What’s happening in Sri Lanka? After months of massive protests, President Gotabaya Rajapaska fled the country last month. He’s since resigned over email from the safety of Singapore. Probably a wise move. Crowds had stormed his official residence and set fire to the Prime Minister’s home.
Gota, as he’s known, played a key role in wrecking the economy. Inflation runs over 50% and the government has defaulted on 51 billion US dollars in foreign debt. In Sri Lanka, the power cuts out every day. There are shortages of fuel, and medicine. The UN predicts that a third of the population could soon be starving. Now the crowds have turned their fury on the governing elites who haven’t run away.
But why is the economy in ruins?
The government blames the Covid-19 pandemic. Mainstream media nods along, alluding to a few other things. But the obvious explanation – “suicide by Net Zero” – is ignored or dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theory.
Gota announced his new fertilizer policy at COP 26 (United Nations Climate Change Conference) in November 2021. He reminded everyone of Sri Lanka’s “national commitment” to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 in pursuit of the now famous globalist goals of “Net Zero by 2050”, or now more commonly known as simply “Net Zero”. The problem, it was said, was that nitrogen emissions from “artificial fertilizer” are “a major contributor to climate change”. Gota was determined to lead the world in addressing that “problem”. He was going to make his whole country go organic!
It was clearly a green policy. And perfectly in synch with the exhortations of the other Zeros.
The British Deputy High Commissioner to Sri Lanka spoke of “a responsibility to take action – now”. The UN’s “Climate Action Champion” called for “ambitious policies”. COP President Alok Sharma said that the “window” for action was “closing fast”.
Canadian Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, made the preposterous claim that “the global financial system has been transformed to deliver Net Zero”. And Prime Minister Justin Trudeau demanded that everyone “must do more, and faster.” No one warned Gota to slow down and think again.
And the result?
Sri Lankan farmers had been supplying – in full – the domestic Sri Lanka demand for rice since 2005, but only because they’ve been using those very same dreaded “artificial fertilizers”. Inevitably, six months into Gota’s hare-brained experiment, Sri Lanka was importing hundreds of millions of US dollars of rice, and domestic prices were soaring. Sri Lanka’s main source of export revenue and foreign currency is tea. Inevitably, production fell by a devastating 20 percent under Gota’s organic farming diktat.
And now? Disaster. Total disaster.
How do the climate apologists explain away what is going on in Sri Lanka?
The BBC reports that Gota’s demand that farmers use only organic fertilizers was meant to cope with “foreign currency shortages” but led to “widespread crop failure”.
And a “climate disinformation specialist” debunks the theory that “green policies” might “lie behind” Sri Lanka’s misery.
An “expert” says that Gota’s policy “had nothing to do” with his “environmentally sound, principled position”. Besides, he dropped it after “just” seven months. (Just seven months. What’s the big deal?) The fertilizer policy “hurt the economy” but “other factors” also “contributed”.
Non-experts might wonder whether things that “hurt” an economy may also “lie behind” its collapse. The obvious explanation is right: Efforts to implement Net Zero in Sri Lanka was the main cause of the Sri Lankan crisis, and of most “other factors” that contributed.
All this hysterical moralizing was a “sound, principled position”: according to the green extremists, climate change is an existential threat to life on earth. Everyone needs to act right now to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions orders of magnitude greater than any in human history – and in less than a decade.
But now, as Sri Lanka sinks into abject misery, the Zeros say they didn’t really mean it. Sure, they wanted Gota to drive his country over a cliff – but not quite so fast.
Net Zero is inherently ruinous, not just in Sri Lanka, but everywhere it is tried. It implies economic collapse. Indeed it is designed to bring it about. The choice is stark: a functioning economy or Net Zero. No country can have both.
It was a form of “economic suicide”, but how else could Gota meet the radical targets to which he’d already agreed?
NEXT: The Zero plan unfolds in the Netherlands and Canada
Dan McTeague | President
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.
All across Canada preemptive obituaries are being written for the Carbon Tax. (I’ve written one myself.) And for good reason. The closer we get to the full implementation of Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax, the harder regular people are being hit in the wallet. The tax has helped make it more expensive to feed and clothe our families, to heat our homes, and to gas up our cars. It has been a direct assault on the Canadian standard of living.
The fact that the Trudeau Liberals are behind the Carbon Tax is central to their collapsing poll numbers. And Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has capitalized on its unpopularity by pledging to “Axe the Tax” every chance he gets. Chances are that pledge will carry his party into the majority, whenever we get around to having an election.
