Connect with us

Economy

Net Zero Part Two: Misleading Language

Published

4 years ago

6 minute read

Article from Canadians For Affordable Energy, AffordableEnergy.ca

As I continue to offer comment on the whole Net Zero by 2050 discussion, I am starting with a series of pieces to lay some groundwork. My recent blog, Net Zero Part One: Defining the Terms explained the challenges with the language used by the “Net Zero” lobby.

Today’s blog digs a bit further on the problematic language behind the Net Zero by 2050 agenda.

The advocates of Net Zero by 2050 talk in very rosy terms about how they want to eliminate the bad practices.

In particular, they say their plan is to de-carbonize society and thereby eliminate carbon dioxide pollution. Trudeau’s carbon taxes are all about achieving these ends. You have to pay more, but that’s necessary because Trudeau says we need to de-carbonize and eliminate carbon dioxide pollution.

But stop and think about that.

Trudeau and his ideological allies are twisting language here to advance their agenda. This is part of a trend of course – remember the Liberals don’t use the term tax when describing their carbon taxes, instead calling them by misleading terms such as “Clean Fuel Standard” or “CFS”.  It isn’t only a Trudeau trend either – Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole has endorsed carbon taxes in his so-called climate plan but insists on calling them by other names. And so the trend continues in respect to terms like de-carbonization and carbon dioxide pollution.

First, remember from high school science that carbon is an abundant element and every living thing contains it. You can’t de-carbonize the world, nor should you want to: doing so would bring a very quick end to any life on the planet. That is enabling a bad outcome, not ending a bad practice. De-carbonization has become a term of common usage. But using it suggests you support an incoherent agenda. Reducing emissions is one thing and can have merit, but de-carbonization is incoherent.

Second (and still from high school science) remember that carbon dioxide is a molecule that is essential for life: plants thrive on it, we exhale it with every breath we have. CO2 levels swing up and down over centuries and  millennia and geologic cycles in ways we are only beginning to understand. We know human activity is producing a lot of CO2 right now, but the levels are well below what they have been in the past. And as societies become more affluent, they become more efficient in their use of resources and the CO2 levels per unit of human activity drop.

Moreover, we have observed in the last few decades a dramatic increase in global green vegetation cover. That makes sense. CO2 is food for plants – just go to a greenhouse and note how they try to heighten CO2 levels to improve growth rates – so more CO2 means more abundant forests, more productive farms, etc. This isn’t pollution: this is life.

But saying these things – obvious things I remind you, that we learned as adolescents – gets you into trouble these days. The Net Zero crowd wants to deny the obvious as a means to advance their green agenda.  It is easy to fall into the trap of using the language of “de-carbonization” or “carbon dioxide pollution” but both terms lead down a deceptive road that is inconsistent with the science we know, and ultimately leading to a more and more costly society.

Trudeau’s carbon taxes – as expensive as they are – are just a foretaste of what the misleading language around Net Zero really means: less affordable energy, higher food bills, and a higher cost of living.

Net Zero Part 3 will be published on Todayville Tuesday, June 8

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.

Related Topics:

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
Automotive / 4 days ago

Carney’s exercise in stupidity

Automotive / 2 weeks ago

Canada’s EV house of cards is close to collapsing

Business / 4 weeks ago

The Liberal war on our cost of living lives on

Business

Potential For Abuse Embedded In Bill C-5

Published on June 24, 2025

By

From the National Citizens Coalition

By Peter Coleman

“The Liberal government’s latest economic bill could cut red tape — or entrench central planning and ideological pet projects.”

On the final day of Parliament’s session before its September return, and with Conservative support, the Liberal government rushed through Bill C-5, ambitiously titled “One Canadian Economy: An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act.”

Beneath the lofty rhetoric, the bill aims to dismantle interprovincial trade barriers, enhance labour mobility, and streamline infrastructure projects. In principle, these are worthy goals. In a functional economy, free trade between provinces and the ability of workers to move without bureaucratic roadblocks would be standard practice. Yet, in Canada, decades of entrenched Liberal and Liberal-lite interests, along with red tape, have made such basics a pipe dream.

