Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

FLOP28 – Climate proposals would devastate economy

Published

5 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

” Most CO2 comes from natural sources like forest fires, volcanoes and ocean evaporation – not your SUV or natural gas furnace. The human portion of this tiny amount is the equivalent of 6 pennies in a jar of 10,000. “

Politicians, academics, celebrities, self-appointed activists, protesters, and green energy industry lobbyists recently gathered in Dubai at their annual Climate Crisis jamboree (COP28).  Their central belief, from their computer models, is that human-generated global warming will lead to a rise in average global temperatures of two degrees Celsius, ‘2 C’ or even more frighteningly, as much as 3 C to 4 C by 2100.  They claim that this will cause widespread health, environmental, and economic devastation.

From this hypothesis comes their solution:  drastic reductions in so-called greenhouse gas emissions, principally carbon dioxide, ‘CO2’, and rapidly so.  To their minds, this would require widespread adoption of their preferred solutions – ending fossil fuels in favour of wind and solar power; pervasive and intensive electrification of the world economy, including the mandated adoption of electric vehicles, ‘EVs’, and batteries, everywhere.

They insist that slashing COlevels will not only benefit the world, but also the economy – as these new industries would provide jobs and other benefits.

The hard reality is that CO2, is a life-giving gas that is crucial for photosynthesis and thus the flourishing of all life on Earth.  It is a trace gas – making up only .04% of our atmosphere. Most CO2 comes from natural sources like forest fires, volcanoes and ocean evaporation – not your SUV or natural gas furnace. The human portion of this tiny amount is the equivalent of 6 pennies in a jar of 10,000.    Very awkwardly,  COlevels in the atmosphere are uncorrelated with temperatures. It may look so in government computer models, but remember those catastrophically wrong Covid models that gave us devastating lockdowns, failed vaccines and exploding debt and inflation?

Even if we assume that COis “pollution that is warming the planet” their wild proposals’ math doesn’t work out.

Professor Richard Tol of the University of Sussex, United Kingdom, wrote in a special issue of Climate Economics a sobering assessment of the ‘bad deal’ climate crusaders are trying to sell to the world, including Canada. He estimates their proposed climate policies’ costs to be 3.8 to 5.6% of GDP in 2100 compared to benefits of 2.8% to 3.2% of GDP – or excess costs of $900 billion to $1.98 trillion in today’s $90 trillion world economy.

The prohibitively large subsidies required fail the cost benefit test.  To summarize: Tol suggests that the whole Green Transition ‘enterprise’ would lose money – in vast amounts.  His view is not even the worst assessment of such radical disruptive policies.

Another expert who engages the “CO2 is pollution” bubble and has done the math is Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus think tank and a Hoover Institution Senior Fellow.

He assesses MIT researchers’ studies of the costs of attaining Net Zero (no net GHG emissions) by 2050, in the same journal, Climate Economicsand observes that these Paris policies would cost 8% to 18% of annual GDP by 2050 and 11% to 13% annually by 2100…. Averaged across the century, these promises would create benefits worth $4.5 trillion (in 2023 dollars) annually: “dramatically smaller than the $27 trillion annual cost that Paris promises would incur, as derived from averaging the three cost estimates from the two Climate Change Economics papers through 2100.”

To remove any doubt, these forecast costs would exceed total global annual capital investment of all kinds, and would crowd out everything else, impoverishing all humanity. Expensive, destructive ‘solutions’, for a dubious, unproven catastrophe.

The Dubai COP28 flopped as all others have.

We need to stop the madness.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

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

We need our own ‘DOGE’ in 2025 to unleash Canadian economy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Canada has a regulation problem. Our economy is over-regulated and the regulatory load is growing. To reverse this trend, we need a deregulation agenda that will cut unnecessary red tape and government bloat, to free up the Canadian economy.

According to the latest “Red Tape” report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, government regulations cost Canadian businesses a staggering $38.8 billion in 2020. Together, businesses spent 731 million hours on regulatory compliance—that’s equal to nearly 375,000 fulltime jobs. Canada’s smallest businesses bear a disproportionately high burden of the cost, paying up to five times more for regulatory compliance per-employee than larger businesses. The smallest businesses pay $7,023 per employee annually to comply with government regulation while larger businesses pay $1,237 per employee.

Of course, the Trudeau government has enacted a vast swath of new regulations on large sectors of Canada’s economy—particularly the energy sector—in a quest to make Canada a “net-zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter by 2050 (which means either eliminating fossil fuel generation or offsetting emissions with activities such as planting trees).

For example, the government (via Bill C-69) introduced subjective criteria—including the “gender implications” of projects—into the evaluation process of energy projects. It established EV mandates requiring all new cars be electric vehicles by 2035. And the costs of the government’s new “Clean Electricity Regulations,” to purportedly reduce the use of fossil fuels in generating electricity, remain unknown, although provinces (including Alberta) that rely more on fossil fuels to generate electricity will surely be hardest hit.

Meanwhile in the United States, Donald Trump plans to put Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in charge of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which will act as a presidential advisory commission (not an official government department) for the second Trump administration.

“A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy,” the two wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal. “DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions. The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited.”

If Musk and Ramaswamy achieve these goals, the U.S. could leap far ahead of Canada in terms of regulatory efficiency, making Canada’s economy even less competitive than it is today.