That said, we must be careful because the Carbon Tax is just one part of Trudeau’s Net-Zero program. It would be a catastrophic blunder for the Conservatives, upon entering government, to repeal only the Carbon Tax and leave the rest of the Liberals’ green agenda in place. Doing so would jeopardize Poilievre’s ability to make life in Canada more affordable.
There are a whole raft of policies on this file which a Poilievre government should quickly repeal. Here are a few which ought to be at the top of the list:
Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR)
Trudeau’s Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR), which I’ve nicknamed the Second Carbon Tax, are designed to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels like gasoline and diesel by blending increased amounts of ethanol into those fuels, making them less efficient while potentially contributing to engine corrosion and other problems. Plus, it’s estimated that the CFR will raise gasoline prices between six and seventeen cents a litre by 2030. Which is to say, we’ll be paying more for fuel and getting less out of it.
And, like the original Carbon Tax, the cost of the CFR is felt beyond the pumps, with estimates suggesting it will increase household energy costs by between 2.2 and 6.5 percent a year, while also significantly constricting the growth of our economy. These regulations ought to be scrapped entirely.
Emissions Caps
As I’ve written elsewhere, the Trudeau government’s proposed Emissions Cap, which targets our nation’s oil and gas sector, “would make Canada the only country in the world which willingly and purposefully stifles its single largest revenue stream.” Oil and gas is our “golden goose,” according to a study by Jack Mintz and Philip Cross, but the Trudeau government is proposing a cap on that sector’s carbon emissions, which a recent Deloitte report found “would lead to a 10% decrease in Alberta’s oil production and a 16% decrease in conventional natural gas production.” That translates to an estimated decline of real GDP in Alberta of $191 billion, and of $91 billion in the rest of Canada.
This is madness, and that’s before we even touch on the fact that it will have no discernable impact on global carbon emissions. It merely ensures that the world’s energy needs will be met by less environmentally responsible nations like Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
Electric Vehicle Mandates and Subsidies
Among the most reckless policies enacted by this government is Trudeau’s Electric Vehicle (EV) mandate, which bans the sale of new gas-and-diesel driven cars and trucks by 2035. I’ll say that again – in just under a decade, every new car and truck sold in Canada will have to be electric! This despite the fact that electric vehicles are notoriously bad at holding their charge in cold weather, one of our country’s trademarks.
And that’s assuming you can find a place to charge them. Natural Resources Canada estimates that we will need roughly 450,000 public charging stations by 2035 to make this EV transition at all realistic. At the moment we have about 28,000.
Plus, the wholesale adoption of EVs across Canada would put a tremendous strain on our electrical grid, especially at a time when the environmentalists have been pushing for a nationwide transition to less reliable methods of generating electricity, like wind and solar.
And then there’s the billions in subsidies which support the mandate. Federal and provincial taxpayer dollars are being thrown at automotive companies to underwrite their producing a product which taxpayers will then be forced to buy. It’s an outrageous example of double dipping.
Poilievre seems to understand this. He has called the EV mandate “a tax on the poor,” because of the elevated cost of an EV, compared to traditional vehicles, and he’s slammed the subsidies as bad deals for Canada.
Even so, when Trudeau has accused Poilievre of wanting to cancel the subsidies, Poilievre has tended to pivot to discussing the “generational” opportunity Canada has to start producing the minerals necessary for EV batteries, if only the Liberals would speed up the approval process for new mines.
That’s all well and good, except that the entire EV industry is built on subsidies and mandates. And even with those, countries around the world are finding that demand for EVs is much softer than anticipated. Some “generational” opportunity for Canada, to become a key link in the supply chain for a product that no one wants! Much better to change course, scrap the mandates and subsidies, and see if the industry can stand on its own two feet. Once consumers have shown that they’re willing to buy EVs, then we can talk.
And Many More…
Of course, repealing these policies is just scratching the surface. I could easily have written about the problems with Bill C-69, the so-called “no new pipelines bill;” Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act which significantly reduces Canada’s ability to export our natural resources; or Bill C-59, which bans businesses from touting the environmental positives of their work if it doesn’t meet a government-approved standard.
The fact of the matter is, Canadians need a government that will not just pull down the low-hanging fruit of the Carbon Tax, but to “axe” the numerous Net-Zero policies, enacted by Trudeau’s and his environmentalist allies over the past nine years, which are making all of our lives more expensive.
