Canada’s current climate plan is ineffective and wasteful

Article submitted by The MacDonald Laurier Institute

Alternative approaches will not only reduce emissions more efficiently but will provide socio-economic benefits beyond Green-House Gas mitigation.

OTTAWA, ON (June 27, 2023): The federal government has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and has spent or committed over $113 billion in climate related initiatives. Yet, Canada will still likely miss its 2030 emissions target by 48 percent. The government risks heavily indebting Canadians without meeting its climate goals.

In this new MLI paper – Maximizing value, minimizing emissions: The cost-effective path for Canada’s climate agenda, Senior Fellow Jerome Gessaroli proposes a climate policy based on international collaboration that would be more cost-effective than policies the government has implemented to date.

“A marginal cost analysis of methane abatement projects shows that it is possible for Canada to reduce its GHG emissions in a more cost-effective way by looking further afield to other countries than by focusing only on domestic projects.”

According to Gessaroli, Canada, along with numerous other countries, has yet to tap into the potential benefits of international cooperation. By leveraging comparative advantages such as technologies, lower costs, and mitigation opportunities, countries can join forces to reduce GHG emissions beyond their territorial borders. Recognition and encouragement of emissions reductions resulting from international collaboration, as outlined in Article 6 of the 2015 Paris Agreement, can lead to more effective climate outcomes compared to domestic initiatives.

Of particular significance is Article 6.2, which allows countries to voluntarily collaborate on GHG emissions reduction and receive credit for reductions achieved outside their political boundaries. Canada can leverage Article 6.2 by engaging in cooperative arrangements with foreign countries to share costs or exchange technical capabilities for mitigation benefits. By doing so, Canada can reduce global emissions while receiving credit toward its formal climate targets under the Paris Agreement.

“The projects can lead to further international collaboration and partnerships in other areas,” writes Gessaroli.

“And depending upon the project, local benefits such as job creation, worker training, enhanced water quality, more efficient water usage, and greater agricultural productivity are possible extras over and above the emissions mitigation.”

Regrettably, the federal government appears to show limited interest in utilizing Article 6.2 to meet greenhouse gas emission goals. With a range of abatement technologies across multiple sectors, Canada possesses the means to facilitate substantial GHG emission reductions in other countries, thereby helping to meet our own climate objectives.

The report concludes by urging the federal government to rethink its climate spending priorities and prioritize policies that deliver the greatest GHG abatement outcomes at the lowest cost. By embracing international collaboration and actively pursuing cooperative climate initiatives, Canada can significantly contribute to global emissions reductions while simultaneously reaping socio-economic benefits.

To learn more, read the full paper here:

***

Jerome Gessaroli is a senior fellow with the Macdonald Laurier Institute. He writes on economic and environmental matters, from a market-based principles perspective. Jerome teaches full-time at the British Columbia Institute of Technology’s School of Business, courses in corporate finance, security analysis, and advanced finance. He was also a visiting lecturer at Simon Fraser University’s Beedie School of Business, teaching into their undergraduate and executive MBA programs.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute is the only non-partisan, independent national public policy think tank in Ottawa focusing on the full range of issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

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

BBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology

Agriculture / 7 hours ago

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Bloodlust: Worshipping Policies While Ignoring Science

Energy / 10 hours ago

Thawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory

Business

Ottawa should stop using misleading debt measure to justify deficits

Published on November 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Based on the rhetoric, the Carney government’s first budget was a “transformative” new plan that will meet and overcome the “generational” challenges facing Canada. Of course, in reality this budget is nothing new, and delivers the same approach to fiscal and economic policy that has been tried and failed for the last decade.

First, let’s dispel the idea that the Carney government plans to manage its finances any differently than its predecessor. According to the budget, the Carney government plans to spend more, borrow more, and accumulate more debt than the Trudeau government had planned. Keep in mind, the Trudeau government was known for its recklessly high spending, borrowing and debt accumulation.

