Canada should not want to lead the world on climate change policy

Some commentators in the media want the the federal Conservatives to take a leadership position on climate, and by extension make Canada a world leader on the journey to the low-carbon uplands of the future. This would be a mistake for three reasons.

First, unlike other areas such as trade, defence or central banking, where diplomats aim for realistic solutions to identifiable problems, in the global climate policy world one’s bona fides are not established by actions but by willingness to recite the words of an increasingly absurd creed. Take, for example, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres’ fanatical rhetoric about the “global boiling crisis” and his call for a “death knell” for fossil fuels “before they destroy our planet.” In that world no credit is given for actually reducing emissions unless you first declare that climate change is an existential crisis, that we are (again, to quote Guterres) at the “tip of a tipping point” of “climate breakdown” and that “humanity has become a weapon of mass extinction.” Any attempt to speak sensibly on the issue is condemned as denialism, whereas any amount of hypocrisy from jet-setting politicians, global bureaucrats and celebrities is readily forgiven as long as they parrot the deranged climate crisis lingo.

The opposite is also true. Unwillingness to state absurdities means actual accomplishments count for nothing. Compare President Donald Trump, who pulled out of the Paris treaty and disparaged climate change as unimportant, to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who embraced climate emergency rhetoric and dispatched ever-larger Canadian delegations to the annual greenhouse gabfests. In the climate policy world, that made Canada a hero and the United States a villain. Meanwhile, thanks in part to expansion of natural gas supplies under the Trump administration, from 2015 to 2019 U.S. energy-based CO2 emissions fell by 3 per cent even as primary energy consumption grew by 3 per cent. In Canada over the same period, CO2 emissions fell only 1 per cent despite energy consumption not increasing at all. But for the purpose of naming heroes and villains, no one cared about the outcome, only the verbiage. Likewise, climate zealots will not credit Conservatives for anything they achieve on the climate file unless they are first willing to repeat untrue alarmist nonsense, and probably not even then.

On climate change, Conservatives should resolve to speak sensibly and use mainstream science and economic analysis, but that means rejecting climate crisis rhetoric and costly “net zero” aspirations. Which leads to the second problem—climate advocates love to talk about “solutions” but their track record is 40 years of costly failure and massive waste. Here again leadership status is tied to one’s willingness to dump ever-larger amounts of taxpayer money into impractical schemes loaded with all the fashionable buzzwords. The story is always the same. We need to hurry and embrace this exciting economic opportunity, which for some reason the private sector won’t touch.

There are genuine benefits to pursuing practical sensible improvements in the way we make and use fossil fuels. But the current and foreseeable state of energy technology means CO2 mitigation steps will be smaller and much slower than was the case for other energy side-effects such as acid rain and particulates. It has nothing to do with lack of “political will;” it’s an unavoidable consequence of the underlying science, engineering and economics. In this context, leadership means being willing sometimes to do nothing when all the available options yield negative net benefits.

That leads to the third problem—opportunity cost. Aspiring to “climate leadership” means not fixing any of the pressing economic problems we currently face. Climate policy over the past four decades has proven to be very expensive, economically damaging and environmentally futile. The migration of energy-intensive industry to China and India is a very real phenomenon and more than offsets the tiny emission-reduction measures Canada and other western countries pursued under the Kyoto Protocol.

The next government should start by creating a new super-ministry of Energy, Resources and Climate where long-term thinking and planning can occur in a collaborative setting, not the current one where climate policy is positioned at odds with—and antagonistic towards—everything else. The environment ministry can then return its focus to air and water pollution management, species and habitat conservation, meteorological services and other traditional environmental functions. The climate team should prepare another national assessment but this time provide much more historical data to help Canadians understand long-term observed patterns of temperature and precipitation rather than focusing so much on model simulations of the distant future under implausible emission scenarios.

The government should also move to extinguish “climate liability,” a legal hook on which dozens of costly nuisance lawsuits are proliferating here and elsewhere. Canada should also use its influence in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reverse the mission creep, clean out the policy advocacy crowd and get the focus back on core scientific assessments. And we should lead a push to move the annual “COPs”—Conferences of the Parties to the Rio treaty—to an online format, an initiative that would ground enough jumbo jets each year to delay the melting of the ice caps at least a century.

