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
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.
President Trump on Thursday confirmed a sweeping new 35% tariff on Canadian imports starting August 1, citing Canada’s failure to curb fentanyl trafficking and retaliatory trade actions.
Key Details:
In a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump said the new 35% levy is in response to Canada’s “financial retaliation” and its inability to stop fentanyl from reaching the U.S.
Trump emphasized that Canadian businesses that relocate manufacturing to the U.S. will be exempt and promised expedited approvals for such moves.
The administration has already notified 23 countries of impending tariffs following the expiration of a 90-day negotiation window under Trump’s “Liberation Day” trade policy.
Diving Deeper:
President Trump escalated his tariff strategy on Thursday, formally announcing a 35% duty on all Canadian imports effective August 1. The move follows what Trump described as a breakdown in trade cooperation and a failure by Canada to address its role in the U.S. fentanyl crisis.
“It is a Great Honor for me to send you this letter in that it demonstrates the strength and commitment of our Trading Relationship,” Trump wrote to Prime Minister Mark Carney. He added that the tariff response comes after Canada “financially retaliated” against the U.S. rather than working to resolve the flow of fentanyl across the northern border.
Trump’s letter made clear the tariff will apply broadly, separate from any existing sector-specific levies, and included a warning that “goods transshipped to evade this higher Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.” The president also hinted that further retaliation from Canada could push rates even higher.
However, Trump left the door open for possible revisions. “If Canada works with me to stop the flow of Fentanyl, we will, perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter,” he said, adding that tariffs “may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship.”
Canadian companies that move operations to the U.S. would be exempt, Trump said, noting his administration “will do everything possible to get approvals quickly, professionally, and routinely — In other words, in a matter of weeks.”
The U.S. traded over $762 billion in goods with Canada in 2024, with a trade deficit of $63.3 billion, a figure Trump called a “major threat” to both the economy and national security.
Speaking with NBC News on Thursday, Trump suggested even broader tariff hikes are coming, floating the idea of a 15% or 20% blanket rate on all imports. “We’re just going to say all of the remaining countries are going to pay,” he told Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker, adding that “the tariffs have been very well-received” and noting that the stock market had hit new highs that day.
The Canadian announcement is part of a broader global tariff rollout. In recent days, Trump has notified at least 23 countries of new levies and revealed a separate 50% tariff on copper imports.
“Not everybody has to get a letter,” Trump said when asked if other leaders would be formally notified. “You know that. We’re just setting our tariffs.”
According to a study in Science Advances, over 90% of ocean plastic comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The United States, by contrast, contributes less than 1%. Yet Pew treats all nations as equally responsible, promoting one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address the real source of the issue.
Just as people were beginning to breathe a sigh of relief thanks to the Trump administration’s rollback of onerous climate policies, the United Nations is set to finalize a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty by the end of the year that will impose new regulations, and, ultimately higher costs, on one of the world’s most widely used products.
Plastics – derived from petroleum – are found in everything from water bottles, tea bags, and food packaging to syringes, IV tubes, prosthetics, and underground water pipes. In justifying the goal of its treaty to regulate “the entire life cycle of plastic – from upstream production to downstream waste,” the U.N. has put a bull’s eye on plastic waste. “An estimated 18 to 20 percent of global plastic waste ends up in the ocean,” the UN says.
As delegates from over 170 countries prepare for the final round of negotiations in Geneva next month, debate is intensifying over the future of plastic production, regulation, and innovation. With proposals ranging from sweeping bans on single-use plastics to caps on virgin plastic output, policymakers are increasingly citing the 2020 Pew Charitable Trusts report, Breaking the Plastic Wave, as one of the primary justifications.
But many of the dire warnings made in this report, if scrutinized, ring as hollow as an empty PET soda bottle. Indeed, a closer look reveals Pew’s report is less a roadmap to progress than a glossy piece of junk science propaganda—built on false assumptions and misguided solutions.
Pew’s core claim is dire: without urgent global action, plastic entering the oceans will triple by 2040. But this alarmist forecast glosses over a fundamental fact—plastic pollution is not a global problem in equal measure. According to a study in Science Advances, over 90% of ocean plastic comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The United States, by contrast, contributes less than 1%. Yet Pew treats all nations as equally responsible, promoting one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address the real source of the issue.
This blind spot has serious consequences. Pew’s solutions—cutting plastic production, phasing out single-use items, and implementing rigid global regulations—miss the mark entirely. Banning straws in the U.S. or taxing packaging in Europe won’t stop waste from being dumped into rivers in countries with little or no waste infrastructure. Policies targeting Western consumption don’t solve the problem—they simply shift it or, worse, stifle useful innovation.
The real tragedy isn’t plastic itself, but the mismanagement of plastic waste—and the regulatory stranglehold that blocks better solutions. In many countries, recycling is a government-run monopoly with little incentive to innovate. Meanwhile, private-sector entrepreneurs working on advanced recycling, biodegradable materials, and AI-powered sorting systems face burdensome red tape and market distortion.
Pew pays lip service to innovation but ultimately favors centralized planning and control. That’s a mistake. Time and again, it’s been technology—not top-down mandates—that has delivered environmental breakthroughs.
What the world needs is not another top-down, bureaucratic report like Pew’s, but an open dialogue among experts, entrepreneurs, and the public where new ideas can flourish. Imagine small-scale pyrolysis units that convert waste into fuel in remote villages, or decentralized recycling centers that empower informal waste collectors. These ideas are already in development—but they’re being sidelined by policymakers fixated on bans and quotas.
Worse still, efforts to demonize plastic often ignore its benefits. Plastic is lightweight, durable, and often more environmentally efficient than alternatives like glass or aluminum. The problem isn’t the material—it’s how it has been managed after its use. That’s a “systems” failure, not a material flaw.
Breaking the Plastic Wave champions a top-down, bureaucratic vision that limits choice, discourages private innovation, and rewards entrenched interests under the guise of environmentalism. Many of the groups calling for bans are also lobbying for subsidies and regulatory frameworks that benefit their own agendas—while pushing out disruptive newcomers.
With the UN expected to finalize the treaty by early 2026, nations will have to face the question of ratification. Even if the Trump White House refuses to sign the treaty – which is likely – ordinary Americans could still feel the sting of this ill-advised scheme. Manufacturers of life-saving plastic medical devices, for example, are part of a network of global suppliers. Companies located in countries that ratify the treaty will have no choice but to pass the higher costs along, and Americans will not be spared.
Ultimately, the marketplace of ideas—not the offices of policy NGOs—will deliver the solutions we need. It’s time to break the wave of junk science—not ride it.
Craig Rucker is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org).