While the Carney government has tried to use different rhetoric and a new accounting framework to obscure this continued fiscal mismanagement, it’s also relied on an overused and misleading talking point about Canada’s debt as justification for higher spending and continued deficits. The talking point goes something like, “Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7” and this “strong fiscal position” gives the government the “space” to spend more and run larger deficits.

Technically, the government is correct—Canada’s net debt (total debt minus financial assets) is the lowest among G7 countries (which include France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) when measured as a share of the overall economy (GDP). The latest estimates put Canada’s net debt at 13 per cent of GDP, while net debt in the next lowest country (Germany) is 49 per cent of GDP.

But here’s the problem. This measure assumes Canada can use all of its financial assets to offset debt—which is not the case.

When economists measure Canada’s net debt, they include the assets of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP), which were valued at a combined $890 billion as of mid-2025. But obviously Canada cannot use CPP and QPP assets to pay off government debt without compromising the benefits of current and future pensioners. And we’re one of the only industrialized countries where pension assets are accounted in such a way that it reduces net debt. Simply put, by falsely assuming CPP and QPP assets could pay off debt, Canada appears to have a stronger fiscal position than is actually the case.

A more accurate measure of Canada’s indebtedness is to look at the total level of debt.

Based on the latest estimates, Canada’s total debt (as a share of the economy) ranked 5th-highest among G7 countries at 113 per cent of GDP. That’s higher than the total debt burden in the U.K. (103 per cent) and Germany (64 per cent), and close behind France (117 per cent). And over the last decade Canada’s total debt burden has grown faster than any other G7 country, rising by 25 percentage points. Next closest, France, grew by 17 percentage points. Keep in mind, G7 countries are already among the most indebted, and continue to take on some of the most debt, in the industrialized world.

In other words, looking at Canada’s total debt burden reveals a much weaker fiscal position than the government claims, and one that will likely only get worse under the Carney government.

Prior to the budget, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised Canadians he will “always be straight about the challenges we face and the choices that we must make.” If he wants to keep that promise, his government must stop using a misleading measure of Canada’s indebtedness to justify high spending and persistent deficits.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Business

Bill Gates Gets Mugged By Reality

Published on November 7, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Stephen Moore

You’ve probably heard by now the blockbuster news that Microsoft founder Bill Gates, one of the richest people to ever walk the planet, has had a change of heart on climate change.

For several decades Gates poured billions of dollars into the climate industrial complex.

Some conservatives have sniffed that Bill Gates has shifted his position on climate change because he and Microsoft have invested heavily in energy intensive data centers.

AI and robotics will triple our electric power needs over the next 15 years. And you can’t get that from windmills.

What Bill Gates has done is courageous and praiseworthy. It’s not many people of his stature that will admit that they were wrong. Al Gore certainly hasn’t. My wife says I never do.

Although I’ve only once met Bill Gates, I’ve read his latest statements on global warming. He still endorses the need for communal action (which won’t work), but he has sensibly disassociated himself from the increasingly radical and economically destructive dictates from the green movement. For that, the left has tossed him out of their tent as a “traitor.”

I wish to highlight several critical insights that should be the starting point for constructive debate that every clear-minded thinker on either side of the issue should embrace.

(1) It’s time to put human welfare at the center of our climate policies. This includes improving agriculture and health in poor countries.

(2) Countries should be encouraged to grow their economies even if that means a reliance on fossil fuels like natural gas. Economic growth is essential to human progress.

(3) Although climate change will hurt poor people, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease.

I would add to these wise declarations two inconvenient truths: First: the solution to changing temperatures and weather patterns is technological progress. A far fewer percentage of people die of severe weather events today than 50 or 100 or 1,000 years ago.

Second, energy is the master resource and to deny people reliable and affordable energy is to keep them poor and vulnerable – and this is inhumane.

If Bill Gates were to start directing even a small fraction of his foundation funds to ensuring everyone on the planet has access to electric power and safe drinking water, it would do more for humanity than all of the hundreds of billions that governments and foundations have devoted to climate programs that have failed to change the globe’s temperature.

Stephen Moore is a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former Trump senior economic advisor.