Dan McTeague
Call out ‘net zero’ for what it is, a scam

From Canadians for Affordable Energy
Net Zero emissions by 2050. Have you heard this line? It is increasingly hard to miss. Every trendy business, bank, corporation and government boasts about their commitment to it. But what exactly do they mean by it?
In short, Net Zero by 2050 means our country either emits no greenhouse gases or offsets whatever it does emit through measures such as buying carbon credits or investing in carbon capture technology.
Net Zero has been a central project of groups such as the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and other globalist institutions. Theyāve spent the past several years pressuring governments around the world to commit to Net Zero and to make those commitments legally binding, so it will be difficult for elected officials to roll them back in the future.
Thatās whatās happening here in Canada. This has been a major priority for Justin Trudeau. The Liberals have spent years championing the push to Net Zero,Ā mandating it by law in 2021.
But law or not, Net Zero isnāt actually going to happen.
It is a ludicrous goal, in part because achieving it would be unimaginably expensive. So expensive, in fact, governments the world over donāt even attempt to estimate the total cost. Whenever theyāre asked, they just say āthe cost of doing nothing will be higher.ā But if they donāt know how expensive their own plan is, how on earth could they know that it would be cheaper than not doing it?
External estimates place the cost for Canada alone somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 trillion. That number is so staggering it is impossible to fully comprehend it. It is more than our nationās entire Gross Domestic Product! Look at it this way ā that is the equivalent of spending $1 a second for 63,417 YEARS.
But the fact Net Zero will ultimately fail doesnāt mean attempting it isnāt going to negatively affect your daily life. It will.
Under the umbrella of Net Zero youāll find,
- Carbon taxes
- Clean Fuel Standards
- Just Transition
- Emissions caps
- Cancelled pipelines
- Electrification strategies
- Gas and diesel car bans
- Electric vehicle subsidies
- Costly building codes
- Curtailed food production
The list goes on and on.
But beyond the economic impact and the personal hardship, we must remember the end game of this Green Agenda isnāt really about reducing carbon emissions. No, it is much more insidious than that.
At the heart of this Net Zero movement is a desire to fundamentally change our economy and way of life. They are looking for a complete transition from the economy that has made Canada the great nation that it is.
āYou will own nothing and be happy.ā Remember those words attributed to Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum (WEF)? Well take those words to heart, because he means it.
The implications of Net Zero are broad and overreaching. And they will have the effect of fundamentally affecting our quality of life.
It will make energy more expensive. It will raise the cost of everything. It will make us less competitive in the global economy, especially against countries such as China because, you will not be surprised to learn, China has not signed on to this suicide pact. (But they are keen for other countries to stifle their economy in pursuit of this absurd goal, not least because they produce 70% of the worldās solar panels.)
Net Zero regulations, policies and mandates are a direct assault on affordable energy, and an affordable way of life. That is the goal of the Green agenda, and if they have their way, Canada, its standard of living and its way of life will suffer.
Net Zero is a scam.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy
Automotive
Repeal the EV mandate, Mr. Carney

By Dan McTeague
Earlier this month, Donald Trump fulfilled a major campaign promise and struck a blow against environmentalist governance in Canada, all in one fell swoop.
He did this byĀ signing a congressional resolutionĀ revoking a waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration that enabled the state to set automotive emissions standards significantly stricter than the national standard. So strict, in fact, that in practice only electric vehicles (EVs) could realistically meet them.
This waiver functioned as a backdoor EV mandate, not just in California, but for all of the United States. Thatās because automakers donāt want to be locked out of the most populous state in the union but are also disinclined to build one set of cars for California and another for the rest of the country. Their only option would be to increase their production of EVs, to the exclusion of gas-and-diesel internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.
Trump has argued, both during his 2024 campaign and since, that the waiver enabled far-left California to saddle the rest of the country with environmental policies it had never voted for and couldnāt repeal. That view helped him win back the White House.
