturers including Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz, Coca-Cola, and Nestlé are accused of engineering their ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to be downright addictive, while marketing these tasty ‘treats’ directly to our kids. Sounds like a plot twist right out of a movie, doesn’t it?

The drama unfolds in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, where a brave plaintiff, Bryce Martinez, claims that his exposure to these sugary, salty foods led him to develop type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at the tender age of 16. As his complaint states“Due to Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff regularly, frequently, and chronically ingested their UPF, which caused him to contract Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.”

Share

The lawsuit draws comparisons to the notorious marketing tactics of ‘big tobacco’. Public health expert Carlos Monteiro, who coined the term UPF, is sounding the alarm, saying that food companies are using the same underhanded strategies to hook kids on their products. With the food industry reportedly spending a staggering $2 billion each year to market these processed foods to children, it’s hard not to raise an eyebrow.

Carlos A. Monteiro

The lawsuit, which includes Conagra Brands among the accused, alleges that these companies are not just selling food, they are selling addiction. Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, and others were approached for comment but have remained tight-lipped about the allegations.

A plateful of addictive substances

We’re talking about a food landscape in the U.S. where 73% of what’s on the plate is ultra-processed. This isn’t just a health concern for adults; studies show that a whopping 67% of American children’s diets are made up of these foods, with many displaying signs of addiction.

brown cookies on white ceramic bowl
Photo by Tyson

As this legal battle heats up, we might just witness a seismic shift in how these companies advertise their products. Could we see warning labels on our favorite snacks? Or maybe a complete overhaul of their marketing strategies? Only time will tell!

Stay tuned, because this is one story that’s just getting started and with the changes in the US health politics that seem to be in the pipeline, we see a “better way” for the health of our children.

Sources:

https://www.ingredientsnetwork.com/kraft-heinz-mondelz-coca-cola-and-nestle-accused-news126267.html

https://www.reuters.com/legal/lawsuit-accuses-major-food-companies-marketing-addictive-food-kids-2024-12-10/

https://econotimes.com/Coca-Cola-Mondelez-Nestle-Slammed-with-Lawsuit-Over-Allegedly-Harmful-Foods-Targeting-Kids-Health-1696538

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/11/food-companies-sued-addictive-kids-marketing-lawsuit-claim


If you find value in our work and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you.

Subscribe to World Council for Health

Refer a friend

Donate Subscriptions

Give Direct to WCH

Continue Reading

Business

Solving the Housing Affordability Crisis With This One Cool Trick

Published on

The Audit

 

 

David Clinton

The Audit has a growing library of posts addressing the housing crisis. I’m particularly proud of my Solving Canada’s Housing Crisis because of how it presents a broad range of practical approaches that have been proposed and attempted across many countries and economies. But the truth is that the affordability end of the problem could be easily and quickly solved right here at home without the need for clever and expensive innovation.

As you’ll soon see, local and provincial governments – if they were so inspired – could drop the purchase price on new homes by 20 percent. Before breakfast.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

It’s all about taxes and fees. This post will focus mostly on taxes and fees as they apply to new construction of relatively expensive detached homes. But the basic ideas will apply to all homes – and will also impact rentals.

Here are some estimated numbers to chew on. Scenarios based on varying permutations and combinations will produce different results, but I think this example will be a good illustration.

Let’s say that a developer purchases a single residential plot in Toronto for $1.4 million. In mature midtown neighborhoods, that figure is hardly uncommon. The plan is to build an attractive single family home and then sell it on the retail market.

Here are some estimates of the costs our developer will currently face:

  • Construction costs on a 2,000 sq. ft. home (@ $350/sq. ft.): $700,000
  • Land transfer taxes on the initial land purchase: $35,000
  • Development fees: $100,000
  • Permits and zoning/site approvals: $40,000

Total direct development costs would therefore come to $875,000. Of course, that’s besides the $1.4 million purchase price for the land which would bring our new running total to $2,275,000.

We’ll also need to account for the costs of regulatory delays. Waiting for permits, approvals, and environmental assessments can easily add a full year to the project. Since nothing can begin until the developer has legal title to the property, he’ll likely be paying interest for a mortgage representing 80 percent of the purchase price (i.e., $1,120,000). Even assuming a reasonable rate, that’ll add another $60,000 in carrying charges. Which will bring us to $2,335,000.