Finally, the new Ministry of Energy, Resources and Climate should work with the provinces to find one region or municipality willing to be a demonstration project on the feasibility of relying only on renewables for electricity. We keep hearing from enthusiasts that wind and solar are the cheapest and best options, while critics point to their intermittency and hidden costs. Surely there must be one town in Canada where the councillors, fresh from declaring a climate crisis and buying electric buses, would welcome the chance to, as it were, show leadership. We could fit them out with all the windmills and solar panels they want, then disconnect them from the grid and see how it goes. And if upon further reflection no one is willing to try it, that would also be useful information.

In the meantime, the federal Conservatives should aim merely to do some sensible things that yield tangible improvements on greenhouse gas emissions without wrecking the economy. Maybe one day that will be seen as real leadership.

Author:

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

Related Topics:#CanadaEconomy #CanadaEnergy #FraserInstitute #RossMcKitrick CanadaEnvironment ClimateChangePolicy feature

Up Next

Barron Trump Shut Out by Bank Amid Cancel Culture Accusations

Don't Miss

Free Money? What a UBI Would Really Do to People … and the National Debt

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Investigating Biden’s last minute pardons

Business / 5 hours ago

Five key issues—besides Trump’s tariffs—the Carney government should tackle

conflict / 5 hours ago

Inspired by Ukraine, Armed by the U.S., Reinvented by Tech: Taiwan’s New Way of War

Business

Five key issues—besides Trump’s tariffs—the Carney government should tackle

Published on May 14, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

On Tuesday in Ottawa, Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled his new cabinet, consisting of 28 ministers and 10 secretaries of state. They have their work cut out for them. In addition to President Trump’s trade war, the Carney government must tackle several other critical issues that have persisted since long before Trump was re-elected.

First and foremost, the Carney government should address stagnant living standards for Canadians. From the beginning of 2016 to the end of 2024, per-person GDP—a broad measure of living standards—grew by only 2.5 per cent in Canada compared to 18.7 per cent in the United States (all figures adjusted for inflation). While U.S. tariffs threaten to further reduce living standards in Canada, the marked decline began almost a decade ago.

There’s a similar gloomy story in worker incomes as Canadians continue to fall further behind their American counterparts. According to the latest data, median employment earnings (in Canadian dollars) in all 10 provinces ranked lower than in every U.S. state in 2022—meaning Americans in low-earning states such as Mississippi ($42,430), Louisiana ($43,318) and Alabama ($43,982) typically earned higher incomes than Canadians in the highest-earning province of Alberta ($38,969).

Why is this happening?

Part of the problem is the state of federal finances. Even Prime Minister Carney has criticized the Trudeau government’s approach to spending increases and debt accumulation, which diverts taxpayer dollars away from programs and towards debt interest payments, and burdens younger generations with higher taxes in the future. But unfortunately, according to Carney’s election platform, his government plans to borrow $93.4 billion more over the next four years compared to the Trudeau government’s last spending plan. The prime minister and his new cabinet should rethink this approach before tabling their first budget.

The Carney government should also cut taxes. Canadians in every province face higher combined (federal and provincial) personal income tax (PIT) rates than Americans in virtually every U.S. state across a variety of income levels. Canada’s PIT rates are similarly uncompetitive compared to other advanced countries. High taxes impose a burden on families, but they also make it harder for Canada to attract and retain high-skilled workers (e.g. doctors, engineers), entrepreneurs and investment, which drives economic growth and prosperity.

Finally, the Carney government should meaningfully address Canada’s housing affordability crisis. Housing costs have risen dramatically due to a significant gap between the demand for houses and the supply of housing units. In 2024, construction began on 245,367 new housing units nationwide while the population grew by 951,717 people due in part to one of the highest levels of immigration in Canadian history. This problem has been growing for decades—housing starts per year have remained stuck at essentially the same level they were in the 1970s while annual population growth has more than tripled. If policymakers want to help lower housing costs, they must reduce the imbalance between population growth and housing starts.

For the federal government, that means aligning immigration targets more closely to housing supply and rethinking policies that increase housing demand such as homebuyer tax credits and First Home Savings Accounts. Meanwhile, provincial and local governments should reduce red tape and construction costs to increase supply.

