Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Many Canadians are unhappy about the carbon tax. Proponents argue it’s the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is true, but the problem for the government is that even as the tax hits the upper limit of what people are willing to pay, emissions haven’t fallen nearly enough to meet the federal target of at least 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Indeed, since the temporary 2020 COVID-era drop, national GHG emissions have been rising, in part due to rapid population growth.

The carbon tax, however, is only part of the federal GHG plan. In a new study published by the Fraser Institute, I present a detailed discussion of the Trudeau government’s proposed Emission Reduction Plan (ERP), including its economic impacts and the likely GHG reduction effects. The bottom line is that the package as a whole is so harmful to the economy it’s unlikely to be implemented, and it still wouldn’t reach the GHG goal even if it were.

Simply put, the government has failed to provide a detailed economic assessment of its ERP, offering instead only a superficial and flawed rationale that overstates the benefits and waives away the costs. My study presents a comprehensive analysis of the proposed policy package and uses a peer-reviewed macroeconomic model to estimate its economic and environmental effects.

The Emissions Reduction Plan can be broken down into three components: the carbon tax, the Clean Fuels Regulation (CFR) and the regulatory measures. The latter category includes a long list including the electric vehicle mandate, carbon capture system tax credits, restrictions on fertilizer use in agriculture, methane reduction targets and an overall emissions cap in the oil and gas industry, new emission limits for the electricity sector, new building and motor vehicle energy efficiency mandates and many other such instruments. The regulatory measures tend to have high upfront costs and limited short-term effects so they carry relatively high marginal costs of emission reductions.

The cheapest part of the package is the carbon tax. I estimate it will get 2030 emissions down by about 18 per cent compared to where they otherwise would be, returning them approximately to 2020 levels. The CFR brings them down a further 6 per cent relative to their base case levels and the regulatory measures bring them down another 2.5 per cent, for a cumulative reduction of 26.5 per cent below the base case 2030 level, which is just under 60 per cent of the way to the government’s target.

However, the costs of the various components are not the same.

The carbon tax reduces emissions at an initial average cost of about $290 per tonne, falling to just under $230 per tonne by 2030. This is on par with the federal government’s estimate of the social costs of GHG emissions, which rise from about $250 to $290 per tonne over the present decade. While I argue that these social cost estimates are exaggerated, even if we take them at face value, they imply that while the carbon tax policy passes a cost-benefit test the rest of the ERP does not because the per-tonne abatement costs are much higher. The CFR roughly doubles the cost per tonne of GHG reductions; adding in the regulatory measures approximately triples them.

The economic impacts are easiest to understand by translating these costs into per-worker terms. I estimate that the annual cost per worker of the carbon-pricing system net of rebates, accounting for indirect effects such as higher consumer costs and lower real wages, works out to $1,302 as of 2030. Adding in the government’s Clean Fuels Regulations more than doubles that to $3,550 and adding in the other regulatory measures increases it further to $6,700.

The policy package also reduces total employment. The carbon tax results in an estimated 57,000 fewer jobs as of 2030, the Clean Fuels Regulation increases job losses to 94,000 and the regulatory measures increases losses to 164,000 jobs. Claims by the federal government that the ERP presents new opportunities for jobs and employment in Canada are unsupported by proper analysis.

The regional impacts vary. While the energy-producing provinces (especially Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick) fare poorly, Ontario ends up bearing the largest relative costs. Ontario is a large energy user, and the CFR and other regulatory measures have strongly negative impacts on Ontario’s manufacturing base and consumer wellbeing.

Canada’s stagnant income and output levels are matters of serious policy concern. The Trudeau government has signalled it wants to fix this, but its climate plan will make the situation worse. Unfortunately, rather than seeking a proper mandate for the ERP by giving the public an honest account of the costs, the government has instead offered vague and unsupported claims that the decarbonization agenda will benefit the economy. This is untrue. And as the real costs become more and more apparent, I think it unlikely Canadians will tolerate the plan’s continued implementation.

Author:

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

Related Topics:#CarbonTax #FraserInstitute #RossMcKitrick CleanFuelRegulation EmissionReductionPlan FederalGHGReductionPlan

Up Next

Opinion: A Kamala Harris Presidency Is The Stuff Of Nightmares

Don't Miss

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

UBCIC Chiefs Commit A Grave Error In Labelling Authors As Racist Deniers

Crime / 8 hours ago

Venezuelan Migrant Says She’d ‘Return’ To Country After Living In Housing Taken Over By Venezuelan Gang

International / 9 hours ago

ISIS supporter used Canada in terror plot to massacre New York City Jews, motivated by October 7th Hamas attack on Israel: FBI

Economy

Historic decline in Canadian living standards officially reaches five-year mark

Published on August 30, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Indeed, according to a recent study, from the middle of 2019 to the end of 2023, GDP per person fell from $59,905 to $58,134—a 3.0 per cent drop over four and a half years.

On Friday, Statistics Canada released its estimate of gross domestic product (GDP) for the second quarter of 2024, which confirmed that despite growth in the overall economy, individual living standards for Canadians declined once again. As a result, the ongoing decline in Canadian living standards has officially reached the five-year mark.