And don’t forget lawyers and consultants. They also have families to feed! Professional guidance for navigating through the permit and assessment system can easily cost a developer another $25,000.

That’s not an exhaustive list, by the way. To keep things simple, I left out Toronto’s Parkland Dedication Fee which, for residential developments, can range from 5 to 20 percent of the land value. And the Education Development Charges imposed by school boards was also ignored.

So assuming everything goes smoothly – something that’s far from given – that’ll give us a total development cost of $2,360,000. To ensure compensation for the time, work, investments, and considerable risks involved, our developer is unlikely to want to sell the home for less than $2,700,000.

But various governments are still holding their hands out. When the buyers sign an agreement of purchase, they’ll be on the hook for land transfer taxes and – since it’s a new house – HST. Ontario and Toronto will want about four percent ($108,000) for the transfer (even though they both just cashed in on the very same transfer tax for the very same land at the start of the process). And, even taking into account both the federal and Ontario rebates, getting the keys to the front door will require handing over another $327,000 for HST.

Here’s how development fee schedules currently look in Toronto:

And here’s a breakdown of the land transfer taxes assessed against anyone buying land:

In our hypothetical case, those fees would give us a total, all-in purchase price of $3,135,000. How much of that is due to government involvement (including associated legal and interest fees)? Around $695,000.

That’s $695,000 our buyers will pay – over and above the actual costs of land and construction. Or, in other words, a 22 percent markup.

Let’s put this a different way. If the cost of the median home in Canada dropped by 22 percent, then around 1.5 million extra Canadian households could enter the market. Congratulations, you’ve solved the housing affordability crisis. (Although supply problems will still need some serious work.)

Now it’s probably not realistic to expect politicians in places like the Ontario Legislature and Toronto City Council to give up that kind of income. But just lowering their intake by 50 or even 25 percent – and reducing the costs and pain points of acquiring permits – could make a serious difference. Not only would it lower home sale prices, but it would lower the barriers to entry for new home construction.

Share

Just what were all those taxes worth to governments? Let’s begin with the City of Toronto. Their 2023 Financial Report tells us that land transfer taxes generated $944 million, permits and zoning applications delivered $137 million, and development fees accounted for $1.45 billion. Total city revenues in 2023 were $16.325 billion.

We’re told that all that money was spent on:

  • Roads and transit systems
  • Water and wastewater systems
  • Fire and emergency services
  • Parks and recreation facilities
  • Libraries

Well, we do need those things right? We can’t expect the city to just eliminate fire and emergency services.

Wait. Hang on. I seem to recall being told that revenue from my property tax bill covered those services. Yes! My property tax did fund those things. Not 100 percent of those things, but a lot.

Specifically, Toronto property tax revenues cover 65 percent of the municipal costs for roads and transit systems, 85 percent of fire and emergency services, 75 percent of parks and recreation facilities, and 95 percent of library costs (even though very few people use public libraries any more).

Granted, property tax revenue covered only five percent of water and wastewater systems, but that’s because another 40 percent came from user fees (i.e., utility bills).

So revenues from land transfer taxes, developer fees, and permitting aren’t an insignificant portion of City income, but they’re hardly the linchpin propping the whole thing up either. City Council could respond to losing that income by increasing property taxes. Or – and I’m just throwing around random ideas here – they could reduce their spending.

Now what about the province? I couldn’t get a good sense of how much of their HST revenue comes specifically from new home sales, but Ontario’s 2023–24 consolidated financial statements tell us that provincial land transfer taxes brought in $3.538 billion. That would be around 1.7% of total government revenues. Again, a bit more than a rounding error.

Politics is about finding balances through trade offs. Sure, maintaining program spending while minimizing deficits is an ongoing and real challenge for governments. On the other hand, they all say they’re concerned about the housing crisis. Foregoing just one to five percent of revenues should, given the political payoffs and bragging rights that could follow, probably be an easy pill to swallow.

A few weeks ago I reached out to the City of Toronto Housing Secretariat and the Province of Ontario’s Municipal Affairs and Housing for their thoughts. I received no response.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X