The Carney government has its work cut out for it. Besides U.S. tariffs, Canadians face several critical issues, which have persisted long before Trump was re-elected, and will continue unless something changes.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Alberta’s oil bankrolls Canada’s public services

Published on May 12, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Perry Kinkaide and Bill Jones

It’s time Canadians admitted Alberta’s oilpatch pays the bills. Other provinces just cash the cheques

When Canadians grumble about Alberta’s energy ambitions—labelling the province greedy for wanting to pump more oil—few stop to ask how much
money from each barrel ends up owing to them?

The irony is staggering. The very provinces rallying for green purity are cashing cheques underwritten not just by Alberta, but indirectly by the United States, which purchases more than 95 per cent of Alberta’s oil and gas, paid in U.S. dollars.

That revenue doesn’t stop at the Rockies. It flows straight to Ottawa, funding equalization programs (which redistribute federal tax revenue to help less wealthy provinces), national infrastructure and federal services that benefit the rest of the country.

This isn’t political rhetoric. It’s economic fact. Before the Leduc oil discovery in 1947, Alberta received about $3 to $5 billion (in today’s dollars) in federal support. Since then, it has paid back more than $500 billion. A $5-billion investment that returned 100 times more is the kind of deal that would send Bay Street into a frenzy.

Alberta’s oilpatch includes a massive industry of energy companies, refineries and pipeline networks that produce and export oil and gas, mostly to the U.S. Each barrel of oil generates roughly $14 in federal revenue through corporate taxes, personal income taxes, GST and additional fiscal capacity that boosts equalization transfers. Multiply that by more than 3.7 million barrels of oil (plus 8.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas) exported daily, and it’s clear Alberta underwrites much of the country’s prosperity.

Yet many Canadians seem unwilling to acknowledge where their prosperity comes from. There’s a growing disconnect between how goods are consumed and how they’re produced. People forget that gasoline comes from oil wells, electricity from power plants and phones from mining. Urban slogans like “Ban Fossil Fuels” rarely engage with the infrastructure and fiscal reality that keeps the country running.

Take Prince Edward Island, for example. From 1957 to 2023, it received $19.8 billion in equalization payments and contributed just $2 billion in taxes—a net gain of $17.8 billion.

Quebec tells a similar story. In 2023 alone, it received more than $14 billion in equalization payments, while continuing to run balanced or surplus budgets. From 1961 to 2023, Quebec received more than $200 billion in equalization payments, much of it funded by revenue from Alberta’s oil industry..

To be clear, not all federal transfers are equalization. Provinces also receive funding through national programs such as the Canada Health Transfer and
Canada Social Transfer. But equalization is the one most directly tied to the relative strength of provincial economies, and Alberta’s wealth has long driven that system.

By contrast to the have-not provinces, Alberta’s contribution has been extraordinary—an estimated 11.6 per cent annualized return on the federal
support it once received. Each Canadian receives about $485 per year from Alberta-generated oil revenues alone. Alberta is not the problem—it’s the
foundation of a prosperous Canada.

Still, when Alberta questions equalization or federal energy policy, critics cry foul. Premier Danielle Smith is not wrong to challenge a system in which the province footing the bill is the one most often criticized.

Yes, the oilpatch has flaws. Climate change is real. And many oil profits flow to shareholders abroad. But dismantling Alberta’s oil industry tomorrow wouldn’t stop climate change—it would only unravel the fiscal framework that sustains Canada.

The future must balance ambition with reality. Cleaner energy is essential, but not at the expense of biting the hand that feeds us.

And here’s the kicker: Donald Trump has long claimed the U.S. doesn’t need Canada’s products and therefore subsidizes Canada. Many Canadians scoffed.

But look at the flow of U.S. dollars into Alberta’s oilpatch—dollars that then bankroll Canada’s federal budget—and maybe, for once, he has a point.
It’s time to stop denying where Canada’s wealth comes from. Alberta isn’t the problem. It’s central to the country’s prosperity and unity.

Dr. Perry Kinkaide is a visionary leader and change agent. Since retiring in 2001, he has served as an advisor and director for various organizations and founded the Alberta Council of Technologies Society in 2005. Previously, he held leadership roles at KPMG Consulting and the Alberta Government. He holds a BA from Colgate University and an MSc and PhD in Brain Research from the University of Alberta.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.