Federal government’s emission-reduction plan will cost Canadian workers $6,700 annually by 2030—while failing to meet government’s emission-reduction target

The federal government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will impose significant costs on Canadians—while also failing to meet the government’s own emission-reduction target, finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“The government’s plan will significantly hurt Canada’s economy and cost workers money and jobs,” said Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and author of The Economic Impact and GHG Effects of the Federal Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan through 2030.

The government wants to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. To meet this target, the government has enacted a series of policies including the federal carbon tax, clean fuel standards and various other GHG-related regulations such as energy efficiency requirements for buildings,
fertilizer restrictions on farms, and electric vehicle mandates.

The study finds that these combined policies will only reduce GHG emissions by an estimated 57 per cent of the government’s 2030 emission-reduction target.

And crucially, by 2030 these policies will:

• reduce Canada’s GDP by 6.2 per cent
• cost $6,700 per worker annually
• reduce employment in Canada by 164,000 jobs

“This poorly-designed plan, which will worsen the current downward trends in productivity and income, will reduce emissions but at a cost many times higher than the government’s estimated benefits,” McKitrick said.

The federal government has set a GHG emissions reduction target of at least 40% below 2005 levels by 2030, equivalent to 38.5% below 2022 levels.
This report examines proposed policies aimed at achieving these goals and evaluates their potential impact, aiming to address the gap left by the federal government’s lack of efforts in this matter.
The paper uses a peer-reviewed macroeconomic model to assess the federal government’s Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP), including carbon pricing, Clean Fuel Regulations, and other regulatory measures such as EV mandates.
It is estimated that the ERP will reduce Canada’s GHG emissions by about 26.5% between 2019 and 2030, reaching approximately 57% of the government’s 2030 target, leaving a substantial gap.
The implementation of the ERP is expected to significantly dampen economic growth, with a projected 6.2% reduction in Canada’s economy (i.e., real GDP) compared to the base case by 2030.
Income per worker, adjusted for inflation, is forecasted to stagnate during the 2020s and decrease by 1.5% by 2030 compared to 2022 levels.
The ERP costs $6,700 per worker annually by 2030, which is more than five times the cost per worker compared to the carbon tax alone.
Overall, while the federal ERP will contribute to reducing GHG emissions, it falls short of meeting the 2026 or 2030 targets and imposes significant economic burdens on Canadian households. Additionally, due to the high marginal cost of many regulatory measures, the ERP plan is costlier than it needs to be for what it will accomplish.

Adobe PDF Read the Full Report

Author:

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

Related Topics:#CarbonTax #FraserInstitute #RossMcKitrick FederalEmissionReductionPlan

Up Next

Canadian author with cerebral palsy says nurse called her ‘selfish’ for refusing euthanasia

Don't Miss

Energy policies proposed at Republican and Democrat conventions are worlds apart

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

NEWT GINGRICH: Europe’s Elites Were Finally Told To Take A Look In The Mirror

armed forces / 2 hours ago

Trump fires chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, appoints new military leader

Daily Caller / 3 hours ago

Kash Patel First Statement As FBI Director, Tells Media ‘Bring It On’

Business

Worst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

In the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S.

According to a new Statistics Canada report, government regulation has grown over the years and it’s hurting Canada’s economy. The report, which uses a regulatory burden measure devised by KPMG and Transport Canada, shows government regulatory requirements increased 2.1 per cent annually from 2006 to 2021, with the effect of reducing the business sector’s GDP, employment, labour productivity and investment.

Specifically, the growth in regulation over these years cut business-sector investment by an estimated nine per cent and “reduced business start-ups and business dynamism,” cut GDP in the business sector by 1.7 percentage points, cut employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points.

While the report only covered regulatory growth through 2021, in the past four years an avalanche of new regulations has made the already existing problem of overregulation worse.

The Trudeau government in particular has intensified its regulatory assault on the extraction sector with a greenhouse gas emissions cap, new fuel regulations and new methane emissions regulations. In the last few years, federal diktats and expansions of bureaucratic control have swept the auto industry, child care, supermarkets and many other sectors.

Again, the negative results are evident. Over the past nine years, Canada’s cumulative real growth in per-person GDP (an indicator of incomes and living standards) has been a paltry 1.7 per cent and trending downward, compared to 18.6 per cent and trending upward in the United States. Put differently, if the Canadian economy had tracked with the U.S. economy over the past nine years, average incomes in Canada would be much higher today.

