Economy
Nighttime light intensity exposes failure of autocratic regimes

From the Fraser Institute
When people have more economic freedom, they are allowed to make more of their own economic decisions, free of constraints imposed by others. During the 1960s and 1970s, despite the relative economic success of most western democracies, most of the rest of the world rejected strong pro-market policies, with the notable exception of Hong Kong. Milton Friedman said Hong Kong offered “an almost laboratory experiment in what happens when government is limited to its proper functions and leaves people free to pursue their own objectives.” Hong Kong’s success served as the primary example of the uplifting potential of economic freedom.
However, without a quantifiable measure of economic freedom, it was difficult to generalize these claims. This led to the conception and production of the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) index by the Fraser Institute. Armed with a measure of economic freedom, researchers could test the claim that economic freedom leads to prosperity.
Since its inception, the multiple editions of the dataset routinely confirmed that economically freer countries have higher income levels, enjoy faster economic growth, are more resilient to shocks, and produce great reductions in poverty and income gains all along the income ladder.
But in fact, in a recent article published by the European Journal of Political Economy and co-authored with Macy Scheck and Sean Patrick Alvarez, I offer evidence that the EFW report often underestimates the potency of economic freedom.
Why? Because the economic statistics produced in countries ruled by autocrats are not believable.
In autocratic regimes, rulers must bolster their legitimacy to prevent coups or uprisings, so they produce statistics that exaggerate their country’s performance. And since neither the opposition nor independent authorities are allowed to challenge these claims, autocrats can get away with lying about the size of their economies.
Autocrats also repress economic freedom (along with other freedoms), so any estimation of the effects of economic freedom on economic development will likely be exaggerated due to the lies of dictators.
How can we correct these lies? It’s not as if the autocrats would let us check their books. But fortunately, we don’t have to. We simply need a measure of economic activity that correlates with economic development and cannot be manipulated. Namely, nighttime light intensity, as measured by satellites orbiting the Earth.
Satellites provide accurate and unbiased information, which dictators cannot manipulate. Nighttime light is artificial (manmade) and its level should depict (all else being equal) levels of development. It’s why one can often see images of North and South Korea at night where the former is in utter darkness and the latter sparkles like a Christmas tree.
By examining the relationship between light intensity and economic development as measured by GDP in democracies—where data is generally reliable—one can estimate the extent of inaccuracies in the economic data reported by dictatorships and then create corrected data.
In our article, based on satellite data, we found that in more than 110 countries (including dictatorships), the association between economic freedom and income levels was between 10 per cent and 62 per cent greater than previously estimated. We also found that when using the corrected data, one extra point of economic freedom (on a 10-point scale) generated between 5 per cent and 24 per cent more economic growth from 1992 to 2012.
These results are a powerful answer to those who doubt the value of economic freedom. And they offer a way to see past the lies of dictators.
Business
Senator wants to torpedo Canada’s oil and gas industry

