The case against Net Zero 2050

Every “net zero by 2050” myth, refuted

Fossil fuels expert Alex Epstein shares everything you need to know about fossil fuels and what the world would really look like if we were “net zero” by 2050.

—

Alex Epstein is a philosopher and energy expert who argues that “human flourishing” should be the guiding principle of industrial and environmental progress. He is the author of the New York Times bestseller, “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” and his latest book, “Fossil Future.”

For months I have been eagerly anticipating a scheduled debate I had at the University of Syracuse on “net zero by 2050” with climate catastrophist and net-zero advocate Tom Rand.

Unfortunately, due apparently to some sort of weird contractual issue between Tom’s agent and the university, Tom did not make it to the debate.

Since I was supposed to be in a debate, but there was no one to debate, I thought the best I could make of the situation would be to give a speech refuting every single argument for “net zero by 2050” that Tom and others make. It ended up being one of my favorite speeches ever; you can watch it here. We’ve also embedded the video below.

Below I have included all the “net zero” myths I covered , and then some. I think you’ll find them, along with the positive points about energy freedom, very valuable.

Myth: The best policy toward CO2 emissions is “net zero by 2050.”

Truth: Net-zero policies have been catastrophically destructive when barely implemented and would be apocalyptically destructive if fully implemented.

They should be abandoned in favor of energy freedom policies.

How to think about the right policy toward fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions

What are “net zero by 2050 policies”?Government (coercive) actions whose primary and binding goal is the net-elimination of CO2 (and other GHG) emissions, whose number one source is fossil fuel use, by 2050.
In practice “net zero” means: rapidly eliminate most fossil fuel use.
One “net zero” policy is an extremely high “carbon tax,” like “$1000/ton.”This would mean, in practice:
- 3-4 times higher prices for gasoline in Texas
- 9 times higher electricity prices in West Virginia
- 4-5 times higher prices for heating with natural gas
What are “energy freedom policies”?Government actions to protect the ability of producers to produce all forms of energy and consumers to use all forms of energy, so long as they don’t engage in reasonably preventable pollution or endangerment of others.
Energy freedom policies include:
- Protecting the freedom to develop fossil fuels and other forms of energy. E.g., deep geothermal development.
- Protecting the freedom to use fossil fuels and all other forms of energy. E.g., “decriminalizing nuclear.”
Interesting: the 2 biggest instances of CO2 reduction have come from energy freedom policies:
- Nuclear: Freedom led to cost-effective and scalable nuclear power until the “green” movement virtually criminalized it.
- Gas: Freedom led to significant substitution of gas vs. coal.
Myth: Net-zero policies are new and exciting.
Truth: Net-zero policies have caused catastrophic energy shortages even with minuscule implementation. Just by slowing the growth of fossil fuel use, not even reducing it, they have caused global energy shortages advocates didn’t warn us of.
Minuscule net-zero policies causing huge problems:
- US: Frequent power shortages (and some disastrous blackouts) after shutting down fossil fuel power plants. E.g., CA
- EU: Deadly fossil fuel dependence after restricting domestic fossil fuel industry
- Poor nations: Can’t afford fuel due to global restrictions¹
The root problem with “net zero by 2050”It violates a basic principle of rational thinking, which is that when evaluating what to do about a product or technology—e.g., prescription drug—you need to carefully weigh the benefits and side-effects of your alternatives.
Myth: If there are negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use we should get them to net-zero as soon as possible.Truth: We should carefully weigh them against the benefits that come with them, including positive climate side-effects, climate mastery abilities, and many broader benefits.
It is particularly crucial to weigh any negative climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use against the climate mastery benefits that come with them, as those benefits can neutralize or overwhelm negatives.E.g., more energy powering heating and cooling, irrigation, infrastructure-building, etc.
Example of fossil-fueled climate mastery overwhelming negative impacts: Drought.Any contribution of rising CO2 to drought has been overwhelmed by fossil-fueled irrigation and crop transport, which have helped reduce drought deaths by over 100 times over 100 years as CO2 levels have risen.²
An irrefutable method for thinking about policy toward fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions1 Factor in broad benefits
2 Factor in climate mastery benefits
3 Factor in positive and negative climate side-effects (from rising CO2)
No net-zero advocate has refuted it, yet none follow it.
How net-zero advocates fail to weigh benefits and side-effects of fossil fuels
- Factor in broad benefits – Deny or trivialize
- Factor in climate mastery benefits – Deny
- Factor in positive and negative climate side-effects – Deny or trivialize positives, Catastrophize negatives = Overstate, Deny mastery
If we follow the irrefutable principles of weighing benefits and climate side-effects of continuing fossil fuel use, using undeniable facts and mainstream science, it is obvious that “net zero by 2050” would be apocalyptically destructive and that the right path forward is energy freedom.

