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

‘Really, Really Difficult’: Bureaucrats Worry Behind Closed Doors They’ll Be Sent Packing Under Trump

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

Peter McCullough urges Trump to pull dangerous COVID shots from the market, citing injuries, deaths

National / 7 hours ago

Canadian military again bans prayers at Remembrance Day ceremonies

Opinion / 8 hours ago

The majority of voters have moved on from legacy media and legacy narratives

Economy

Trudeau Government Capping the Canadian Economy (and Energy Industry) Just to Impress International Agencies

Published on November 7, 2024

Todayville

From EnergyNow.ca

By Kasha Piquette

The incoming Trump Presidency has promised to “unleash American energy” with plans to “free up the vast stores of liquid gold on America’s public land for energy development.” This week, the Trudeau government unveiled the draft details of its plans for a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian oil and gas sector. These proposed regulations would cap all greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 35 percent below levels in 2019 with the lofty goal of achieving a 40-45 percent reduction by 2030.

It is a plan that the province of Alberta and others contend would be a cap on production and cause elevated prices for consumer goods across Canada, cost up to 150,000 jobs and reduce national GDP by up to C$1 trillion ($720 billion).

These proposals would make Canada the only oil and natural gas-producing country to attempt an emissions cap on such a scale. The regulations propose to force upstream oil and gas operations to reduce emissions to 35 percent less than they were in 2019 by 2030 to 2032. Notably, while hydrocarbon production increased from 2019 to 2022, Canadian emissions from the sector declined by seven percent.

Perhaps significantly, and much to the apparent annoyance of Alberta’s Premier, the Federal announcement was made slightly ahead of the UN COP29 Climate Summit in Azerbaijan. Per the Paris Agreement, each country submits its climate ambitions to UN as National Determined Contributions (NDCs). However, the federal government has also passed the Net Zero Accountability Act, which, by December 1st, 2024, could require even more aggressive reduction targets for 2035. Does this mean that the federal government may be positioning itself to announce even more ambitious emission targets – all to be announced at that conference?

It is unclear whether, how and in what form, the emissions cap will come into effect. With the next federal election slated for late October 2025 and polls that show the current Liberal-NDP coalition government to be far behind the opposition Conservatives, the federal carbon tax and the proposed emission cap have an uncertain future.

Other business interests have voiced concerns about Canada’s increasingly discordant, incoherent climate policies and regulations, which have caused the Canadian oil and gas sector to be at a competitive disadvantage in the global energy market. Clearly, Alberta considers that the Federal government has, once again, overstepped its constitutional bounds with the proposed emissions cap and, along with its victorious Supreme Court challenge against the Impact Assessment Act, has vowed to launch more court challenges. Alberta and other Provinces have contended that, with regional exemptions, the federal carbon tax is being applied unfairly as a patchwork of standards with Alberta, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia, and the opposition Conservative party, mounting a growing chorus against the Liberal government’s broader price on carbon. By contrast, the proposed regulations for an emissions cap have been aimed specifically at one industry sector – one that is largely concentrated in western Canada.

Meanwhile, Canadian oil production, aided by the new export capacity of the TransMountain Pipeline completed this year, has grown to a record 5.1 million barrels per day making Canada the prime (60%) source of US crude oil imports in 2023. Meanwhile, the industry has been engaged in considerations for the potential development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) to trap greenhouse gasses underground. However, this untested technology would cost billions, needs to be proven on a larger scale and requires industry cooperation combined with all levels of government support.

The Federal announcement, and the hostile reaction from Alberta and possibly other oil-producing provinces, mean that once again, Canadian investment in the oil and gas sector will be confronted with ever more uncertainty as they encounter time-consuming court challenges. These competing political agendas ensure that major Canadian investment decisions will, once again, be deferred while other international jurisdictions race to develop their hydrocarbon export capabilities, investments that are unencumbered by any emissions caps.

Canadians need to consider carefully how these policies and debates are affecting our energy security and standard of living as Canada. In addition to carbon pricing, Canada has already promulgated regulations for EV mandates in the transportation sector, policies that have required tens of billions in subsidies. It has also introduced the complex clean fuel standard and the proposed national clean electrical standards. These policies are affecting not just Canada’s productivity, GDP and exports. By attacking the Western provinces, Ottawa is unnecessarily creating regional tensions and a less politically stable federation. We need to think about how co-operative federalism can be re-established in ways that account for the basic needs of all Canadians – and not just accommodate arbitrary targets for emissions designed to impress international agencies.

Kasha Piquette is an Alberta-based strategic energy advisor and a former Deputy Minister of Alberta Environment and Protected Areas.

Economy

Ottawa’s new ‘climate disclosures’ another investment killer

Published on November 3, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

The Trudeau government has demonstrated consistently that its policies—including higher capital gains taxes and a hostile regulatory environment—are entirely at odds with what investors want to see. Corporate head offices are fleeing Canada and business investment has declined significantly since the Trudeau Liberals came to power.

According to the Trudeau government’s emissions reduction plan, “putting a price on pollution is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Fair enough, but a reasonable person might wonder why the same politicians who insist a price mechanism (i.e. carbon tax) is the most efficient policy recently announced relatively inefficient measures such “sustainable investment guidelines” and “mandatory climate disclosures” for large private companies.

The government claims that imposing mandatory climate disclosures will “attract more private capital into Canada’s largest corporations and ensure Canadian businesses can continue to effectively compete as the world races towards net-zero.” That is nonsense. How would politicians Ottawa know better than business owners about how their businesses should attract capital? If making climate disclosures were a good way to help businesses attract capital, the businesses that want to attract capital would make such disclosures voluntarily. There would be no need for a government mandate.

The government has not yet launched the regulatory process for the climate disclosures, so we don’t know exactly how onerous it will be, but one thing is for sure—the disclosures will be expensive and unnecessary, imposing useless costs onto businesses and investors without any measurable benefit, further discouraging investment in Canada. Again, if the disclosures were useful and worthwhile to investors, businesses seeking to attract investment would make them voluntarily.

Even the government’s own announcement casts doubt that increasing business investment is the likely outcome of mandatory climate disclosures. While the government says it’s “sending a clear signal to corporate boards and shareholders, at home and around the world, that Canada is their trusted partner for putting private capital to work in the race to net-zero,” most investors are not looking to put private capital to work to combat climate change. Most investors want to put their capital to work to earn a good financial return, after adjusting for the risk of the investment.

This latest announcement should come as no surprise. The Trudeau government has demonstrated consistently that its policies—including higher capital gains taxes and a hostile regulatory environment—are entirely at odds with what investors want to see. Corporate head offices are fleeing Canada and business investment has declined significantly since the Trudeau Liberals came to power. Capital per worker in Canada is declining due to weak business investment since 2015, and new capital per-Canadian worker in 2024 is barely half of what it is in the United States.

It’s also fair to ask, in the face of these onerous polices—where are the environmental benefits? The government says its climate disclosures are needed for Canada to progress to net-zero emissions and “uphold the Paris climate target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels,” but its net-zero targets are neither feasible nor realistic and the economics literature does not support the 1.5 degrees target.

Finally, when announcing the new climate disclosures, Trudeau Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said they are an important stepping stone to a cleaner economy, which is a “major economic opportunity.” Yet even the Canada Energy Regulator (a federal agency) projects net-zero policies would reduce real GDP per capita, increase inflation of consumer prices and reduce residential space (in other words, reduce living standards).

A major economic opportunity that will increase business investment? Surely not—mandatory climate disclosures will only further reduce our standard of living and impose useless costs onto business and investors, with the sure effect of reducing investment.