But what does this have to do with Canada? Donald Trump has no power over our own EV mandate. The law of the land in Canada, though it was barely discussed in this springās federal election, beyond aĀ last-minute pledgeĀ from Pierre Poilievre to reverse it, is still that by 2035, 100 per cent of new light-duty vehicles sold in Canada (including passenger cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs) must be electric.
ItĀ doesnāt sound likeĀ Mark Carneyās Liberals have any intention of changing course from this Trudeau-era policy ā even though new EVs sold in Canada have been falling as a share of overall purchases. To stay on track for 2035, the mandate stipulates, 20 per cent of new cars sold in Canada next year must be EVs. Last year just 13.7 per cent were. And, as Tristin HopperĀ noted recently, āthese sales are disproportionately concentrated in a single province ⦠Of the 81,205 zero-emission vehicles sold in Canada in the last quarter of 2024, 49,357 were sold in Quebec.ā
That doesnāt bode well for a national mandate. And Trumpās move further complicates the Liberalsā EV mandate, which has always been presented as an investment opportunity as well as a chance to reduce global carbon emissions. Our federal and provincial governments (particularly Ontario and Quebec) have bet very big on EVs dominating the future. Last year, the Parliamentary Budget OfficerĀ estimatedĀ that public investment in EVs exceeded $52 billion. Much of that money has gone towards subsidizing the manufacture of EVs in Canada.
Except there just arenāt enough Canadian consumers to justify that expense. The scheme has always hinged on there being a robust EV market south of the border. The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers AssociationĀ remindsĀ us that āvehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023, of which 93 per cent was exported to the U.S.ā
The assumption was that existing avenues of trade would remain essentially unchanged. Even leaving aside concerns about what our future trade relationship with the United States will be, the end of Americaās backdoor mandate ā and with it, any reason to believe there will be a serious market for EVs in the U.S. ā exposes our current EV policies as a bum deal.
Of course, there was never a strong case for attempting to turn Canada into a global EV superpower. Thereās a reason Canadian consumers remain skeptical of them. EV batteries donāt perform well in the frigid temperatures for which our country is famous. In cold weather, they charge slowly and then struggle to hold the charge.
Our already-stressed electrical grid isnāt ready for the extra demand that would come with widespread EV adoption, especially considering the Liberalsā desire to progressively decarbonize the grid. And we have nothing like the infrastructure we would need to support this transition.
These roadblocks have now become so obvious that even the automakers, the main beneficiaries of both taxpayer-funded largesse and the mandates themselves, have started saying so. āThe fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable,ā read a recentĀ statementĀ by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents Toyota, GM, Volkswagen, and Stellantis. Ford Canada CEO Bev Goodman has described the mandate as unrealistic and called for itsĀ repeal. Kristian Aquilina, president of GM Canada, hasĀ said the same.
Whether they realize it or not, our political leaders will have to face up to this reality, and sooner rather than later. Their best option is also the most straightforward one. Thereās no reason for us to keep throwing good money after bad money, nor to force an unwanted product on Canadian consumers.
You can do it, Mr. Carney. Repeal the EV mandate.
Automotive
Carneyās exercise in stupidity

By Dan McTeague
This past Tuesday, the Conservative Party put forward a motion in parliament calling on the Liberal government to immediately end their ban on gas-and-diesel driven Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, which will take full effect in 2035.
Arguing for the motion, Melissa Lantsman rightlyĀ said, āNobody is denying people the choice to drive an electric car. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the government mandating that everybody drive an electric car.ā
Unfortunately for all of us, MPs voted 194-141 to keep the EV mandate in place.
The vote itself is unsurprising, since, despite Mark Carneyās campaign-long insistence that he shouldnāt have to answer for the policies of his predecessor, he was a Trudeau advisor and confidant for years, and there is virtually no daylight between their governments on any major issue.
Yes,Ā even on the carbon tax.
Still, this will be the first time that many Canadians even hear about the ICE ban, the implementation of which begins in earnest on January 1st, just about six months from now. At that time, the government will mandate that 20 per cent of all new light-duty vehicles (passenger cars, SUVs, and pickups) must be classified as āzero-emisson,ā or Electric Vehicles (EVs).