That would be bad news for Canadians who are already falling behind. Between 2000 and 2023, Canada’s GDP per person (an indicator of incomes and living standards) lagged far behind the average among G7 countries. Business investment is also lagging. Between 2014 and 2021, business investment per worker (inflation-adjusted, excluding residential construction) in Canada decreased by $3,676 (to $14,687) while it increased by $3,418 (to $26,751) per worker in the U.S. And over-regulation is partly to blame.

For 2025, Canada needs a deregulatory agenda similar to DOGE that will allow Canadian workers and businesses to recover and thrive. And we know it can be done. During a deregulatory effort in British Columbia, which included a minister of deregulation appointed by the provincial government in 2001, there was a 37 per cent reduction in regulatory requirements in the province by 2004. The federal government should learn from B.C.’s success at slashing red tape, and reduce the burden of regulation across the entire Canadian economy.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Alberta

Trudeau’s Tariff Retaliation Plan: Alberta Says “No Thanks”

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

After years of neglect and exploitation, Alberta refuses to back Trudeau’s countermeasure plan against Trump’s tariffs, exposing the cracks in Canada’s so-called unity.

Let’s take a moment to appreciate Justin Trudeau’s brilliant strategy for handling Trump’s latest stunt: tariffs. Trump, in true Trump fashion, threatens to slap a 25% tariff on Canadian goods, because apparently, Canada is responsible for all of America’s problems—from border security to fentanyl. And Trudeau’s response? A $150 billion countermeasure plan that includes the possibility of crippling Alberta’s energy sector. Genius! Except one small problem: Alberta said, ‘No thanks.’

Why wasn’t Alberta there? Because Premier Danielle Smith isn’t an idiot. Trudeau’s plan includes export levies on Canadian oil, a move that would essentially tell Alberta to torch its own economy to help Trudeau look tough on Trump. Alberta exports $13.3 billion of energy to the U.S. every month, making it the lifeblood of this country’s economy. But sure, let’s just gamble that away because Trudeau needs a distraction from his sinking legacy.

But Alberta’s refusal isn’t just about this plan. It’s about years—years—of Ottawa treating Alberta like the black sheep of Confederation. Remember the Northern Gateway Pipeline? Trudeau killed it. Energy East? Dead, too. Those projects could’ve given Alberta access to global markets. Instead, Trudeau left the province landlocked, dependent on the U.S., and completely vulnerable to economic extortion like this. And now, after all that sabotage, he expects Alberta to ‘unite’ behind his plan? Please.

And don’t even get me started on Bill C-69. They call it the ‘Impact Assessment Act,’ but Albertans know it as the ‘No More Pipelines Bill.’ This masterpiece of legislation basically made it impossible to build anything that moves oil. And just to twist the knife, Trudeau slapped on a carbon tax—because nothing says ‘we care about your economy’ like making it more expensive to run it.

And then there’s Quebec. Oh, Quebec. The province that’s spent years wagging its finger at Alberta, calling its oil sands ‘dirty energy’ and blocking pipeline projects that could’ve helped the whole country. Meanwhile, Quebec gleefully cashes billions in equalization payments, heavily subsidized by Alberta’s oil wealth. That’s right—the same people who call Alberta the bad guy are more than happy to take their money. And now Trudeau wants Alberta to step up and take one for the team? Give me a break.

Danielle Smith saw this nonsense for what it is: exploitation. She flatly refused to sign onto any plan that includes export levies or energy restrictions. And you know what? Good for her. She said, ‘Federal officials are floating the idea of cutting off energy supply to the U.S. and imposing tariffs on Alberta energy. Until these threats cease, Alberta cannot support the federal government’s plan.’ Translation: Alberta is done being Ottawa’s doormat.

Let’s not forget why Alberta is even in this mess. For nine years, Trudeau’s government has treated Alberta like its personal piggy bank, siphoning billions through equalization payments while doing absolutely nothing—zero—to support its economy. When oil prices collapsed and families were struggling, what did Alberta get? Crickets. Trudeau was too busy virtue-signaling to his globalist pals to care. And now, with Trump threatening a 25% tariff that could cripple Alberta’s economy, Trudeau has the audacity to turn around and ask Alberta to make the ultimate sacrifice. You can’t make this stuff up.

And then Danielle Smith does what any rational leader would do—she heads to Mar-a-Lago to defend her province’s interests. And what does Trudeau’s cabinet do? They lose their minds, clutch their pearls, and call her ‘unpatriotic.’ Unpatriotic? Are you kidding me? This is coming from the same government that has spent nearly a decade treating Alberta like the annoying little sibling of Confederation—good enough to bankroll Quebec’s luxurious equalization payments, but not important enough to actually listen to. And now, after years of kicking Alberta to the curb, they expect Smith to roll over, play nice, and ‘work together’? Please.

Doug Ford says, ‘United we stand, divided we fall.’ Great soundbite, Doug. But unity doesn’t mean asking one province to carry the load while others reap the rewards. Quebec Premier François Legault says, ‘Nothing’s off the table.’ Of course not—Quebec isn’t paying the price. This isn’t unity; it’s a shakedown.

Here’s the reality: Alberta isn’t at the table because Ottawa hasn’t earned the right to ask them to be. You don’t treat a province like an ATM for nearly a decade and then expect them to roll over when you need a favor. Danielle Smith stood up and said, ‘Enough.’ And frankly, good for her.

So here’s the real question: how long does Ottawa think it can keep exploiting Alberta before the province decides it’s had enough? Because let me tell you, when Alberta’s done, it’s not just the energy sector that’s going to feel it—it’s the entire country.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X