Also in the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S., and only about two-thirds as much new capital (on average) as workers in other developed countries.

Consequently, Canada is mired in an economic growth crisis—a fact that even the Trudeau government does not deny. “We have more work to do,” said Anita Anand, then-president of the Treasury Board, last August, “to examine the causes of low productivity levels.” The Statistics Canada report, if nothing else, confirms what economists and the business community already knew—the regulatory burden is much of the problem.

Of course, regulation is not the only factor hurting Canada’s economy. Higher federal carbon taxes, higher payroll taxes and higher top marginal income tax rates are also weakening Canada’s productivity, GDP, business investment and entrepreneurship.

Finally, while the Statistics Canada report shows significant economic costs of regulation, the authors note that their estimate of the effect of regulatory accumulation on GDP is “much smaller” than the effect estimated in an American study published several years ago in the Review of Economic Dynamics. In other words, the negative effects of regulation in Canada may be even higher than StatsCan suggests.

Whether Statistics Canada has underestimated the economic costs of regulation or not, one thing is clear: reducing regulation and reversing the policy course of recent years would help get Canada out of its current economic rut. The country is effectively in a recession even if, as a result of rapid population growth fuelled by record levels of immigration, the GDP statistics do not meet the technical definition of a recession.

With dismal GDP and business investment numbers, a turnaround—both in policy and outcomes—can’t come quickly enough for Canadians.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

‘Out and out fraud’: DOGE questions $2 billion Biden grant to left-wing ‘green energy’ nonprofit`

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

The EPA under the Biden administration awarded $2 billion to a ‘green energy’ group that appears to have been little more than a means to enrich left-wing activists.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Biden administration awarded $2 billion to a “green energy” nonprofit that appears to have been little more than a means to enrich left-wing activists such as former Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams.

Founded in 2023 as a coalition of nonprofits, corporations, unions, municipalities, and other groups, Power Forward Communities (PFC) bills itself as “the first national program to finance home energy efficiency upgrades at scale, saving Americans thousands of dollars on their utility bills every year.” It says it “will help homeowners, developers, and renters swap outdated, inefficient appliances with more efficient and modernized options, saving money for years ahead and ensuring our kids can grow up with cleaner, pollutant-free air.”

The organization’s website boasts more than 300 member organizations across 46 states but does not detail actual activities. It does have job postings for three open positions and a form for people to sign up for more information.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) project, along with new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, are raising questions about the $2 billion grant PFC received from the Biden EPA’s National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF), ostensibly for the “affordable decarbonization of homes and apartments throughout the country, with a particular focus on low-income and disadvantaged communities.”

PFC’s announcement of the grant is the organization’s only press release to date and is alarming given that the organization had somehow reported only $100 in revenue at the end of 2023.

“I made a commitment to members of Congress and to the American people to be a good steward of tax dollars and I’ve wasted no time in keeping my word,” Zeldin said. “When we learned about the Biden administration’s scheme to quickly park $20 billion outside the agency, we suspected that some organizations were created out of thin air just to take advantage of this.” Zeldin previously announced the Biden EPA had deposited the $20 billion in a Citibank account, apparently to make it harder for the next administration to retrieve and review it.

“As we continue to learn more about where some of this money went, it is even more apparent how far-reaching and widely accepted this waste and abuse has been,” he added. “It’s extremely concerning that an organization that reported just $100 in revenue in 2023 was chosen to receive $2 billion. That’s 20 million times the organization’s reported revenue.”

Daniel Turner, executive director of energy advocacy group Power the Future, told the Beacon that in his opinion “for an organization that has no experience in this, that was literally just established, and had $100 in the bank to receive a $2 billion grant — it doesn’t just fly in the face of common sense, it’s out and out fraud.”

Prominent among PFC’s insiders is Abrams, the former Georgia House minority leader best known for persistent false claims about having the state’s gubernatorial election stolen from her in 2018. Abrams founded two of PFC’s partner organizations (Southern Economic Advancement Project and Fair Count) and serves as lead counsel for a third group (Rewiring America) in the coalition. A longtime advocate of left-wing environmental policies, Abrams is also a member of the national advisory board for advocacy group Climate Power.