Applying fossil fuel policy principle 1: Factoring in the broad benefits of continuing fossil fuel use

Myth: The benefit of continuing fossil fuel use is trivial at best.Truth: The benefit of continuing fossil fuel use is a world in which 8 billion people have the energy they need to survive and flourish—vs. an energy-starved world in which most of the world’s 8 billion people suffer from poverty and premature death.
Myth: There are no real benefits of continuing fossil fuel use because it can be rapidly replaced by mostly solar and wind.Truth: fossil fuels are and for decades will remain uniquely cost-effective: affordable, reliable, versatile—on a scale of billions of people in thousands of places.
Myth: Fossil fuels are being rapidly replaced in an “energy transition” to solar and wind.Truth: Fossil fuel use is 80% of the world’s energy and still growing despite 100+ years of aggressive competition and 20+ years of political hostility and massive solar and wind favoritism.³
Myth: Fossil fuel use will soon rapidly decline because countries know “green” energy will be cheaper.Truth: Countries that care most about cheap energy are pro-fossil fuels.
E.g., China, which uses mostly coal to produce “green” tech, has over 300 planned new coal plants designed to last over 40 years.
Myth: Solar and wind are growing fast by outcompeting fossil fuels with superior economics.Truth: Solar and wind are growing fast only when given massive government preferences—mandates, subsidies, and no penalty for unreliability—along with crippling government punishments of fossil fuels.
Myth: Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels.Truth: For the overwhelming majority of the world’s energy needs, solar and wind either can’t do what fossil fuel can—e.g., non-electricity energy uses such as airplanes or cargo ships—or are far more expensive.
Myth: Solar and wind electricity is getting so cheap that will lead to rapid electrification of the 4/5ths of today’s energy that is not electricity.Truth: When you factor in the full cost of the 24/7 life support that unreliable solar and wind electricity need, they are far more expensive.⁴
Myth: Solar and wind plus batteries will inevitably be super-cheap because of efficiency increases driving lower production costs and higher performance.Truth: Their cost is astronomical today and has a large mining component whose costs will increase if scaled artificially quickly.⁵
Even relatively mild increases in demand for critical minerals in recent years have led to scaling issues and cost increases—reversing a trend of falling prices that solar and wind advocates pretended would last forever.What will rapid scaling plus anti-mining policies do?⁶
Myth: Rapidly eliminating fossil fuels will make us more energy-secure.Truth: We’d be far less energy secure because 1) we’d have drastically less energy, period, and 2) we’re far more dependent on China for key components of solar, wind, and batteries than we are on Russia for fossil fuels.⁷
Myth: Reliable alternatives to fossil fuels, such as nuclear and geothermal, can rapidly replace fossil fuels.Truth: While these industries have potential that we should unleash, they are generations away from providing, on a global scale, energy that’s affordable, reliable, and versatile.⁸
Myth: Academics have rigorous plans to replace fossil fuels with mostly solar and wind
Truth: All these “plans” involve 2 absurdities: 1. Unprecedented mining and construction in today’s anti-development political environment will be cheap.
2. Untested schemes will be cheap, everywhere, the first time.
“Net zero” plans to scale solar and wind involve more than doubling the supply of half a dozen major mined materials per decade.I know of no example, ever, of any major mined mineral doubling that fast, even with pro-development governments—let alone today’s anti-development governments.⁹
All “net zero” by 2050 plans involve totally untested schemes, both for
1. Electricity: Solar and wind somehow being the basis of cheap, reliable electricity.
2. Other energy: Myriad electric or hydrogen vehicles (e.g., planes, ships) that are nowhere near commercial reality.¹⁰
Myth: Carbon capture will soon allow us to have global cost-effective energy without CO2 emissions.Truth: While cost-effective carbon capture is worth exploring (e.g., using CO2 for industry or agriculture), there’s no evidence that most emissions can be captured cheaply.
Summary: Fossil fuels are, and for decades will remain, uniquely cost-effective: affordable, reliable, versatile—on a scale of billions of people in thousands of places.

