Connect with us

Business

Canadians should understand costs of Ottawa’s Emissions Reduction Plan

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

On its first day in office, the Trump administration withdrew from the Paris climate agreement and began a regulation effort aimed largely at the energy sector. Meanwhile, the Trudeau government wants to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 to satisfy its commitment to the Paris agreement that Trudeau signed back in 2016.

But far from “building a strong economy” and making Canada “more competitive,” as the government  claims, its Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) will hurt Canada’s already struggling economy while failing to meet its own emission reduction targets.

In essence, the ERP has two components. The first one, and probably the most well-known to Canadians, is the carbon tax, which places a cost on fossil fuel use based on the amount of GHG emissions produced. The tax increased to $80 per tonne on April 1, 2024 and is scheduled to reach $170 per tonne by 2030.

The second—and least discussed—ERP component is the Trudeau government’s cascade of regulatory measures and mandates including requirements for fuel producers and importers to reduce the carbon content of their fuels, and electric vehicle mandates that require all new (light-duty) vehicles sold to be zero-emission by 2035 (with interim targets of 20 per cent by 2026 and 60 per cent by 2030). Additional measures include restrictions on fertilizer use in agriculture, emissions caps in the oil and gas industry, energy efficiency mandates for buildings, and more. With more regulations come increased costs to producers, and these costs are largely passed to consumers in the form of higher prices.

But aside from vague and unsupported claims that the ERP will strengthen the economy, the government hasn’t provided a detailed assessment of the plan’s costs and benefits. In other words, while the government has outlined how it plans to reduce emissions—carbon taxes, regulations, mandates—we still don’t know how much these policies will cost or how they will benefit Canadians.

But a recent study published by the Fraser Institute evaluate the economic and environmental impacts of the ERP.

According to the study’s projections, the carbon tax alone will cost $1,302 per worker annually by 2030, reduce employment by an estimated 57,000 jobs, and shrink the Canadian economy by 1.5 per cent compared to a scenario without the ERP. Considering that the economy grew just by 1.3 per cent in 2023, this cost is significant.

After you account for the ERP’s additional regulatory measures and mandates, the economic cost rises. By 2030, the full implementation of the ERP—which includes the carbon tax, regulatory measures and mandates—will shrink the economy by 6.2 per cent, cost Canadian workers $6,700 annually, and reduce employment by 164,000 jobs. Alberta, of course, will bear a large portion of these costs.

To make matters worse, the ERP will still fall short of the Trudeau government’s 2030 emission-reduction target. According to the study, the ERP will reduce Canada’s GHG emissions by about 26.5 per cent between 2019 and 2030, achieving only approximately 57 per cent of the government’s target. In short, Trudeau’s climate plan won’t deliver the economic growth or environmental impact the government anticipates.

Canadians should understand the costs of the Trudeau government’s Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP), which won’t achieve its targets while making Canadians worse-off. Any government should reject climate targets and policies where Canadians are merely an afterthought.

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

Business

Trump Reportedly Shuts Off Flow Of Taxpayer Dollars Into World Trade Organization

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Thomas English

The Trump administration has reportedly suspended financial contributions to the World Trade Organization (WTO) as of Thursday.

The decision comes as part of a broader shift by President Donald Trump to distance the U.S. from international institutions perceived to undermine American sovereignty or misallocate taxpayer dollars. U.S. funding for both 2024 and 2025 has been halted, amounting to roughly 11% of the WTO’s annual operating budget, with the organization’s total 2024 budget amounting to roughly $232 million, according to Reuters.

“Why is it that China, for decades, and with a population much bigger than ours, is paying a tiny fraction of [dollars] to The World Health Organization, The United Nations and, worst of all, The World Trade Organization, where they are considered a so-called ‘developing country’ and are therefore given massive advantages over The United States, and everyone else?” Trump wrote in May 2020.

The president has long criticized the WTO for what he sees as judicial overreach and systemic bias against the U.S. in trade disputes. Trump previously paralyzed the organization’s top appeals body in 2019 by blocking judicial appointments, rendering the WTO’s core dispute resolution mechanism largely inoperative.

But a major sticking point continues to be China’s continued classification as a “developing country” at the WTO — a designation that entitles Beijing to a host of special trade and financial privileges. Despite being the world’s second-largest economy, China receives extended compliance timelines, reduced dues and billions in World Bank loans usually reserved for poorer nations.

The Wilson Center, an international affairs-oriented think tank, previously slammed the status as an outdated loophole benefitting an economic superpower at the expense of developed democracies. The Trump administration echoed this criticism behind closed doors during WTO budget meetings in early March, according to Reuters.

The U.S. is reportedly not withdrawing from the WTO outright, but the funding freeze is likely to trigger diplomatic and economic groaning. WTO rules allow for punitive measures against non-paying member states, though the body’s weakened legal apparatus may limit enforcement capacity.

Trump has already withdrawn from the World Health Organization, slashed funds to the United Nations and signaled a potential exit from other global bodies he deems “unfair” to U.S. interests.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Albertans have contributed $53.6 billion to the retirement of Canadians in other provinces

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Nathaniel Li

Albertans contributed $53.6 billion more to CPP then retirees in Alberta received from it from 1981 to 2022

Albertans’ net contribution to the Canada Pension Plan —meaning the amount Albertans paid into the program over and above what retirees in Alberta
received in CPP payments—was more than six times as much as any other province at $53.6 billion from 1981 to 2022, finds a new report published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Albertan workers have been helping to fund the retirement of Canadians from coast to coast for decades, and Canadians ought to know that without Alberta, the Canada Pension Plan would look much different,” said Tegan Hill, director of Alberta policy at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Understanding Alberta’s Role in National Programs, Including the Canada Pension Plan.

From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 per cent (on average) of the total CPP premiums paid—Canada’s compulsory, government- operated retirement pension plan—while retirees in the province received only 10.0 per cent of the payments. Alberta’s net contribution over that period was $53.6 billion.

Crucially, only residents in two provinces—Alberta and British Columbia—paid more into the CPP than retirees in those provinces received in benefits, and Alberta’s contribution was six times greater than BC’s.

The reason Albertans have paid such an outsized contribution to federal and national programs, including the CPP, in recent years is because of the province’s relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population.

As such, if Alberta withdrew from the CPP, Alberta workers could expect to receive the same retirement benefits but at a lower cost (i.e. lower payroll tax) than other Canadians, while the payroll tax would likely have to increase for the rest of the country (excluding Quebec) to maintain the same benefits.

“Given current demographic projections, immigration patterns, and Alberta’s long history of leading the provinces in economic growth, Albertan workers will likely continue to pay more into it than Albertan retirees get back from it,” Hill said.

Understanding Alberta’s Role in National Programs, Including the Canada Pension Plan

  • Understanding Alberta’s role in national income transfers and other important programs is crucial to informing the broader debate around Alberta’s possible withdrawal from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).
  • Due to Alberta’s relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans contribute significantly more to federal revenues than they receive back in federal spending.
  • From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 percent (on average) of the total CPP premiums paid while retirees in the province received only 10.0 percent of the payments. Albertans net contribution was $53.6 billion over the period—approximately six times greater than British Columbia’s net contribution (the only other net contributor).
  • Given current demographic projections, immigration patterns, and Alberta’s long history of leading the provinces in economic growth and income levels, Alberta’s central role in funding national programs is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
  • Due to Albertans’ disproportionate net contribution to the CPP, the current base CPP contribution rate would likely have to increase to remain sustainable if Alberta withdrew from the plan. Similarly, Alberta’s stand-alone rate would be lower than the current CPP rate.

 

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Nathaniel Li

Senior Economist, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X