Net Zero Part Three: No One Tells You How Much it Will Cost

Dan McTeague

Published

3 years ago

5 minute read

Last week, the National Observer, one of the voices of environmental activism in Canada, published an article entitled Natural Resources Canada probes net zero affordability.

The article references an internal memo from a senior public servant at Natural Resources Canada (NRCan – the federal government department that deals with resource issues such as energy). NRCan Assistant Deputy Minister Mollie Johnson, a senior bureaucrat, is the memo’s author, and in it she notes that the department has been looking into questions on how, amongst other things, the “Net Zero by 2050” campaign will affect affordability for consumers.

“how, amongst other things, the “Net Zero by 2050” campaign will affect affordability for consumers.”

Now, the National Observer provides a customary green dodge on the legitimate question about the costs of Net Zero by 2050, noting that this is the kind of question oil and gas industry players focus on. The National Observer goes on to insist that the real issue is that the costs of the climate crisis are soaring – they do not really specify what costs except to point to weather events and suggest these are getting worse and that the costs of them are becoming unmanageable (both are untrue – we will address in a future blog).

It is as if they are saying “How dare energy companies and their lobbyists have the nerve to ask questions about how government policy will affect their interests! How dare Mollie Johnson suggest questions concerning a policy’s impact on affordability might be appropriate for government officials to consider before advancing the policy!”

To the environmental activists and their friends at the National Observer, the very act of daring to raise one’s hand and ask about the radical green agenda that is Net Zero by 2050, to ask ‘how much will it cost?’, is simply unacceptable. Indeed, to the activists, raising such questions is so unacceptable that asking such questions should be forbidden.

And these green propagandists consistently fall back on the usual apocalyptic rhetoric about a “climate emergency” or “climate crisis”.

ADM Mollie Johnson of NRCan appears to be doing what you would hope a public servant would do: asking how much a policy will cost the taxpayer. Thank you Ms. Johnson!

But in this time of ideological green fervor, in the cult of climate action, you cannot dare ask such heretical and vulgar questions as how policy will affect the economic well-being of citizens.

I encourage all of our readers to do just that. Call your local utility, or bank or insurance company, or a mining company, or any other company that is currently espousing a commitment to Net Zero by 2050 – and ask them how much it will cost. How much will it cost in terms of direct taxpayer dollars? How many jobs will this cost? How much in lost tax revenue will it cost the government when the jobs are gone?

My bet is they can’t answer your question.

They don’t know.

Yet they still commit to Net Zero by 2050.

Net Zero Part 4 will be published on Todayville Thursday, June 10

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

Dan McTeague | President, Canadians for Affordable Energy

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:#AffordableEnergy.ca #CanadiansForAffordableEnergy #DanMcTeague #NetZeroBy2050 #NoOneTellsYouHowMuchItWillCost feature

Up Next

Emmy Award Winning Journalist reveals how “fact checkers” punish ‘tone’ even when the facts check out

Don't Miss

Jordan Peterson and Rex Murphy on “Woke Culture Wars”

Dan McTeague

affodableenergy.ca

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

The Carbon Tax is part of a bigger plan to change the way you live

Energy / 1 month ago

Trudeau government doubles down on unaffordability – Carbon Tax set to increase April 1st

Energy / 2 months ago

Take Notice – Question the Net Zero Agenda, and You’re Out the Door

Economy

Young Canadians are putting off having a family due to rising cost of living, survey finds

Published on May 1, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

An April study has found that 42% of Gen Z and 39% of Millennials are putting off starting families due to a lack of work-life balance spurred by an increase in the cost of living.

A survey has found that more Canadians are delaying starting a family due to a lack of work-life balance spurred by the rising cost of living.

According to an April 24 Express Employment Professionals-Harris Poll survey, one-third of employed job seekers stated that they are putting off starting a family due to a lack of work-life balance, including 42% of Gen Z and 39% of Millennials.

“The most common thing I hear from candidates who are putting off starting a family is that the cost of living is too high,” Jessica Culo, an Express franchise owner in Edmonton, Alberta stated.

“We definitely hear more and more that candidates are looking for flexibility, and I think employers understand family/work balance is important to employees,” she added.

Two-thirds of respondents further stated that they believe it’s essential that the company they work for prioritizes giving its employees a good work-life balance as they look to start a family. This included 77% of Gen Z and 72% of Millennials.

The survey comes as Canada’s fertility rate hit a record-low of 1.33 children per woman in 2022. According to the data collected by Statistics Canada, the number marks the lowest fertility rate in the past century of record keeping. 