Policy implications:
- Energy freedom —> global cost-effective energy
- Net zero —> very little cost-effective energy
When “net zero by 2050” advocates are forced to concede that their policies would (at minimum) dramatically reduce the availability of energy, they revert to the myth that cost-effective energy is only of modest importance compared to CO2 emissions reductions.
Myth: Cost-effective energy isn’t nearly as important as CO2 reductions, which affect Earth’s livability.Truth: The cost-effectiveness of energy determines Earth’s livability because it allows us to use machines turn a naturally inhospitable planet into an abundant and safe place.¹¹
Myth: The Earth will be a highly livable place—stable, sufficient in resources, and safe—as long as we don’t impact it too much.Truth: Earth is very inhospitable—dynamic, deficient, dangerous—unless we have the productive ability to transform and impact it to be abundant and safe.
Myth: Energy is just one of many factors affecting to what extent we can flourish on this naturally inhospitable planet.Truth: The cost-effectiveness of energy is fundamental to human flourishing because it determines our ability to use machines to become super-productive.
Myth: Fossil Fuels aren’t the reason the Earth is so livable now—it’s much more medical care, sanitation, scientific progress, and technological progress.Truth: Cost-effective fossil fuels underlie them all: freeing up time for them, powering their machines, and providing raw materials.¹²
Myth: The benefits we’ve gotten from uniquely cost-effective fossil fuel energy are modest at best compared to their downsides.Thanks to our fossil-fueled productivity, longevity and income have been skyrocketing, with extreme poverty (<$2/day) plummeting from 42% in 1980 to less than 10% today.¹³
Myth: Rapidly eliminating uniquely cost-effective fossil fuel energy won’t be that bad because we can save a lot energy via efficiency.Truth: Not only could people in the wealthy world benefit from more energy, the vast majority of the world needs much more energy to get out of poverty.
The desperate need for far more of the global-scale cost-effective energy that only fossil fuels can provide near-term:
- 1/3 of the world uses wood and animal dung for heating and cooking.
- 3 billion use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator.¹⁴
Myth: Poor countries will “leapfrog” fossil fuels and go right to solar and wind.Truth: No rich country has been able to abandon fossil fuels even at huge cost, while every dramatic increase in wealth has involved fossil fuels: Japan, Singapore, South Korea, China, etc.
Poor countries are not guinea pigs.
Any invocation of “efficiency” to pretend that the world doesn’t need far more energy amounts to cruel indifference to the enormous energy needs of the world’s poorest people.
Summary: Fossil fuels are a near-term irreplaceable source of the cost-effective energy humans need to flourish.Policy implications
- Energy freedom —> Billions more will have the opportunity to flourish.
- Net zero —> Billions of energy-starved people plunge into poverty and early death.

Applying fossil fuel policy principle 2: Factoring in the climate mastery benefits of continuing fossil fuel use

Myth: Our weak “adaptation” abilities are already overwhelmed by climate changes.Truth: Our fossil-fueled climate mastery abilities have completely overwhelmed any negative changes plus huge natural danger—meaning we can overcome almost any conceivable future climate challenge.
Myth: We are more endangered than ever by climate because of fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions.Truth: We have a 98% decline in climate disaster deaths due to our enormous fossil-fueled climate mastery abilities: heating/cooling, infrastructure-building, irrigation, crop transport.¹⁵
Myth: Climate-related disaster X shows that fossil fuels are making climate unlivable.Truth: If we look at trends, not anecdotes, the drastic decline in extreme weather deaths shows that fossil fuels have made our naturally dangerous climate more livable than ever.¹⁶
Myth: The decline in climate disaster deaths is due to storm warning systems, not fossil fuels.Truth:
1. Fossil fuels power storm warning and evacuation systems.
2. Drought, not storm, deaths are the leading source of climate death reduced.¹⁷
Myth: Even if climate-related disaster deaths are down, climate-related damages are way up, pointing to a bankrupting climate future.Truth: Even though there are many incentives for climate damages to go up—preferences for riskier areas, government bailouts—GDP-adjusted damages are flat.¹⁸
Myth: Adaptation to future climate changes is expensive, while “mitigation”—avoiding CO2 emissions—is relatively cheap.Truth: We’ve seen that using fossil fuels we can be ever-wealthier and safer from climate, vs. even minor “mitigation” has caused deadly energy shortages and poverty.¹⁹
Myth: Even if we’re safe from climate now, we can expect future emissions to lead to disaster.Truth: Since today’s unprecedented safety exists after 100+ years of rising CO2, and with 1° C warming, we should be skeptical that further CO2 rises will somehow overwhelm us.
Summary: A crucial benefit of uniquely cost-effective fossil fuel energy is enormous climate mastery abilities.Policy implications
- Energy freedom —> We’ll get ever-better at mastering climate danger, natural or manmade.
- Net zero —> Climate danger will dramatically increase.