GDP—the final value of all goods and services produced in the economy and the most widely used measure of overall economic activity—grew by 0.5 per cent from April to June of 2024 (after adjusting for inflation). But while the economy continues to grow in the aggregate, inflation-adjusted GDP per person—a broad measure of individual living standards that adjusts for population—actually fell by 0.1 per cent during the second quarter of 2024, down to $58,005.

In other words, while the overall economy is growing, individual living standards are falling. This apparent disconnect is due to Canada’s growing population, and the fact that the rate of economic growth is not fast enough to account for the amount the population has increased. Specifically, while the economy grew by 0.5 per cent from April to June of 2024, the total population grew by 0.6 per cent (or 242,673 people).

These data confirm that Canadians are still suffering a historic decline in living standards.

Indeed, according to a recent study, from the middle of 2019 to the end of 2023, GDP per person fell from $59,905 to $58,134—a 3.0 per cent drop over four and a half years. This was the second-longest and third-deepest decline in living standards since 1985, and was only exceeded in both respects by a decline that lasted more than five years (from June 1989 to September 1994).

Unfortunately for Canadians, this recent decline in living standards persisted through the first three months of 2024, and now the newest data show the decline has continued into the second quarter of 2024. Therefore, as of June 2024, inflation-adjusted GDP per person stood 3.2 per cent below the level it was in the middle of 2019. Again, despite a few brief quarters of positive per-person economic growth since 2019, the general decline in inflation-adjusted GDP has officially reached the five-year mark.

Due to the continued persistence of weak economic growth combined with remarkable population increases, Canadians have suffered a marked and prolonged decrease in living standards over the last five years. This puts Canada just six months away from experiencing the longest decline in individual living standards of the last 40 years—a milestone no one should be eager to reach.

Authors:

Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Economy

British Columbia’s finances go from bad to worse during Eby’s first full year

Published on August 30, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Grady Munro

You might be able to justify higher spending if it improved programs and services for British Columbians—but it hasn’t. In fact, despite substantial increases in spending in recent years, the province’s health-care wait times have increased and student test scores have declined.

The recent move by BC United to suspend its campaign, essentially clearing the way for a two-party race in this fall’s provincial election, made headlines across British Columbia. But another recent event, which failed to garner much media attention, included some jaw-dropping numbers that will impact provincial finances for years to come.

Last week, the Eby government recently released its year-end report for the 2023/24 fiscal year—this government’s first full year in office. Unfortunately for British Columbians, provincial finances went from bad to worse as the government ran a larger-than-projected budget deficit and accumulated significant debt.

First, let’s take a closer look at the government’s budget—David Eby’s first official budget as premier—which projected a $4.2 billion operating deficit for the 2023/24 fiscal year (the government expected to spend $81.2 billion while only bringing in $77.7 billion in total revenues). For context, in its last budget the Horgan government had also planned to run a $4.2 billion deficit in 2023/24, but expected to take in $7.5 billion less in revenues. Put differently, the Eby government could have ran a budget surplus if it stuck to Horgan’s spending plan. Instead, the Eby government chose to spend away that $7.5 billion.

Given that per-person (inflation-adjusted) program spending was already at its highest level since 1965 (the earliest year of available data) under the Horgan government in 2021 (even excluding COVID-related spending), that’s a massive influx of new spending.

Now, the year-end report shows that the Eby government increased spending even further—$3.5 billion more than its original plan in the 2023 budget. Overall, it ran a $5.0 billion operating deficit in 2023/24, despite once again taking in more revenues ($1.9 billion) than it had originally planned. Again, the government chose to spend away every single dollar of extra revenue, and then some.

And the eye-popping deficit is only part of the picture as longer-term spending on things such as schools, highways and bridges, isn’t included. After accounting for long-term spending on capital projects, the B.C. government accumulated $11.3 billion in net debt (total debt minus financial assets) in a single year from 2022/23 to 2023/24. Government debt must ultimately be financed by taxpayers who spent $3.3 billion in debt interest payments in 2023/24. That’s money no longer available for programs such as health care or education.

According to the Eby government, “with a slower world economy and a growing population, we cannot afford to have a deficit of services. When we provide the services and support people need to have a good life, it makes our economy stronger and more resilient.”

You might be able to justify higher spending if it improved programs and services for British Columbians—but it hasn’t. In fact, despite substantial increases in spending in recent years, the province’s health-care wait times have increased and student test scores have declined. Put differently, according to key indicators, B.C.’s performance on health care and education—the two largest areas of government spending—have worsened despite higher spending.

Higher spending also hasn’t paid off for the B.C. economy, which is stagnating. The province’s per-person GDP, a broad measure of living standards, is expected to be lower this year than in 2018. And the Eby government expects negative growth in per-person GDP this fiscal year.

Unfortunately for British Columbians, the latest year-end report on B.C.’s finances shows the Eby government took a bad fiscal situation and made it worse with higher spending and an even larger budget deficit. The next government, whoever that may be, must deal will this fiscal mess.