Sadly, while 2022 experienced a record-breaking low fertility rate, the same year, 97,211 Canadian babies were killed by abortion.

Canadians’ reluctance or delay to have children comes as young Canadians seem to be beginning to reap the effects of the policies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, which has been criticized for its overspending, onerous climate regulations, lax immigration policies, and “woke” politics.

In fact, many have pointed out that considering the rising housing prices, most Canadians under 30 will not be able to purchase a home.   

Similarly, while Trudeau sends Canadians’ tax dollars oversees and further taxes their fuel and heating, Canadians are struggling to pay for basic necessities including food, rent, and heating. 

A September report by Statistics Canada revealed that food prices are rising faster than the headline inflation rate – the overall inflation rate in the country – as staple food items are increasing at a rate of 10 to 18 percent year-over-year.  

While the cost of living has increased the financial burden of Canadians looking to rear children, the nation’s child benefit program does provide some relief for those who have kids.

Under the Canadian Revenue Agency’s benefit, Canadians families are given a monthly stipend depending on their family income and situation. Each province also has a program to help families support their children.

Young Canadians looking to start a family can use the child and family benefits calculator to estimate the benefits which they would receive.

Regardless of the cost of raising children, the Catholic Church unchangeably teaches that it is a grave sin for married couples to frustrate the natural ends of the procreative act through contraceptives, abortion or other means.

Economy

Today’s federal government—massive spending growth and epic betting

Published on May 1, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

One can legitimately ask whether the federal government has simply grown too big, complex and unwieldy to be managed at all

The Trudeau government’s 2024 budget landed with a thud, evoking little enthusiasm and drawing spirited criticism from business leaders, investors, provincial premiers and (of course) the opposition parties. Several elements of the budget have garnered outsized attention, notably the pledge to run endless deficits, the imposition of higher capital gains taxes, and various new programs and policy initiatives intended to address Canada’s housing crisis.

But the budget includes a few eye-catching data points that have been downplayed in the subsequent political and media commentary.

One is the sheer size of the government. The just-completed fiscal year marked a milestone, as Ottawa’s total spending reached half a trillion dollars ($498 billion, to be exact, excluding “actuarial losses”). According to the budget, the government will spend $95 billion more in 2024-25 than it planned only three years ago, underscoring the torrid pace of spending growth under Prime Minister Trudeau.

One can legitimately ask whether the federal government has simply grown too big, complex and unwieldy to be managed at all, even if we assume the politicians in charge truly care about sound management. How many parliamentarians—or even cabinet ministers—have a sufficient understanding of the sprawling federal apparatus to provide meaningful oversight of the vast sums Ottawa is now spending?

The ArriveCAN scandal and chronic problems with defence procurement are well-known, but how good a job is the government doing with routine expenditure programs and the delivery of services to Canadians? The auditor general and the Parliamentary Budget Officer provide useful insights on these questions, but only in a selective way. Parliament itself tends to focus on things other than financial oversight, such as the daily theatre of Question Period and other topics conducive to quick hits on social media. Parliament isn’t particularly effective at holding the government to account for its overall expenditures, even though that ranks among its most important responsibilities.

A second data point from the budget concerns the fast-rising price tag for what the federal government classifies as “elderly benefits.” Consisting mainly of Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, these programs are set to absorb $81 billion of federal tax dollars this year and $90 billion by 2026-27, compared to $69 billion just two years ago. Ottawa now spends substantially more on income transfers to seniors than it collects in GST revenues. At some point, a future government may find it necessary to reform elderly benefit programs to slow the relentless cost escalation.

Finally, the budget provides additional details on the Trudeau government’s epic bet that massive taxpayer-financed subsidies will kickstart the establishment of a major, commercially successful battery and electric vehicle manufacturing “supply chain” in Canada. The government pledges to allocate “over $160 billion” to pay for its net-zero economic plan, including $93 billion in subsidies and incentives for battery, EV and other “clean” industries through 2034-35. This spending, the government insists, will “crowd in more private investment, securing Canada’s leadership” in the clean economy.

To say this is a high-risk industrial development strategy is an understatement. Canada is grappling with an economy-wide crisis of lagging business investment and stagnant productivity. Faced with this, the government has chosen to direct hitherto unimaginable sums to support industries that make up a relatively small slice of the economy. Even if the plan succeeds, it won’t do much to address the bigger problems of weak private-sector investment and slumping productivity growth.