Applying fossil fuel policy principle 3: Factoring in the positive and negative climate impacts of continuing fossil fuel use (with precision)

Myth: Mainstream science shows that rising CO2 is an “existential threat” that will soon cause global catastrophe and then apocalypse.Truth: Mainstream science shows that rising CO2 levels will lead to levels of warming and other changes that we can master and flourish with.
Myth: Media “expert” claims of future climate disaster are likely to be credible.Truth: Such claims are only credible if the expert factors in climate mastery (which almost none do) and does not engage in the popular practice of distorting climate science for effect.²⁰
Myth: If mainstream science concludes that we will experience more warming, storm intensity, or sea level rises, that means catastrophe or worse.Truth: Given climate mastery, catastrophe could only occur with changes that are a total difference in kind from rising CO2 so far.
Climate mastery is so powerful that for CO2 emissions to be apocalyptic enough to justify rapid fossil fuel restriction, let alone elimination, they’d need to have unprecedented impacts, such as
- Seas rising feet per decade
- 2X more powerful storms
Science shows nothing like this.
Myth: Future warming is ominous because heat-related death is already such a catastrophic problem.Truth: Even though Earth has gotten 1°C warmer, far more people still die from cold than heat (even in India)! Near-term warming is expected to decrease temperature-related mortality.²¹
Myth: Future warming is ominous because it will be worst in hot areas.Truth: The mainstream view in climate science is that more warming will be concentrated in colder places (Northern latitudes) and at colder times (nighttime) and during colder seasons (winter). Good news.²²
Myth: Future warming will accelerate as CO2 levels rise.Truth: Mainstream science is unanimous that the “greenhouse effect” is a diminishing effect, with additional CO2 leading to less warning.
Even IPCC’s most extreme, far-fetched scenarios show warming leveling off.²³
Myth: Climate science says Earth will be a scorching desert, like “Mad Max.”There is no Mad Max scenario, even considering emissions and warming higher than we can expect. Agricultural productivity is estimated to increase massively under a 4-5°C warming scenario.²⁴
Myth: Even if we won’t be overwhelmed by warming driven by rising CO2, we’ll be overwhelmed by other climate changes, such as sea level rises and storms.Truth: Even the IPCC, with many catastrophist tendencies, projects climate changes that would be masterable with fossil fuels.
Myth: We face catastrophically rapid sea level rises, which will destroy and submerge coastal cities.Truth: Extreme UN sea level rise projections are just 3 feet in 100 years. Future generations can master that. (We already have 100M people living below high-tide sea level.)²⁵
Myth: Hurricane intensity is expected to get catastrophically higher as temperatures rise.Truth: Mainstream estimates say hurricanes will be less frequent and between 1-10% more intense at 2° C warming. This is not at all catastrophic if we continue our fossil-fueled climate mastery.²⁶
Myth: We face catastrophic increases in dangerous wildfires, an “Earth on fire.”While the media increasingly reports on fires and draws connections to warming, the world burns less than 20 years ago and far less than 100 years ago. Fire danger primarily depends on human mastery.²⁷
Myth: Science says that if we hit 2° C warming, let alone beyond, since the 1800s, we face catastrophe followed by apocalypse.Truth: The 2° C number is activist fiction. The climate mastery abilities that have made life far better through 1° C warming so far will continue to keep us safe.
Summary: Continuing fossil fuel use will lead to levels of warming and other changes that we can master and flourish with.Policy implications
- Energy freedom —> CO2 levels rise, life continues to get better and better
- Net zero —> CO2 levels rise more slowly, billions of lives ruined
Energy freedom policies are more likely to lead to long-term emissions reductions.
Because they accelerate the rate at which nuclear and other alternatives become globally cost-competitive.(The only moral and practical way to reduce global emissions.)²⁸
Net zero by 2050, by failing to recognize the unique benefits of fossil fuels, is catastrophic when barely implemented and would be apocalyptic if fully implemented.Energy freedom gives billions more people the energy they need to flourish and unleashes truly cost-effective alternatives.
QED

References

Reuters – ANALYSIS-Fuel crisis cuts electricity in Bangladesh, sparking energy debate ↩
UC San Diego – The Keeling CurveFor every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 per year during the 2010s.
Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.

Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.

↩
Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy ↩
U.S. Energy Information Administration – Hourly Electric Grid Monitor ↩
Global primary energy consumption in 2022 was 604.04 EJ or about 460 TWh (= 460,000,000 MWh) per day.
According to Tesla Megapacks cost about $413,000 per MWh. Tesla – Order Megapack Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy
↩
Energy Monitor – Data shows how the cost of energy transition minerals has soared since 2020 ↩
Financial Times – How China is winning the race for Africa’s lithium ↩
Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy ↩
IEA – The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions“Meeting such unprecedented mineral demands will require opening far more mines than now exist, and far faster than at any time in history. (The global average time from the qualification of a property to bringing a new mine into operation is 16 years.)”
Mark Mills – The “Energy Transition” Delusion A Reality Reset
↩
Clack et al. (2017) – Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar ↩
USA Today News – ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,’ Ocasio-Cortez says ↩
Maddison Database 2010 at the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen World Bank Data
Scripps Institution of Oceanography – The Keeling Curve

↩
World Bank Data ↩
IEA – Access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all Robert Bryce – A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations
↩
UC San Diego – The Keeling CurveFor every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 in per year during the 2010s.
Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.

Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.

↩
Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).Population estimates come from World Bank Data.
↩
UC San Diego – The Keeling CurveFor every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 in per year during the 2010s.
Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).

Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.

Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data.

↩
Roger Pielke Jr. – Weather and Climate Disaster Losses So Far in 2022, Still Not Getting Worse ↩
The Economist – Expensive energy may have killed more Europeans than covid-19 last winter ↩
New York Time – Ian Moves North Ryan Maue – Global Tropical Cyclone Activity
↩
Zhao et al. (2021)Bjorn Lomborg – Climate Change Saves More Lives Than You’d Think
↩
NOAA – Climate change rule of thumb: cold “things” warming faster than warm things ↩
IPCC AR6, WG1, chapter 4 ↩
Our World in Data – Data Explorer: IPCC Scenarios Patrick Brown – The IPCC Report on the Impacts of Climate Change is Depressing; But not for the reasons you might think
↩
IPCC AR6, WG1 ↩
NOAA – Global Warming and Hurricanes ↩
Roger Pielke Jr. – What the media won’t tell you about … Wildfires ↩
Reuters – Analysis: China no closer to peak coal despite record renewable capacity additions Reuters – India rejects net zero carbon emissions target, says pathway more important
Alex Epstein – A pro-human, pro-freedom policy for CO2 emissions

↩

Related Topics:#AlexEpstein #EnergyTalkingPoints #NetZeroBy2050

Up Next

Leslyn Lewis warns WHO pandemic treaty amendments violate Canadian sovereignty

Don't Miss

10 ways Justin Trudeau made Canada even worse in 2023

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

Two major banks leave UN Net Zero Banking Alliance in two weeks

armed forces / 8 hours ago

Top Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return

Business / 8 hours ago

For the record—former finance minister did not keep Canada’s ‘fiscal powder dry’

Alberta

Ford and Trudeau are playing checkers. Trump and Smith are playing chess

Published on December 19, 2024

Dan McTeague

By Dan McTeague

Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry.

There’s no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 25% tariff on Canadian goods (to be established if the Canadian government fails to take sufficient action to combat drug trafficking and illegal crossings over our southern border) would be catastrophic for our nation’s economy. More than $3 billion in goods move between the U.S. and Canada on a daily basis. If enacted, the Trump tariff would likely result in a full-blown recession.

It falls upon Canada’s leaders to prevent that from happening. That’s why Justin Trudeau flew to Florida two weeks ago to point out to the president-elect that the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.

This is true, but Trudeau isn’t the best person to make that case to Trump, since he has been trashing the once and future president, and his supporters, both in public and private, for years. He did so again at an appearance just the other day, in which he implied that American voters were sexist for once again failing to elect the nation’s first female president, and said that Trump’s election amounted to an assault on women’s rights.