If Bill C-5 is indeed wielded for good, and delivers by cutting through this morass, it could unlock vast, wasted economic potential. For instance, enabling pipelines to bypass endless environmental challenges and the usual hand-out seeking gatekeepers — who often demand their cut to greenlight projects — would be a win. But here’s where optimism wanes, this bill does nothing to fix the deeper rot of Canada’s Laurentian economy: a failing system propped up by central and upper Canadian elitism and cronyism. Rather than addressing these structural flaws of non-competitiveness, Bill C-5 risks becoming a tool for the Liberal government to pick more winners and losers, funneling benefits to pet progressive projects while sidelining the needs of most Canadians, and in particular Canada’s ever-expanding missing middle-class.

Worse, the bill’s broad powers raise alarms about government overreach. Coming from a Liberal government that recently fear-mongered an “elbows up” emergency to conveniently secure an electoral advantage, this is no small concern. The lingering influence of eco-radicals like former Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, still at the cabinet table, only heightens suspicion. Guilbeault and his allies, who cling to fantasies like eliminating gas-powered cars in a decade, could steer Bill C-5’s powers toward ideological crusades rather than pragmatic economic gains. The potential for emergency powers embedded in this legislation to be misused is chilling, especially from a government with a track record of exploiting crises for political gain – as they also did during Covid.

For Bill C-5 to succeed, it requires more than good intentions. It demands a seismic shift in mindset, and a government willing to grow a spine, confront far-left, de-growth special-interest groups, and prioritize Canada’s resource-driven economy and its future over progressive pipe dreams. The Liberals’ history under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, marked by economic mismanagement and job-killing policies, offers little reassurance. The National Citizens Coalition views this bill with caution, and encourages the public to remain vigilant. Any hint of overreach, of again kowtowing to hand-out obsessed interests, or abuse of these emergency-like powers must be met with fierce scrutiny.

Canadians deserve a government that delivers results, not one that manipulates crises or picks favourites. Bill C-5 could be a step toward a freer, stronger economy, but only if it’s wielded with accountability and restraint, something the Liberals have failed at time and time again. We’ll be watching closely. The time for empty promises is over; concrete action is what Canadians demand.

Let’s hope the Liberals don’t squander this chance. And let’s hope that we’re wrong about the potential for disaster.

Peter Coleman is the President of the National Citizens Coalition, Canada’s longest-serving conservative non-profit advocacy group.

Continue Reading

Business

Canada should already be an economic superpower. Why is Canada not doing better?

Published on June 24, 2025

By

From Resource Works

Tej Parikh of the Financial Times‘s says Canada has the minerals but not the plan

Tej Parikh is the economics editorial writer for The Financial Times, a British daily newspaper. He joins our Stewart Muir for a Power Struggle interview. And we include in the following report some points from a guest column by Parikh in Canada’s National Post, which carried the headline ‘How Canada can unlock its economic superpower potential.’

Parikh begins the Power Struggle interview with this: “There’s an enormous economic potential here, very much the same geographic advantages that have underpinned America’s economic emergence over the last 100 years. . . . Given everything we understand about the advantages that countries need to grow, why is Canada not doing better economically?” He added: “When you break it down and you look at why income per capita in Canada has perhaps not increased as fast as we might expect on the basis of those advantages, it really kind of breaks down to three components. One is investment, so how much capital goes into the country?

The second is labour, and not just the amount, the size of the workforce you have, but how well you utilize the workforce. And then the third component is something that economists like to call a total-factor productivity, which is essentially your innovative ability and your ability to bring together capital and people. “And when you look at Canada as opposed to other large economies . . . you begin to see that actually there are a lot of restrictions in Canada, not just because of its vast geography but because of regulation, that it actually can’t combine its capital and labour as productively as it could.

“It’s about creating those supply chains and critical minerals that the Western world is currently short of. Given it (Canada) has these vast raw material resources, there is a massive scope for it to become even more integrated into Western supply chains in particular and to become a supplier of these things.” From Parikh’s National Post column: “The country is energy independent, with the world’s largest deposits of high-grade uranium and the third-largest proven oil reserves. It is also the fifth-largest producer of natural gas.Canada boasts a huge supply of other commodities too, including the largest potash reserves (used to make fertilizer), over one-third of the world’s certified forests and a fifth of the planet’s surface freshwater. Plus, it has an abundance of cobalt, graphite, lithium and other rare earth elements, which are used in renewable technologies. “But the nation has lacked the visionary leadership and policy framework to capitalize on its advantages.”

