Economy
Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians
From the Fraser Institute
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:
Business
ESG will impose considerable harm on Canadian workers, doesn’t reflect the reality of how markets actually work
From the Fraser Institute
By Steven Globerman, Jack Mintz, and Bryce Tingle
The ESG movement—which calls for public companies and investors in public companies to identify and voluntarily implement environmental, social, and governance initiatives—will cause substantial harm to the economy and
workers, finds two new essays by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“Investor support for ESG is starting to wane, which isn’t surprising as the considerable harms ESG mandates pose come to light,” said Steven Globerman, resident scholar at the Fraser Institute and author of It’s Time to Move on from ESG.
The essay summarizes the arguments against imposing top-down ESG mandates. In particular, evidence shows that (1) ESG-branded investment funds do not perform better than conventional investment funds, (2) companies that proclaim to pursue ESG-related activities are not more profitable than companies that do not, and (3) mandating ESG-related corporate disclosures imposes additional costs on public companies and diverts resources away from productivity-enhancing investments, harming workers.
A separate new essay in the Institute’s series on ESG, Putting Economics Back into ESG written by Jack Mintz and Bryce Tingle of the University of Calgary, highlights how the current concept of ESG mandates being pursued in Canada are incompatible with basic economic theory and fail to understand how markets actually work. As a result, ESG mandates will (1) discourage new businesses from locating in Canada, (2) investors will be reluctant to invest in Canada, (3) Canadian companies will be less competitive than their international peers, (4) capital will leave Canada for jurisdictions without restrictive ESG mandates, and (5) economic growth will slow and workers will suffer as a result.
But these harms can be minimized if the definition of what constitutes ESG is expanded, securities commissions are not tasked with regulating ESG, but instead focus on ensuring market integrity, and if governments prosecute fraud in ESG branded funds, and likewise, governments impose liability for the use of ESG ratings, which have been found to be invalid and unreliable.
Crucially, both essays conclude that public policy objectives, such as those addressed by ESG initiatives, should be decided by and acted on by democratically elected governments, not private sector actors.
“There is no reason to believe that managers and business executives enjoy any comparative advantage in identifying and implementing broad environmental and social policies compared to politicians and regulators,” said Globerman.
“The evidence is clear—the private sector best serves the interests of society when it focuses on maximizing shareholder wealth within the confines of the established laws, not complying with top-down imposed ESG mandates that will harm the economy and ultimately Canadian workers.”
- The ESG movement calls for public companies and investors in public companies to identify and voluntarily implement environmental, social, and governance initiatives—ostensibly in the public interest.
- One school of thought supporting ESG is that doing so will make companies more profitable and thereby increase the wealth of their shareholders.
- However, academic research to date has failed to identify a consistent and statistically significant positive relationship between corporate ESG ratings and the stock market performance of companies.
- In fact, research instead suggests that adopting an ESG-intensive model might compromise the efficient production and distribution of goods and services and thereby slow the overall rate of real economic growth. Slower real economic growth means societies will be less able to afford investments to address environmental and other ESG-related priorities.
- The second school of thought is that companies, their senior managers, and their boards have an ethical obligation to implement ESG initiatives that go beyond simply complying with existing laws and regulations, even if it means reduced profitability. However, corporate managers and board members cannot and should not be expected to determine public policy priorities. The latter should be identified by democratic means and not by unelected private sector managers or investors.
- Given that there are indications that investor support for ESG is waning, it is apparent that the time has come for corporate leaders and politicians to acknowledge that it’s time to move on from ESG.
Authors:
Business
Canadian Conservatives look to gather support for bill banning a central bank digital currency
From LifeSiteNews
Bill C-400, sponsored by Conservative MP Ted Falk, seeks to ensure that a central bank digital currency is never created and that Canadians will always be able to use physical cash in the settling of debts and other financial transactions.
Canada’s Conservative Party is looking to gather support for a bill that would outright ban the federal government from creating a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and make it so that cash is kept as the preferred means of settling debts.
The bill, dubbed the Framework on the Access to and Use of Cash Act, or Bill C-400, is sponsored by Conservative MP Ted Falk and already passed its first reading back in June of 2024. It is currently awaiting its second reading.
According to Falk, for “millions of Canadians,” notably “vulnerable folks in our population,” the use of “physical cash is essential to everyday life.”
“Likewise, charities, community organizations, and remote communities rely on cash to achieve their worthy goals,” he said while speaking of his bill.
“Finally, in a world where governments, banks, and corporations are increasingly infringing on the privacy rights of Canadians, cash remains the only truly anonymous form of payment.”
At its core, Bill C-400, if passed, would allow for a national framework to be made which would ensure that Canadians always have access to and can use cash. It would also amend Canada’s Currency Act to restrict the current finance minister’s ability to suddenly put out a call that all bank notes be recalled. Finally, the bill would amend the Bank of Canada Act to ban it from creating any form of digital dollar.
The bill also calls for ways to “incentivize businesses and creditors to accept payments made in cash,” as well as to “remove barriers and disincentives in relation to donations made in cash to non-profit organizations and community organizations without compromising efforts to curtail money laundering, fraud and other financial crimes.”
As previously reported by LifeSiteNews, an overwhelming majority of Canadians want the government and the Bank of Canada (BOC) to “leave cash alone” and not proceed with the creation of a so-called “digital dollar.” The feedback came after the BOC launched a public survey to gauge Canadians’ taste for a digital dollar.
Despite the bill before Parliament and the survey, as previously reported by LifeSiteNews, the BOC has already forged ahead by filing a trademark for a “digital” buck.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has before promised that if he is elected prime minister come the next election, he would stop any implementation of a “digital currency” or a compulsory “digital ID” system.
As recently as a week ago he posted on X about protecting “cash.”
“Ban central bank digital currency, protect your freedom to use cash, and get the government out of your wallet. Proud to support @MPTedFalk‘s common sense Conservative Bill C-400 to protect the privacy & freedom of Canadians,” Poilievre wrote.
Ban central bank digital currency, protect your freedom to use cash, and get the government out of your wallet.
Proud to support @MPTedFalk's common sense Conservative Bill C-400 to protect the privacy & freedom of Canadians.https://t.co/NeqCsSS5fh pic.twitter.com/ft21ISLKdC
— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) August 12, 2024
Digital currencies have been touted as the future by some government officials, but, as LifeSiteNews has reported before, many experts warn that such technology would ultimately restrict freedom and be used as a “control tool” against citizens similar to China’s pervasive social credit system.
Prominent opponents of CBDCs have been strongly advocating that citizens use cash whenever possible and boycott businesses that do not accept cash payments as a means of slowing down the imposition of CBDCs.
-
Brownstone Institute14 hours agoWhy Did Zuckerberg Choose Now to Confess?
-
Agriculture11 hours agoGlimpse into the Future of Food
-
illegal immigration13 hours agoIllegal immigrants crossing from Canada into USA in record numbers
-
Alberta12 hours ago‘Coutts Two’ Verdict: Bail and Mischief
-
Bruce Dowbiggin10 hours agoFrom Deal With It: A Cruel, Senseless Fate Ends A Brilliant Career
-
Crime2 days agoOfficials Arrest Father Of Suspected Georgia School Shooter
-
National1 day agoUnemployment Surges as Trudeau’s Policies Wreak Havoc on the Economy
-
Addictions1 day agoB.C. addiction centre should not accept drug industry funds