Consequently, the meeting with Trump didn’t go well.

But Trudeau isn’t Canada’s only politician, and in recent days we’ve seen some contrasting approaches to this serious matter from our provincial leaders.

First up was Doug Ford, who followed up a phone call with Trudeau earlier this week by saying that Canadians have to prepare for a trade war. “Folks, this is coming, it’s not ‘if,’ it is — it’s coming… and we need to be prepared.”

Ford said that he’s working with Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to put together a retaliatory tariff list. Spokesmen for his government floated the idea of banning the LCBO from buying American alcohol, and restricting the export of critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries (I’m sure Trump is terrified about that last one).

But Ford’s most dramatic threat was his announcement that Ontario is prepared to shut down energy exports to the U.S., specifically to Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, if Trump follows through with his plan. “We’re sending a message to the U.S. You come and attack Ontario, you attack the livelihoods of Ontario and Canadians, we’re going to use every tool in our toolbox to defend Ontarians and Canadians across the border,” Ford said.

Now, unfortunately, all of this chest-thumping rings hollow. Ontario does almost $500 billion per year in trade with the U.S., and the province’s supply chains are highly integrated with America’s. The idea of just cutting off the power, as if you could just flip a switch, is actually impossible. It’s a bluff, and Trump has already called him on it. When told about Ford’s threat by a reporter this week, Trump replied “That’s okay if he does that. That’s fine.”

And Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry. Just over the past year Ford and Trudeau have been seen side by side announcing their $5 billion commitment to Honda, or their $28.2 billion in subsidies for new Stellantis and Volkswagen electric vehicle battery plants.

Their assumption was that the U.S. would be a major market for Canadian EVs. Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,”according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”

But Trump ran on abolishing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. Now that he’s back in the White House, the market for those EVs that Trudeau and Ford invested in so heavily is going to be much softer. Perhaps they’d like to be able to blame Trump’s tariffs for the coming downturn rather than their own misjudgment.

In any event, Ford’s tactic stands in stark contrast to the response from Alberta, Canada’s true energy superpower. Premier Danielle Smith made it clear that her province “will not support cutting off our Alberta energy exports to the U.S., nor will we support a tariff war with our largest trading partner and closest ally.”

Smith spoke about this topic at length at an event announcing a new $29-million border patrol team charged with combatting drug trafficking, at which said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” Her deputy premier Mike Ellis was quoted as saying, “The concerns that president-elect Trump has expressed regarding fentanyl are, quite frankly, the same concerns that I and the premier have had.” Smith and Ellis also criticized Ottawa’s progressively lenient approach to drug crimes.

(For what it’s worth, a recent Léger poll found that “Just 29 per cent of [Canadians] believe Trump’s concerns about illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Canada to the U.S. are unwarranted.” Perhaps that’s why some recent polls have found that Trudeau is currently less popular in Canada than Trump at the moment.)

Smith said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” And on X/Twitter she said, “Now is the time to… reach out to our friends and allies in the U.S. to remind them just how much Americans and Canadians mutually benefit from our trade relationship – and what we can do to grow that partnership further,” adding, “Tariffs just hurt Americans and Canadians on both sides of the border. Let’s make sure they don’t happen.”

This is exactly the right approach. Smith knows there is a lot at stake in this fight, and is not willing to step into the ring in a fight that Canada simply can’t win, and will cause a great deal of hardship for all involved along the way.

While Trudeau indulges in virtue signaling and Ford in sabre rattling, Danielle Smith is engaging in true statesmanship. That’s something that is in short supply in our country these days.

As I’ve written before, Trump is playing chess while Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are playing checkers. They should take note of Smith’s strategy. Honey will attract more than vinegar, and if the long history of our two countries tell us anything, it’s that diplomacy is more effective than idle threats.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Business

Canada needs to get serious about securing its border

Published on December 19, 2024

Todayville

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By Todd Hataley for Inside Policy

US President-elect Donald Trump has made clear his intention to call out Canada on weak enforcement on migration, money laundering, and the cross-border trafficking of narcotics, especially fentanyl.

Until just very recently, Canada has remained largely silent on these issues. Security agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), Sûreté du Québec (SQ) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), have tried to secure the border via memorandums of understanding, framework agreements, and legislated agreements that allow them to share information and even work together.

