Connect with us

Economy

Net Zero Part One: Defining the Terms

Published

5 minute read

Article from Canadians For Affordable Energy, AffordableEnergy.ca

“Net Zero by 2050” is all over the news these days.

Countries, international organizations, corporations, cities and other entities are making grand commitments to the idea.

My view is that Net Zero by 2050 is a dangerous idea, and I am alarmed by how it is taking hold. I plan to write several blogposts on Net Zero by 2050 over the next few weeks to explain this view. This introductory piece lays the context for that series.

First, let me provide a quick definition of Net Zero by 2050. In simplistic terms, any entity abides by the goal of Net Zero if that entity emits no more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere than it draws out of it. Net Zero by 2050 means that the year 2050 is the target for achieving that emissions “balance”.

That sounds straight forward, but it isn’t.

Is the starting assumption – that we can achieve this kind of balance – a fair one given the earth’s complexity?

Is the fact that CO2 levels have been significantly higher in the past (before industrialization) not a consideration? The earth has seen higher and lower levels of CO2 before there was any significant human activity. So why should we assume that a “balance,” as we define it, is necessary?

And how do we assure that balance when there are all kinds of things we can’t control – like emissions from natural events like volcanoes, or windstorms?

What about the fact that the science on emissions is changing?

How do we factor these things in?

And if we do commit to this kind of balance, what measure of government control does this represent? What will the cost of that control be? Should we not have some sense of that before we commit to it?

These are just some of the many questions that come to mind when discussing the idea of Net Zero by 2050. But it is really hard to get answers to these questions. More often than not what you do get is some version of “the sky is falling”. Politicians, business leaders, environmentalists say things like “we have to act now” or “time is running out” or “our future depends on it”.  But people have been using that kind of rhetoric about the environment for decades, and yet by virtually every environmental measure things are getting better.

But no matter. Net Zero by 2050 is the latest version of the environmental scare tactic of forcing consumers to accept things like Trudeau’s carbon taxes, or green energy plans, or any other policy madness that really means expanding government control, enriching special interests, and hurting consumers.

We at Canadians for Affordable Energy find this really alarming: we think Net Zero by 2050 will definitely mean one thing: less affordable energy for Canadians.

Over a series of blogposts we want to shed some more light on Net Zero by 2050.

Net Zero Part 2 will be published on Todayville Sunday, June 6

Click here for more articles from Dan McTeague of Canadians for Affordable energy

Dan McTeague | President, Canadians for Affordable Energy

 

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

More from this author

Business

From ‘Elbows Up’ To ‘Thumbs Up’

Published on

From the National Citizens Coalition

National Citizens Coalition Slams Carney-Trump Meeting as ‘Insulting’ About-Face After Fear-Mongering Campaign Rhetoric

CANADA – From “elbows up” to thumbs up in record time.

The National Citizens Coalition (NCC) condemns Prime Minister Mark Carney’s cozy meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, calling it a stark contradiction of the anti-American rhetoric that fueled Carney’s election campaign. The NCC asserts that Carney’s deferential White House visit undermines the combative pledges made to Canadians, revealing how the Liberals leveraged Trump’s tacit endorsement and the ‘Rally Around the Flag effect’ to secure their minority government.

During the April 2025 federal election, Carney and the Liberal Party campaigned on a platform of staunch resistance to Trump’s trade war and his provocative “51st state” rhetoric, inflaming tensions by warning that Trump sought to “break us so America can own us.” This messaging galvanized voters on the left, particularly the collapsing NDP base and many over-55s, with polls showing a surge in Liberal support driven entirely by anti-Trump sentiment. Yet, just days after securing victory, Carney’s decision to behave in stark contrast to such rhetoric betrays the trust of Canadians who believed in his hardline stance, and in particular, betrays the young Canadians who voted in defiance of “51st state” nonsense and American election interference, but who also had major additional priorities that have been ignored by a decade of Liberal ruin.

“Mark Carney sold Canadians a story of aggressive defiance against Trump, but this meeting proves he’s more interested in reaping the rewards than holding convictions,” says NCC President Peter Coleman. “Carney’s campaign leaned heavily on fearmongering about Trump, yet here he is shaking hands, laughing, and all but sitting idly by as he’s insulted, with the very man he claimed threatened our sovereignty. This isn’t leadership—it’s hypocrisy.”

The NCC contends that Trump’s public comments, including his refusal to rule out making Canada the 51st state, however flippant the bargaining tactic, were strategically exploited by the Liberals to consolidate left-leaning voters fearful of Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s perceived Trump-like style.