From the Fraser Institute
Recently, without much fanfare, Senator Rosa Galvez re-pitched a piece of legislation that died on the vine when former prime minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament in January. Her “Climate-Aligned Finance Act” (CAFA), which would basically bring a form of BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) to Canada’s oil and gas sector, would much better be left in its current legislative oblivion.
CAFA would essentially treat Canada’s oil and gas sector like an enemy of the state—a state, in Senator Galvez’ view, where all values are subordinate to greenhouse gas emission control. Think I’m kidding? Per CAFA, alignment with national climate commitments means that everyone engaged in federal investment in “emission intensive activities [read, the entire oil and gas sector] must give precedence to that duty over all other duties and obligations of office, and, for that purpose, ensuring the entity is in alignment with climate commitments is deemed to be a superseding matter of public interest.”
In plain English, CAFA would require anyone involved in federal financing (or federally-regulated financing) of the oil and gas sector to divest their Canadian federal investments in the oil and gas sector. And the government would sanction those who argue against it.
There’s another disturbing component to CAFA—in short, it stacks investment decision-making boards. CAFA requires at least one board member of every federally-regulated financial institution to have “climate expertise.” How is “climate expertise” defined? CAFA says it includes people with experience in climate science, social science, Indgineuous “ways of knowing,” and people who have “acute lived experience related to the physical or economic damages of climate change.” (Stacking advisory boards like this, by the way, is a great way to build public distrust in governmental advisory boards, which, in our post-COVID world, is probably not all that high. Might want to rethink this, senator.)
Clearly, Senator Galvez’ CAFA is draconian public policy dressed up in drab finance-speak camouflage. But here’s what it would do. By making federal investment off-limits to oil and gas companies, it would quickly put negative pressure on investment from both national and international investors, effectively starving the sector for capital. After all, if a company’s activities are anathema to its own federal regulators or investment organs, and are statutorily prohibited from even verbally defending such investments, who in their right minds would want to invest?
And that is the BDS of CAFA. In so many words, it calls on the Canadian federal government to boycott, divest from, and sanction Canada’s oil and gas sector—which powers our country, produces a huge share of our exports, and employs people from coast to coast. Senator Galvez would like to see her Climate-Aligned Finance Act (CAFA) resurrected by the Carney government, whose energy policy to-date has been less than crystal clear. But for the sake of Canadians, it should stay dead.
Automotive
Opposition Conservatives fail in attempt to “Pull the Plug” on Carney’s Electric Vehicle Mandate

From Conservative Party Communications
After a Lost Liberal Decade of rising costs and slow growth, Mark Carney wants you to think his government has moved on from Justin Trudeau’s failed policies.
Unfortunately for Canadians, Carney has no interest in scrapping one of his predecessor’s most reckless and costly ideas: a zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate starting next year that will ultimately ban Canadians from buying gas-powered cars by 2035.
As the required percentage of ZEV sales increases each year, the government wants to force manufacturers and importers to buy costly credits of up to $20,000 for every EV they are short of the Liberals’ quota – a huge expense that will ultimately be passed on to, and paid by Canadian consumers.
That’s why Conservatives have introduced a motion to end this harmful scheme, ensuring Canadians can continue to buy the kind of car they need at a price they can afford.
EVs are great for many families, who should always be free to purchase the vehicle of their choice. But for many Canadians – who live in cold environments or travel long distances – they can be practically useless, especially without the infrastructure to power them.
One government report estimated that changes to Canadian infrastructure required to support a transition to ZEVs could cost up to $300 billion by 2040. On top of the costs already imposed on manufacturers and buyers, this policy will require billions in new tax dollars and government debt.
No wonder one 2024 survey found two thirds of Canadians find the 2035 target is unrealistic.
As unjust tariffs threaten an automotive sector which contributes billions to our GDP, the Liberals continue to put their elitist, top-down ideology ahead of the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of proud Canadian workers.
While Carney talks about change, Conservatives are here to deliver. That’s why we’re fighting to repeal the ZEV mandate, scrap the industrial carbon tax and cancel Liberal fuel standards. We trust Canadians – not Ottawa’s Liberal elite – to make the best decisions for themselves and their families.
It’s time to put Canadians back in the driver’s seat.
-
Alberta2 days ago
Central Alberta MP resigns to give Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre a chance to regain a seat in Parliament
-
Alberta1 day ago
Calls for a new pipeline to the coast are only getting louder
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta pro-life group says health officials admit many babies are left to die after failed abortions
-
Alberta1 day ago
Unified message for Ottawa: Premier Danielle Smith and Premier Scott Moe call for change to federal policies
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
‘Not Held Hostage Anymore’: Economist Explains How America Benefits If Trump Gets Oil And Gas Expansion
-
Daily Caller11 hours ago
Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Hope For Future Energy Project Permitting
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Jordan Peterson reveals DEI ‘expert’ serving as his ‘re-education coach’ for opposing LGBT agenda
-
Business1 day ago
Rhetoric—not evidence—continues to dominate climate debate and policy