However, resources are limited for cross-border law enforcement co-operation. CBSA remains understaffed and RCMP Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (which work with US security agencies) have limited geographic reach, leaving much of the enforcement between ports of entry left to police of jurisdiction, who already are hard pressed to provide services to the communities they serve.

The Canadian government’s apparent strategy of largely ignoring the problem is becoming more difficult to maintain. With the United States Border Patrol intercepting increasing numbers of illegal migrants crossing into that country from Canada, it’s clear the porous border is a concern. Exacerbating the situation is the recent discovery of illegal narcotic super labs in Canada – where production far outstrips the market – and Canada’s unfortunate, albeit well-deserved reputation as a haven for global money launderers.

Thanks to Trump’s 25 per cent tariff threat, the crisis is now endangering Canada’s relationship with its largest and most-important trading partner. This announcement sent all sectors of government and the private sector into a frenzy, prompting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to fly to Florida to seek out an early audience with Trump at his Mar-a-lago resort home. Trudeau’s team spun the trip as proof that the federal government is serious about working with the US to address its border security and public safety concerns.

But with political crises piling up, it will be difficult for Trudeau to also manage the political optics of kowtowing to Trump, who is widely unpopular among Canadians. Spending extra money to appease Trump during the ongoing housing, immigration, and health care crises could make the Trudeau’s popularity nosedive even further. Adding insult to injury, Trump is essentially demanding that Canada do America’s work by stopping illicit goods and people from entering the United States: customs and border security officials generally work on the principle of stopping goods from entering their country.

Trudeau faces many practical challenges, including the need to ramp up the number of border and law enforcement agents who have the skill sets and training required to police offences such as drug production, money laundering, and the cross-border smuggling of goods and humans. Purchasing helicopters and drones to conduct surveillance will do little to aid enforcement, since most goods smuggled across the border pass through legitimate border crossings. RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme even suggested putting RCMP cadets along the border – a challenging proposition since vast swathes of the border are either wilderness or water. Surveillance is one thing, but the act of enforcement takes skilled people with the capacity to investigate, gather evidence, and articulate that evidence into something that can be used by the courts for convictions. These concerns are not being addressed in this current frenzy to spend money on border security.

There is also good evidence that fortifying the border, or what has become known as forward deployment along the border, does nothing to stop the cross-border transit of contraband goods and people. One need only look as far as the United States-Mexico border to see the failure of forward deployment.

As authorities increase border enforcement activities, the costs of smuggling goods and people mounts for criminals. Eventually, it drives out amateurs, leaving only the professional, skilled, and well-equipped criminal groups. This, in turn, often leads to increasing levels of violence along the border, making interdiction and disruption far more difficult for law enforcement agencies.

Canada has several clear options to address Trump’s border concerns. It can increase the staffing of frontline CBSA officers, including border agents, inland enforcement units that actively investigate and remove individuals from Canada, international liaison officers, and customs processing staff. It can also create a plan for CBSA to take over enforcement between ports of entry. Currently, CBSA enforces entry into Canada at the ports of entry and the RCMP are responsible for the areas in between. Having a single agency manage the border builds capacity and expertise, avoiding inter-bureaucracy competition and confusion.

Canada can also work to better integrate law enforcement, intelligence units, and border services at all levels of government and across international boundaries. Cross-border crime operations are often planned and execute far from the border.

Some of this already takes place, as noted above, but it needs to go much deeper and be more supportive at both institutional and individual levels. This process must also include private sector stakeholders: companies such as FedEx, UPS, and Amazon, as well as freight forwarders, trucking companies, and customs brokers, are all involved in cross-border trade. Their participation as partners in reducing cross-border criminal activity is essential.

Finally, the government needs to designate laws specific to cross-border crime and include meaningful penalties as a means of deterrence.

Hyper-focusing on the border while ignoring other aspects of cross-border crime may be good political optics, but it is a bad strategy. What we really need is functional enforcement – including an integrated process extended vertically and horizontally across all sectors of border stakeholders, at and away from the border, supported by strong policy and legislation. This is the path forward to better cross-border crime enforcement.

Dr. Todd Hataley is a professor in the School of Justice and Community Development at Fleming College. A retired member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, he worked as an investigator in organized crime, national security, cross-border crime, and extra-territorial torture. He is a contributor to the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.