Connect with us

Business

Canada’s Forest Sector Responds to Misleading Report

Published

5 minute read

The legacy media is widely distributing an article outlining a report released by the Natural Resources Defense Council claiming Canada’s forestry sector emits even more carbon than Alberta’s oilsands.  Not wishing to undergo the same vilification as the oil sector, the Forest Products Association of Canada is quickly countering the report with this article.

Article Submitted by the Forest Products Association of Canada

Earlier today, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Nature Canada jointly released a misleading and damaging report on Canada’s GHG emissions. Derek Nighbor, President and CEO, Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) issued the following statement in response:

Last week, economists from the Royal Bank of Canada confirmed their expectation that Canada will enter a recession in the first quarter of 2023. This presents unique challenges for working families in rural and northern Canada where economic prospects are often limited to a few key industries like agriculture, energy, mining, and forestry.

In hundreds of these communities across the country – from Prince George, BC to Corner Brook, NL – the forest sector is a central economic driver and provides jobs to over 200,000 Canadians. Beyond its economic contributions, Canadian forestry is known globally for its responsible harvest practices, high quality products, and its ability to help build a lower carbon economy. Canadian foresters also play an essential role in mitigating growing fire risks, protecting carbon rich wetlands, building with renewable, carbon-storing wood products, and creating environmentally friendly products from what would otherwise be wood waste.

Nordic countries show us how boreal forests can be managed to maximize carbon storage, even in a warming climate. Although their forests are much smaller, Finland and Sweden harvest six to eight times the timber volume per forested hectare than Canada does. At the same time, the net annual increase in stored carbon in Sweden’s forest is so large it reduces national GHG emissions by 70%. These Nordic governments have done something that Canada has not. In developing their climate plans, these leaders have worked with key industries like forestry to build sector-specific plans to maximize environmental and economic outcomes.

While we were disappointed to see another misleading report on forestry issued by the US-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Nature Canada, we were not surprised. Both NRDC and Nature Canada fundraise on their anti-Canadian forestry campaign rhetoric.

It’s worth noting that staff in NRDC’s New York, Washington, and San Francisco offices suggest they care about Canada’s forests and Canadian workers, even as they actively lobby multiple US states to encourage state legislators to restrict Canadian forest products coming into those states. For reasons that are difficult to understand, Nature Canada has chosen to be a willing partner.

Let’s be clear. Canada has a forest carbon problem that is caused by the worsening natural disturbance patterns we are seeing through drought, pest outbreaks, and catastrophic wildland fire. It’s a growing problem impacting forest health and resiliency, human health and community safety, and we urgently need constructive solutions – not deliberately misleading attacks.

FPAC continues to call on the federal government to follow the Nordic examples and work with our sector to develop a comprehensive plan for Canadian forestry, even as we contribute to the federal National Adaptation Strategy (NAS), which is a key deliverable and discussion matter at the upcoming COP 27 global climate conference next month in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt.

Canadian forestry needs an NAS that minimizes climate-driven disturbance by actively reducing disturbance risk and supporting forest operations that maximize long-term carbon storage performance. This means increased timber harvests that value carbon and forest health – and the creation of new markets for low-grade wood fibre, including via thinning and residual biomass. It also means more forestry – not less. Forestry that will accelerate economic reconciliation with Indigenous communities, keep communities safer from fire risks, support biodiversity conservation and important ecosystem values, and provide good-paying jobs and careers in the rural and northern Canadian communities that desperately need them.

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

Canadians should understand costs of Ottawa’s Emissions Reduction Plan

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

On its first day in office, the Trump administration withdrew from the Paris climate agreement and began a regulation effort aimed largely at the energy sector. Meanwhile, the Trudeau government wants to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 to satisfy its commitment to the Paris agreement that Trudeau signed back in 2016.

But far from “building a strong economy” and making Canada “more competitive,” as the government  claims, its Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) will hurt Canada’s already struggling economy while failing to meet its own emission reduction targets.

In essence, the ERP has two components. The first one, and probably the most well-known to Canadians, is the carbon tax, which places a cost on fossil fuel use based on the amount of GHG emissions produced. The tax increased to $80 per tonne on April 1, 2024 and is scheduled to reach $170 per tonne by 2030.

The second—and least discussed—ERP component is the Trudeau government’s cascade of regulatory measures and mandates including requirements for fuel producers and importers to reduce the carbon content of their fuels, and electric vehicle mandates that require all new (light-duty) vehicles sold to be zero-emission by 2035 (with interim targets of 20 per cent by 2026 and 60 per cent by 2030). Additional measures include restrictions on fertilizer use in agriculture, emissions caps in the oil and gas industry, energy efficiency mandates for buildings, and more. With more regulations come increased costs to producers, and these costs are largely passed to consumers in the form of higher prices.