Watch the full interview here:

Baçk to Power Struggle: “Investors right now will know that Canada has all of this latent potential, they will know that there are resources there, they will know that there are talented workers in Canada. But (they need) the answers to what barriers there are to business and how they can be reduced, and I think that’s the piece that Canada and its provinces can do a better job on. “That’s the thing that I think Canada would benefit from, showing how it is a kind of a more unified country and showing how that it is a unified marketplace where investors and businesses can develop expansive supply chains.”

In the National Post: “A country with its geography could clearly generate higher output. To do so, the Canadian economy needs to become more efficient, raise investment and attract more high-skilled workers. Here’s how. “Canada places significant bureaucratic burdens on the movement of people and goods too. This includes restrictions on the sale of certain goods across provincial borders, and variations in licences and technical standards that hinder scaling, competition and efficient resource allocation across the country.

“A 2022 study by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute found that Canada’s economy could grow by 4.4 to 7.9 per cent in the long term — up to $200 billion a year — if it eliminated internal trade barriers via mutual recognition policies. Similar reforms in Australia in the 1990s helped to boost productivity there. “Simplifying its complex tax system, expediting planning processes, easing red tape for foreign direct investment and developing economic partnership mechanisms for Indigenous populations, in tandem with internal trade reforms, would help businesses across the industrial supply chain tap into the nation’s vast energy and mineral resources.”

On Power Struggle: “You can be rich in oil and natural gas. But obviously over the last 10, 15 years the global economy has been thinking about alternatives. In Europe and in the UK and in some states in the US, there’s a concerted effort to shift to cleaner energy sources. Canada has vast access to the critical minerals that underpin a lot of renewable energy sources. And then you can go further than that. “This isn’t just about having access to those, you know, old world energy sources. This is access to the type of energy sources that the world is looking for. So Canada is aligned to the renewable transition and I was quite surprised, actually, that in the last 10 to 15 years you haven’t really heard Canada’s name in that. I thought it was about time that Canada plays that up a bit more and the opportunities it has there.”

Tej Parikh continued: “This isn’t about just digging up Canada and exploiting its raw materials. It’s about finding ways in which you can create economic compacts with Indigenous communities, create economic compacts with Indigenous communities. “It’s a way in which you can sustainably mine parts of the country and ensure that, as you are developing underground resources in Canada, you are also developing local economies. Developing an industry means you develop jobs.

“Once you start developing factories and industries in certain areas, then financial services, commercial roles, all of these things build up, and that’s how I think the debate needs to be kind of pushed forward a little bit. “Once you start developing finance around these industries, you can also find ways to make these industries even more sustainable and environmentally friendly.”

“I think there are very clever ways in which Canada and all Canadians can see that actually these natural resources that the country has is actually an asset that everyone has a share in.” Stewart Muir then raised the Donald Trump issue: “Where have you landed on what Trump is all about? I mean, is this a poker game? Is it a chess match? Is it a street fight?”

Tej Parikh: “He likes negotiating and I think, from what we can understand from his tariff policy, he takes things to extremes and then he rows things back and he tries to gain concessions where he can. And I think he will take the same approach on most policy he has. I mean, he sees the world through a transactional lens. It’s ‘what can the other people offer me and how can we do a deal to ensure that I can gain that?’ “And I think in some sense, you know, yes, he is unpredictable, above and beyond that. But I think if you know that that's his framing, then I think it means that you know others just need to adjust to it and be pragmatic in it. And that is essentially what we have seen from the way the Canadian prime minister has been interacting with Donald Trump. You have to be pragmatic if you know what the threat could be.”

Parikh added: “I think the first thing is (Prime Minister Mark Carney) should build on the momentum that he has, the political momentum he has on reducing internal trade barriers in Canada. You then create the groundwork in order to start taking advantage of the mineral resources and the natural resources.” “Once Canadians start to feel that everyone is benefiting from the natural resources in the country and there are avenues to recycle the revenues from those sectors into the country, whether that’s through housing or developing infrastructure, improving public services, you then have this kind of reinforcement effect between the country and its natural resources and its assets and the development of peoples, and I think working on that will kind of provide the groundwork for Canada’s emergence.”

In the National Post: “The Canadian economy is at a crossroads. The belligerence of its main trading partner is driving consensus around boosting the national economy. The world needs what Canada has in abundance. The nation has a unique chance to reach its potential. If it wants to.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X