From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Canada has made a legal commitment to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. Back in 2015, then-Prime Minister Trudeau promised that climate action will “create jobs and economic growth” and the federal government insists it will create a “strong economy.” The truth is that the net zero policy generates vast costs and very little benefit—and Canada would be better off changing direction.

Achieving net zero carbon emissions is far more daunting than politicians have ever admitted. Canada is nowhere near on track. Annual Canadian CO₂ emissions have increased 20 per cent since 1990. In the time that Trudeau was prime minister, fossil fuel energy supply actually increased over 11 per cent. Similarly, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy supply (not just electricity) increased from 75 per cent in 2015 to 77 per cent in 2023.

Over the same period, the switch from coal to gas, and a tiny 0.4 percentage point increase in the energy from solar and wind, has reduced annual CO₂ emissions by less than three per cent. On that trend, getting to zero won’t take 25 years as the Liberal government promised, but more than 160 years. One study shows that the government’s current plan which won’t even reach net-zero will cost Canada a quarter of a million jobs, seven per cent lower GDP and wages on average $8,000 lower.

Globally, achieving net-zero will be even harder. Remember, Canada makes up about 1.5 per cent of global CO₂ emissions, and while Canada is already rich with plenty of energy, the world’s poor want much more energy.

In order to achieve global net-zero by 2050, by 2030 we would already need to achieve the equivalent of removing the combined emissions of China and the United States — every year. This is in the realm of science fiction.

The painful Covid lockdowns of 2020 only reduced global emissions by about six per cent. To achieve net zero, the UN points out that we would need to have doubled those reductions in 2021, tripled them in 2022, quadrupled them in 2023, and so on. This year they would need to be sextupled, and by 2030 increased 11-fold. So far, the world hasn’t even managed to start reducing global carbon emissions, which last year hit a new record.

Data from both the International Energy Agency and the US Energy Information Administration give added cause for skepticism. Both organizations foresee the world getting more energy from renewables: an increase from today’s 16 per cent to between one-quarter to one-third of all primary energy by 2050. But that is far from a transition. On an optimistically linear trend, this means we’re a century or two away from achieving 100 percent renewables.

Politicians like to blithely suggest the shift away from fossil fuels isn’t unprecedented, because in the past we transitioned from wood to coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to gas. The truth is, humanity hasn’t made a real energy transition even once. Coal didn’t replace wood but mostly added to global energy, just like oil and gas have added further additional energy. As in the past, solar and wind are now mostly adding to our global energy output, rather than replacing fossil fuels.

Indeed, it’s worth remembering that even after two centuries, humanity’s transition away from wood is not over. More than two billion mostly poor people still depend on wood for cooking and heating, and it still provides about 5 per cent of global energy.

Like Canada, the world remains fossil fuel-based, as it delivers more than four-fifths of energy. Over the last half century, our dependence has declined only slightly from 87 per cent to 82 per cent, but in absolute terms we have increased our fossil fuel use by more than 150 per cent. On the trajectory since 1971, we will reach zero fossil fuel use some nine centuries from now, and even the fastest period of recent decline from 2014 would see us taking over three centuries.

Global warming will create more problems than benefits, so achieving net-zero would see real benefits. Over the century, the average person would experience benefits worth $700 (CAD) each year.

But net zero policies will be much more expensive. The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Every year over the 21st century, costs would vastly outweigh benefits, and global costs would exceed benefits by over CAD 32 trillion each year.

We would see much higher transport costs, higher electricity costs, higher heating and cooling costs and — as businesses would also have to pay for all this — drastic increases in the price of food and all other necessities. Just one example: net-zero targets would likely increase gas costs some two-to-four times even by 2030, costing consumers up to $US52.6 trillion. All that makes it a policy that just doesn’t make sense—for Canada and for the world.

Bjørn Lomborg

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Maureen McCall

Indigenous leaders call for policy reforms and Indigenous equity ownership to unlock Canada’s energy potential

A surprising twist in Canada’s pipeline debate emerged on Jan. 21, 2025, when Alberta Premier Danielle Smith called for a revival of the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Unexpectedly, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, voiced support, warning that if Canada doesn’t act, Donald Trump will. Yet just a day later, Phillip abruptly retracted his statement, raising fresh questions about external influence and the future of Indigenous participation in energy development.

Northern Gateway, a pipeline once proposed to carry Alberta oilsands crude to the B.C. coast for export to Asia, was cancelled in 2016 after years of environmental opposition and legal challenges. Its demise became a symbol of Canada’s broader struggles to balance resource development, environmental concerns and Indigenous rights. Now, amid rising global energy demand and growing Indigenous interest in ownership stakes, calls to revive the project are resurfacing, with political, legal and economic implications.