Pierre Poilievre has his work cut out for him. Let’s all hope that he turns out to be the man we need him to be. We can’t afford anything less.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
Even if it fails to hit its emissions targets (which it will,) the economic consequences of enacting this plan are very serious. It would make Canada the only country in the world which willingly and purposefully stifles its single largest revenue stream.
At this point, everyone in Canada has heard about the Carbon Tax and had a chance to experience its negative effects. But less has been said about another harmful policy dreamed up by the Trudeau government — the Emissions Cap on the oil and gas sector. Just like the Carbon Tax, the Emissions Cap is part of Trudeau’s larger program to try and achieve “Net Zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, which will have no positive impact on the environment, but which will be ruinous to Canada’s natural resource sector and to the national economy.
In their 2021 platform, the Liberals made a commitment to “cap and cut emissions from the oil and gas sector” and proclaimed that that industry must reduce emissions “at a pace and scale needed to achieve net-zero by 2050.” As promised, in December 2023 the Trudeau government proposed an Emissions Cap to reduce GHG emissions in the oil and gas sector by 42 percent by 2030. Keep in mind Canada contributes only 1.5% of global emissions, so this plan, even if accomplished, would reduce global emissions by less than one half of one percent.
Even if it fails to hit its emissions targets (which it will,) the economic consequences of enacting this plan are very serious. It would make Canada the only country in the world which willingly and purposefully stifles its single largest revenue stream. After all, the oil and gas industry generates $45 billion per year in annual economic activity, and contributes $170 billion per year to the GDP.
But don’t take my word for it. According to a Deloitte report commissioned by the Government of Alberta, an Emissions Cap would lead to a 10% decrease in Alberta’s oil production and a 16% decrease in conventional natural gas production. Fossil fuel production would decrease in B.C., Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland as well. Other industries connected to the oil and gas sector such as the mining, refinery products, and utilities are also expected to be impacted and will experience a decrease in output in Alberta and the rest of Canada.
The report goes on to state that in 2040 “Alberta’s GDP is estimated to be lower by 4.5% and Canada’s GDP by 1.0% compared to the baseline.”
It notes that because it is assumed that “the Cap is a permanent measure, the shift in the output of the oil and gas sector and associated losses are permanent and accumulate over time. Cumulatively, over the 2030 to 2040 period, we estimate that real GDP in Alberta is $191 billion lower and real GDP in the Rest of Canada is $91 billion lower, compared to the baseline scenario ($2017 dollars).”
Of course, the environmentalists will crow that the oil and gas industry is dying anyway and the demand for oil and gas around the world is slowly decreasing, but this is simply not true.
Global demand for oil and gas is only growing and will continue to do so. According to the report, “Based on current policy and before the impact of the Cap, we expect: Oil production in Canada to increase by 27% by 2030 and 32% by 2040 from 2021 levels; and Gas production in Canada to increase by 10% by 2030 and 16% by 2040 from 2021 levels.”
And this isn’t the only study which projects negative outcomes from this policy. The Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) released a study which describes how the Trudeau government’s proposed Emissions Cap for the energy sector would “cost the Canadian economy between $44.8 billion and $79.3 billion a year” and would “cause substantial losses, without achieving any net reduction in global emission.”
Plus it is worth noting that this emissions cap will result in “substantial losses without achieving any net reduction in global emissions.”
Why? Because of the increase in global demands for oil and gas, we can either produce those resources here or get them from another country that has no environmental, much less labour standards, such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran.
To add insult to injury for the oil and gas producing provinces, and as I’ve pointed out in the past, this cap on emissions would apply only to the oil and gas sector. This emissions cap would not apply to the concrete industry, the automotive industry, or the mining industry. And — surprise surprise — it certainly won’t apply to Montreal’s lucrative jet-building industry.
But take heed: this isn’t simply an Alberta issue. This is a Canadian issue and one that everyone in Canada should be concerned about.
The umbrella of Net Zero by 2050 is large and far reaching, and an emissions cap is simply one part of a multi-layered attack on our economy and way of life. Carbon taxes, layered on top of a Clean Fuel Standard, layered on top of pipeline blockages, layered on top of Bills C-48 and C-69, preventing oil from being shipped from other parts of the world — will run counter to our national interests, and endanger the Canadian way of life for generations to come.
If Canadians are now vehemently opposed to carbon taxes, as we suggested would be the case half a dozen years ago, wait for this unnecessary burden to befall them.
In the words made famous by the Canadian rock legend BTO, “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