“Trump’s shadow loomed large over this election, and the Liberals milked it for every vote,” Coleman adds. “Canadians deserve to know if Carney’s tough talk was just a ploy to ride anti-Trump sentiment to power, only to cozy up to him afterward. This smells like a backroom deal between the two, that benefited the Liberals at the expense of much-needed hope and change, and honest and ethical conversations about the need for renewed pride in who we are, and a return to Canadian sovereignty.”

The NCC demands Carney explain how this meeting aligns with his fear-mongering on the campaign trail. Canadians deserve transparency about more of Carney’s true motives, which also may not match his statements and behaviours to date.

The National Citizens Coalition calls on all Canadians to hold Carney accountable for this cynical about-face. “We will not stand idly by while Carney exploits sovereignty concerns and election interference for political points,” Coleman concludes. “If this level of decorum had been any kind of consistent, if he hadn’t just run a fearful, pandemic-style campaign that robbed so many Canadians of hope and further inflamed alienation in the West, that’s one thing. But it’s time to reclaim the Canadian Dream from low-cunning leaders who say one thing and do another. He may be better house-broken than Trudeau, and on that, there is room for faint praise. But who really is Mark Carney? Why did the legacy media seem so disinterested in vetting him? And what does he really believe?”

About the National Citizens Coalition: Founded in 1967, the National Citizens Coalition is Canada’s pioneer non-profit conservative organization, dedicated to championing common-sense values, defending taxpayer interests, and promoting a strong, proud, and free Canada.

To support the NCC, Donate Today.

Continue Reading

Business

Carney must work to grow Canada’s economic pie

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

After scoring a narrow victory in the federal election, Prime Minister Mark Carney and his incoming cabinet will confront a host of pressing issues. Dealing with the erratic and sometimes menacing Donald Trump—and navigating the multi-front tariff war the U.S. president has launched—is undoubtedly job one. Meanwhile, the refreshed Liberal government will face an enfeebled Canadian economy that may be on the cusp of a recession triggered by Trump’s mad-cap trade policies and dwindling economic growth across much of the world. Finding ways to implement—and pay for—the grab-bag of costly promises in the Liberal Party’s election platform will also tax the abilities of Carney and his ministers.

Beyond the immediate imperative of managing relations with the United States, the top priority for the Carney team must be creating the conditions for stronger economic growth at home. Under Justin Trudeau, the Liberal government was preoccupied with social policy, income redistribution, climate change and Indigenous reconciliation. As former finance minister Bill Morneau has written, Trudeau displayed zero interest in bolstering the underlying foundations of Canadian prosperity, which languished on his watch. Hopefully, Carney’s administration won’t make the same mistake.

Unfortunately, team Carney starts with a weak economic hand. Canada has been losing global market share in almost all of our export-oriented industries. Productivity is stagnant, and business investment is insufficient even to offset ongoing deprecation of the “capital stock”—the buildings, equipment and machinery owned and used by firms across Canada. Net foreign direct investment flows have turned sharply negative, with Canadian firms investing more abroad than foreign companies invest in Canada—a clear sign of our waning competitiveness.

Even more worryingly, Canada’s real gross domestic product (GDP) per person—the total income that households and businesses generate, divided by the population—shrank by 1 per cent between 2018 and 2023, before dipping again last year. During this time period, we’ve been near the bottom among 38 advanced countries on this basic metric of economic success and living standards.

In fact, Canada’s economy today is scarcely larger than it was a decade ago (after adjusting for population growth and inflation). Comparisons with the U.S. make for particularly painful reading. Between the first quarter of 2016 and the fourth quarter of last year, inflation-adjusted per-person economic output grew by just 2.5 per cent in Canada compared to 18.7 per cent in the U.S. This speaks both to the economic failures of the Trudeau era and the urgent need for Ottawa to change course.

So, what to do?

Turning around Canada’s lacklustre economy will require a sharp turn away from the policies of the Trudeau era. Instead of serially expanding the size, cost and administrative reach of the government sector, federal policymakers should look to kick-start business investment, improve Canada’s global competitive position, accelerate business innovation, and scale back the regulatory chokehold that has been stifling business growth in key sectors of our economy including natural resources, manufacturing and infrastructure development. Progress in these areas will require a significant overhaul of Canada’s creaky growth-inhibiting tax system, a commitment to smarter and more efficient regulation across the government sector, and more disciplined and thoughtful management of Ottawa’s $550 billion in annual spending.

Is the Carney government up to the task? Its first budget, likely to be tabled within the next few weeks, should provide some initial clues.

Jock Finlayson

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X