Connect with us

Dan McTeague

Sri Lankans break the Net Zero suicide pact

Published

7 minute read

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

dan_mcteague_headshot.jpg

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.

Follow Author

Automotive

Bad ideology makes Canada’s EV investment a bad idea

Published on

Dan McTeague

Written By

It doesn’t bode well for our country that our economic security rests on tariff exceptions to be negotiated by Liberal politicians who have spent the majority of Trump’s public life calling him a “threat to liberal democracy” and his supporters racists and fascists. Their hostility doesn’t lend itself to fruitful diplomacy. In any event, Trump’s EV rollback and aggressive tariffs will spell disaster for the Canadian EV sector.

What does Donald Trump’s resounding win in the recent U.S. election mean for Canada? Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to have been much thought about the answer to this question in Ottawa, because the vast majority of our political and pundit class expected his opponent to be victorious. Suddenly they’re all having to process this unwelcome intrusion of reality into their narrow mental picture.

Well, what does it mean?

It is early days, and it will take some time to sift through the various policy commitments of the incoming Trump Administration to unpack the Canadian angle. But one thing we do know is that a Trump presidency will be no friend to the electric vehicle industry.

A Harris administration would have been. But, Trump spent much of his campaign slamming EV subsidies and mandates, pledging at the Republican National Convention in July that he will “end the electric vehicle mandate on day one.”

This line was so effective, especially in must-win Michigan, with its hundreds of thousands of autoworkers, that Kamala Harris was forced to assure everyone who listened that the U.S. has no EV mandate, and that she has no intention of introducing one.

Of course, this wasn’t strictly true.

First, the Biden Administration, of which Harris was a part, issued an Executive Order with the explicit goal of a “50% Electric Vehicle Sales Share” by 2030. The Biden-Harris Administration (to use their own formulation) instructed their Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to introduce increasingly stringent tailpipe emission regulations on cars and light trucks with an eye towards pushing automakers to manufacture and sell more electric and hybrid vehicles.

Their EPA also issued a waiver which allows California to enact auto emissions regulations that are tougher than the federal government’s, which functions as a kind of back-door EV mandate nationally. After all, auto companies aren’t going to manufacture one set of vehicles for California, the most populous state, and another for the rest of the country.

And as for intentions, though the Harris camp consistently held that her prior policy positions shouldn’t be held against her, it’s hard to forget that as senator she’d co-sponsored the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, which would have mandated that all new vehicles sold in the U.S. be “zero emission” by 2040. During her failed 2020 presidential campaign, Harris accelerated that proposed timeline, saying that the auto market should be all-electric by 2035.

In other words, she seemed pretty fond of the EV policies which Justin Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault have foisted upon Canada.

For Trump, all of these policies can be filed under “green new scam” climate policies, which stifle American resource development and endanger national prosperity. Now that he’s retaken the White House, it is expected that he will issue his own executive orders to the EPA, rescinding Biden’s tailpipe instructions and scrapping their waiver for California. And though he will be hindered somewhat by Congress, he’s likely to do everything in his power to roll back the EV subsidies contained in the (terribly named) Inflation Reduction Act and lobby for changes limiting which EVs qualify for tax credits, and how much.

All of this will be devastating for the EV industry, which is utterly reliant on the carrots and sticks of subsidies and mandates. And it’s particularly bad news for the Trudeau government (and Doug Ford’s government in Ontario), which have gone all-in on EVs, investing billions of taxpayer dollars to convince automakers to build their EVs and batteries here.

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).”

Canada’s EV subsidies were pitched as an “investment” in an evolving auto market, but that assumes that those pre-existing lines of trade will remain essentially unchanged. If American EV demand collapses, or significantly contracts without mandates or tax incentives, we’ll be up the river without a paddle.

And that will be true, even if the U.S. EV market proves more resilient than I expect it to. That is because of Trump’s commitment to “Making America Great Again” by boosting American manufacturing and the jobs it provides. He campaigned on a blanket tariff of 10 percent on all foreign imports, with no exceptions mentioned. This would have a massive impact on Canada, since the U.S. is our largest trading partner.

Though Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland have been saying to everyone who will listen how excited they are to work with the Trump Administration again, and “Canada will be fine,” it doesn’t bode well for our country that our economic security rests on tariff exceptions to be negotiated by Liberal politicians who have spent the majority of Trump’s public life calling him a “threat to liberal democracy” and his supporters racists and fascists. Their hostility doesn’t lend itself to fruitful diplomacy.

In any event, Trump’s EV rollback and aggressive tariffs will spell disaster for the Canadian EV sector.

The optimism that existed under the Biden administration that Canada could significantly increase its export capacity to the USA is going down the drain. The hope that “Canada could reestablish its export sector as a key driver of growth by positioning itself as a leader in electric vehicle and battery manufacturing, along with other areas in cleantech,” in the words of an RBC report, is swiftly fading. It seems more likely now that Canada will be left holding the bag on a dying industry in which we’re invested heavily.

The Trudeau Liberals’ aggressive push, driven by ideology and not market forces, to force Electric Vehicles on everyone is already backfiring on the Canadian taxpayer. Pierre Poilievre must take note — EV mandates and subsidies are bad for our country, and as Trump has demonstrated, they’re not a winning policy. He should act accordingly.

Continue Reading

Dan McTeague

“Axe the Tax” is just the beginning

Published on

From Canadians for Affordable Energy

Dan McTeague

Written By Dan McTeague

 

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

X