But aside from vague and unsupported claims that the ERP will strengthen the economy, the government hasn’t provided a detailed assessment of the plan’s costs and benefits. In other words, while the government has outlined how it plans to reduce emissions—carbon taxes, regulations, mandates—we still don’t know how much these policies will cost or how they will benefit Canadians.

But a recent study published by the Fraser Institute evaluate the economic and environmental impacts of the ERP.

According to the study’s projections, the carbon tax alone will cost $1,302 per worker annually by 2030, reduce employment by an estimated 57,000 jobs, and shrink the Canadian economy by 1.5 per cent compared to a scenario without the ERP. Considering that the economy grew just by 1.3 per cent in 2023, this cost is significant.

After you account for the ERP’s additional regulatory measures and mandates, the economic cost rises. By 2030, the full implementation of the ERP—which includes the carbon tax, regulatory measures and mandates—will shrink the economy by 6.2 per cent, cost Canadian workers $6,700 annually, and reduce employment by 164,000 jobs. Alberta, of course, will bear a large portion of these costs.

To make matters worse, the ERP will still fall short of the Trudeau government’s 2030 emission-reduction target. According to the study, the ERP will reduce Canada’s GHG emissions by about 26.5 per cent between 2019 and 2030, achieving only approximately 57 per cent of the government’s target. In short, Trudeau’s climate plan won’t deliver the economic growth or environmental impact the government anticipates.

Canadians should understand the costs of the Trudeau government’s Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP), which won’t achieve its targets while making Canadians worse-off. Any government should reject climate targets and policies where Canadians are merely an afterthought.

Continue Reading

Business

Oil may be exempt from Trump Tariffs as Trump says oil “has nothing to do with it”  

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By  Clare Marie Merkowsky

Trump to impose 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico this Saturday

U.S. President Donald Trump has confirmed that he will implement 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico this Saturday.  

During a January 30 interview, Trump announced that, beginning February 1, he will impose 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico while Canada’s Parliament remains suspended thanks to an order by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. 

“Number one is the people that have poured into our country so horribly and so much,” Trump told media. “Number two are the drugs, fentanyl, and everything else that have come into the country; and, number three are the massive subsidies that we’re giving to Canada and to Mexico in the form of deficits.”  

It’s unclear if Canada’s oil will be exempt from the tariff as Trump told reporters that oil “has nothing to do with it.”  

Trump’s tariffs aim to force Canada and Mexico to take serious action against illegal drug smuggling and immigration which occurs at their borders.    

Initially, the tariff was to take effect on his first day of office, January 20, but was postponed until February 1, leaving Canadians under two weeks to respond to his demands.  

However, because Trudeau prorogued Parliament until March 24, little action has been taken by Canadian politicians to respond to Trump’s threats.  

Trudeau, who is slated to resign once a new Liberal leader is selected, has told Canadians that Liberals are considering all options, including retaliatory tariffs.    

“We will not hesitate to act,” Trudeau said at a meeting of the Council on Canada-U.S. Relations on January 17. “We will respond and, I will say it again, everything is on the table.”    

“Canada is facing a critical challenge. On February 1st we are facing the risk of unjustified 25% tariffs by our largest trading partner that would have damaging consequences across our country,” wrote Poilievre in a news release Tuesday. 

Meanwhile, polls have revealed that 77 percent of Canadians want an immediate election to deal with the tariff threat.   

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has done just that, calling a snap election to take place on February 27. The election, according to Ford, allows him to secure a new “four-year” mandate from Ontario voters to respond to Trump’s tariffs.  

News that the tariffs are to take effect also come after Trump has repeatedly suggested that he would like to annex Canada and make the country the “51st state” of America. 

While Trump’s comments were initially passed over as a joke or trolling, Trump has persistently referred to Canada as the “51st state” and even threatened to use “economic force” to overtake Canada.  

Trump claimed that there is a $200 billion trade deficit between Canada and the U.S. regarding spending on “subsidies” and the fact that the U.S. military is there to also “protect Canada.” 

Just last week, Trump told the World Economic Forum (WEF), “We love Canada, but they might be better off as part of the United States.” He made the comments to suggest that Canada, as a way of avoiding the tariffs he is threatening, should just up and join the United States. 

Trump’s repeated threats have drawn the ire of many Canadians, who boldly tell the president that Canada will remain its own country. Others have warned that the move to annex Canada would bring about the beginning of a one-world government.  

Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre, who is likely to become prime minister in the next election, has had choice words for Trump. He has said Canada will “never” become a U.S. “state.”  

“We are a great and independent country,” he continued. “We are the best friend to the U.S. We spent billions of dollars and hundreds of lives helping Americans retaliate against Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks. We supply the U.S. with billions of dollars of high-quality and totally reliable energy well below market prices. We buy hundreds of billions of dollars of American goods.” 

Continue Reading

Trending

X