Adding to the intrigue, Phillip has long been a vocal critic of major resource projects, including Northern Gateway, making his initial endorsement all the more surprising.

Some observers, like Calvin Helin, a member of the Tsimshian Nation and principal at INDsight Advisers, see deeper forces at work. A lawyer specializing in commercial and Indigenous law and a best-selling author, Helin believes the incident highlights how environmental activists are shaping the conversation.

“Environmental groups have infiltrated some Indigenous organizations,” Helin said in an interview. “They managed to support a government that championed their agendas, particularly Alberta-focused objectives like the coastal pipeline ban and changes to the regulatory approval system. In this era of Trump, all they’ve managed to do is weaken Canada’s position.”

Nonetheless, Helin emphasized that the energy industry has learned the importance of genuine engagement with Indigenous interests. He pointed out that Indigenous leaders increasingly support responsible natural resource development. Inclusion and recognition from the outset, Helin argued, are essential for energy projects in 2025 and beyond.

After the cancellation of Northern Gateway, Indigenous leader Dale Swampy, who helped establish the Northern Gateway Aboriginal Equity Partners, formed the National Coalition of Chiefs, a pro-development alliance of First Nation chiefs advocating for oil and gas development in their communities.

Swampy continues to champion the idea of a pipeline dedicated solely to moving bitumen to the coast, arguing that Canada has been “putting all its eggs in one basket” by selling almost exclusively to the United States while competitors, including the U.S. itself, have entered global markets.

According to the Canadian Energy Centre, global demand for oil and gas in emerging and developing economies is expected to remain robust through 2050. With the added pressures of U.S. tariffs, conversations about Canadian pipelines to tidewater have gained urgency. Swampy advocates for a policy reset and the revival of Northern Gateway, this time powered by Indigenous equity investment.

“First, we’ve got to get rid of the oil tanker ban (Bill C-48),” Swampy said. “We need more fluid regulatory processes so we can build projects on a reasonable timeline, without costing us billions more waiting for approvals—like TMX (Trans Mountain Expansion Project). And you’ve got to get the proponents back to the table. Last time, 31 of the 40 communities were already signed on. I believe we can get them on board again.”

Swampy continues to work with industry partners to develop an Indigenous-led bitumen pipeline to the West Coast. “We can get this project built if it’s led by First Nations.”

He also noted that other Indigenous leaders are increasingly recognizing the benefits of collaborating on resource development, whether in mining or B.C. LNG projects, which he says enjoy widespread First Nations support.

Discussions with Helin, Swampy and other Indigenous leaders resulted in the following policy recommendations for 2025 and beyond.

• Repeal Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act. It blocks not only pipelines but also mines, refineries, export plants and other energy infrastructure in which First Nations want to invest. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled it unconstitutional on Oct. 13, 2023.
• Cut taxes to offset U.S. tariffs. Reducing taxes on investment and energy projects can neutralize tariff impacts and attract new investment. Eliminate the carbon tax, which Indigenous leaders argue has placed Canada at a strategic disadvantage globally.
• Repeal Bill C-59, the so-called greenwashing bill. According to Stephen Buffalo, president and chief executive officer of the Indian Resource Council of Canada, this legislation has silenced many voices within the Indigenous energy community.
• Approve LNG plants and related infrastructure. Canada currently sells gas exports almost exclusively to the United States, but there’s a strong business case for expanding to Asian and European markets. In a recent Canadian Energy Ventures webcast, it was revealed that LNG sold to Europe fetches up to 16 times the price Canada receives from U.S. sales. First Nations are already successfully involved in Woodfibre LNG, Cedar LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG in B.C.
• Cut regulatory delays. Prolonged approval timelines erode investor confidence. Streamlining processes can help projects proceed in reasonable timeframes.

Finally, clarify reconciliation guidelines. Clearly define what constitutes meaningful consultation. Industry must treat Indigenous peoples as true partners, advancing economic reconciliation through equity partnerships.

A social media stir over Northern Gateway has reignited debate over Indigenous ownership in Canada’s energy future. While some leaders waver, others like Helin and Swampy make a compelling case: Indigenous-led projects are crucial for Canada’s economic and energy security. Their message is clear — repeal restrictive policies, accelerate project approvals and embrace Indigenous equity. If Ottawa removes the roadblocks, Canada can unlock its full energy potential.

Maureen McCall is an energy business analyst and Fellow at the Frontier Center for Public Policy. She writes on energy issues for EnergyNow and the BOE Report. She has 20 years of experience as a business analyst for national and international energy companies in Canada.