From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Changes to the law require companies to more rigorously prove their environmental claims.

The investment group in charge of Canada’s governmental pension plan has ditched its “net zero” mandate, joining a growing list of major institutions doing the same.

According to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Investments’ latest annual report, the entity is no longer committed to carbon “net-zero” by 2050. The CPP’s ditching of the target comes after a number of major institutions, including the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD), Bank of Montreal (BMO), National Bank of Canada, and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), all made similar moves in recent months.

While ditching the net-zero effort, chief executive of CPP Investments John Graham maintained that it is still “really important to incorporate climate and incorporate sustainability” in its long-term investment portfolio.

The dropping of the “climate” target comes as recent changes to Canada’s Competition Act now mandate that companies prove any environmental claims they make, with Graham insinuating these changes were a factor in the decision.

“Recent legal developments in Canada have introduced, kind of, new considerations around how net-zero commitments are interpreted, so that’s caused us to change a little bit how we talk about it, but nothing’s changed on what we’re actually doing.”

Over the past decade, left-wing activists have used “net zero” and “environmental, social & governance” (ESG) standards to encourage major Canadian and U.S. corporations to take particular stands on political and cultural issues, notably in promotion of homosexuality, transgenderism, race relations, the environment, and abortion.

Outside of Canada, many major corporations have announced they are walking back DEI and other related policies. Some of the most notable include Lowe’s, Jack Daniel’s, and Harley Davidson. Other companies such as Disney, Target, and Bud Light have faced negative sales due to consumers fighting back and refusing to patronize the businesses.

Since taking power in 2015, the Liberal government, first under Justin Trudeau and now under Mark Carney, has continued to push a radical environmental agenda in line with those promoted by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.” Part of this push includes the promotion of so called net-zero energy by as early as 2035.

From LifeSiteNews

By Vijay Jayaraj

Perhaps the fundamental failure of Net Zero was political. Permission was never sought from taxpayers who would pay the costs and suffer the consequences of an always ill-fated enterprise.

The grand vision of “Net Zero” initiatives – by which emissions of carbon dioxide magically balance with expensive and futile capture and storage systems – have long been sold as the redemption arc for humanity’s profligate modern ways. Yet, like a poorly scripted dystopian thriller, the holes in this plot are glaring.

Net Zero was always a fragile concept. It rested on shaky and illogical assumptions: that wind turbines, solar panels and “green” hydrogen could reliably replace fossil fuels, that governments could redesign economies without unintended consequences, that voters would accept higher costs for daily necessities, and that developing countries would sacrifice growth for climate targets they had no hand in creating.

None of those fantasies held. Countries did not decarbonize nearly at the speed promised, even though climate bureaucracies clung to the illusion. Long-range targets, five-year reviews, and international pledges lacked common sense and defied physical and economic realities. The result? An unaccountable machine pushing impractical policies that most people never voted for and are now beginning to reject.

If Net Zero were a serious endeavor, its architects would confront the undeniable: China and India are more than delaying their decarbonization timelines – they’re burying them. Why has this been ignored?

China and India – responsible for more than 40% of global CO2 emissions in the last two decades – are accelerating fossil fuel use, not phasing it out. In Southeast Asia, coal, oil and natural gas continue to dominate. Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are building new electric generating power plants using those fuels. These countries understand that economic growth comes first.

Africa, too, is pushing back. Leaders in Nigeria, Ghana, and Senegal have criticized Western attempts to block fossil fuel financing. African nations are investing in exploitation of oil and gas reserves.

If Asia represents the global rejection of Net Zero, Germany and the U.K. are poster children of the West’s self-inflicted wounds. Both nations, once hailed as Net Zero pioneers, are grappling with the harsh realities of their green ambitions. The transition to “renewables” has been plagued by economic pain, energy insecurity, and political backlash, exposing the folly of policies divorced from facts. When the war in Ukraine cut off energy supplies, Germany panicked. Suddenly, coal plants were back online. The Green Dream died a quiet death.

READ: Top Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create

Trump funding cuts likely will accelerate the fall of Net Zero’s house of cards. The president’s decisions to slash financing for international and domestic green programs has severed the lifeline for global climate initiatives, including the United Nations Environment Program.  Trump also vowed to redirect billions from the Inflation Reduction Act – Biden’s misnomered climate law – toward fossil fuel infrastructure.

The retreat of Net Zero interrupts the flow of trillions of dollars into an agenda with questionable motives and false promises. Climate finance had developed the fever of a gold rush. Banks, asset managers, and consulting firms hurried to brand themselves as “green.” ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) investing promised to reward “climate-friendly” firms and punish alleged polluters.

The fallout was massive market distortions. Companies shifted resources to meet ESG checklists at the expense of fiduciary obligations. Now the tide is turning. The Net Zero Banking Alliance comprising top firms globally has been abandoned by America’s leading institutions. Similarly, a Net Zero investors alliance collapsed after BlackRock’s exit.

Perhaps the fundamental failure of Net Zero was political. Permission was never sought from taxpayers and consumers who would pay the costs and suffer the consequences of an always ill-fated enterprise. Climate goals were set behind closed doors. Policies were imposed from above. Higher utility bills, job losses and diminished economic opportunity became the burdens of ordinary families. All while elites flew private jets to international summits and lectured about the need to sacrifice.

A certain lesson in the slow passing of Net Zero is this: Energy policy must serve people, not ideology. That truth was always obvious and remains so.

Yet, some political leaders, legacy media and industry “yes-men” continue to blather on about a “green” utopia. How long the delusion persists remains to be seen.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

Reprinted with permission from American Thinker.