How, you might ask, does the government expect automakers to ensure that, come January, one-out-of-five car-buying Canadians will choose to purchase an Electric Vehicle? Especially since consumers have been skeptical of EVs thus far, with just 13.7 per cent sold in Canada last year.
(And, as Tristin Hopper recentlyĀ pointed out, even that number is misleading. āThese sales are disproportionately concentrated in a single provinceā¦. Of the 81,205 zero-emission vehicles sold in Canada in the last quarter of 2024, 49,357 were sold in Quebec.ā Thatās 60 per cent!)
Well, the answer to that question is that manufacturers will be required to submit annual reports to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, detailing their compliance with the governmentās EV targets. If they donāt meet their EV sales quota, they will face significant financial penalties.
To avoid those penalties, automakers will be forced into one option. As Conservative MP Cheryl GallantĀ explained, āHow will carmakers ensure they sell enough electric vehicles? They will do it by drastically raising the price of internal combustion vehicles!ā
Thatās right, their only option will be to start increasing the price of the cars and trucks Canadians want to buy, in order to force us to buy ones we donāt want to buy.
This is madness.
To reiterate what Iāve saidĀ overĀ andĀ overĀ andĀ over again, the Liberalsā EV mandate isĀ bad policy.
It forces Canadians to buy a product that is expensive. EVs cost more than ICE vehicles, even factoring in the government subsidies on which the EV industry has perpetually relied. Ottawaās $5,000-per-EV rebate program ran out of money six months ago and wasĀ discontinued, at which time EV numbers really began to fall off, which is why the Liberals stated desire to toss more tax dollars atĀ bringing it back.
And it forces us to buy a product that is poorly suited for Canada. EV batteries areĀ bad at holding a chargeĀ in the cold, and areĀ just generally less reliable.
We donāt have the infrastructure to support this EV transition. Our electrical grid is already strained, and doesnāt have the capacity to support millions of EVs being plugged in nightly, especially as the Trudeau/Carney Liberals progressively push us to replace reliable energy sources, like oil and natural gas, with unreliable ārenewables.ā
On top of all that, where do they think weāre going to get all of these glorified golf carts theyāre trying to force on the Canadian public? Even with theĀ estimatedĀ $52 billion that the Trudeau and Ford governments have thrown at the industry to subsidize the manufacture of EVs in Canada, we donāt make anywhere near enough EVs to support a full-transition.
Thatās likely whyĀ left-leaning outletsĀ have started calling on Mark Carney to lift the tariff on Chinese EVs. Taking advantage of EV mandates might be smart business for China ā flood the markets of gullible nations with EVs which are cheaper than what domestic manufacturers can produce, and then jack up the price once the mandates are fully implemented and they have no competition from either traditional vehicles or other EV companies.
But us going along with that scheme is the definition of bad business. Which is probably why our automakers haveĀ startedĀ toĀ admitĀ that the mandates are unrealistic and call for them to be repealed.
Tuesdayās vote went the wrong way for Canadians, but kudos to the Conservatives for bringing this motion forward in the first place. I onlyĀ wishĀ they had startedĀ talking about thisĀ sooner. A national campaign would have been the perfect time to call the countryās attention to a policy which people are only vaguely aware of and which, if enacted, will make all of our lives harder and more expensive.
But thereās no time like the present. The more Canadians hear about these EV mandates, the more they hate them. If we make enough noise about this, we might just be able to change course and avert disaster.
Hereās hoping.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
-
Addictions1 day ago
Why B.C.ās new witnessed dosing guidelines are built to fail
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days ago
Canadaās New Border Bill Spies On You, Not The Bad Guys
-
Business1 day ago
Carney Liberals quietly award Pfizer, Moderna nearly $400 million for new COVID shot contracts
-
Energy2 days ago
CNNās Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trumpās Energy Agenda
-
Opinion1 day ago
Charity Campaigns vs. Charity Donations
-
Business1 day ago
Mark Carneyās Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada
-
Opinion1 day ago
Preston Manning: Three Wise Men from the East, Again
-
COVID-191 day ago
Trump DOJ dismisses charges against doctor who issued fake COVID passports