Connect with us

Business

Carbon tariff proposal carries risks and consequences for Canada

Published

5 months ago

8 minute read

A carbon tariff—a policy that would impose fees on imported goods based on their carbon emissions—is built on the idea that Canada should penalize foreign producers for not adhering to stringent climate policies. While this may sound like a strong stance on climate action, the reality is that such a policy carries major risks for Canada’s economy. As a resource-rich nation that exports carbon-intensive products like oil, natural gas, and minerals, Canada stands to lose more than it gains from this approach.

Mark Carney, who is competing for the federal Liberal leadership, has made the introduction of a carbon tariff the number two promise in his 16-point industrial competitiveness strategy.

Key problems with a carbon tariff in Canada

1. Retaliation from other countries

A carbon tariff (also known as a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or CBAM) would not go unchallenged by Canada’s trading partners. Major exporters to Canada, such as the United States and China, are unlikely to accept this policy without a response. They could retaliate by imposing tariffs on Canadian goods, making it significantly harder for Canadian businesses to compete in international markets. This could be particularly damaging for key industries like oil and gas, mining, and manufacturing, which rely heavily on exports. A trade war over carbon tariffs could weaken the Canadian economy and lead to job losses across multiple sectors.

2. Canada is an exporting nation

Canada exports far more carbon-intensive goods than it imports. By introducing a carbon tariff on foreign products, Canada is effectively inviting other countries to do the same, targeting Canadian exports with similar carbon-based tariffs. This would make Canadian goods more expensive on the global market, reducing demand for them and harming the very industries that drive Canada’s economy. The result? A weaker economy, job losses, and higher costs for businesses that depend on trade.

3. Big business paying for consumers’ emissions

The Carney plan also proposes to make large businesses bear the cost of helping individual households lower their carbon emissions. While this may sound like a fair approach, in practice, these costs will be passed down to consumers. Businesses will need to offset these additional expenses, leading to higher prices on everyday goods and services. In the end, it is Canadian families who will bear the financial burden, facing increased living costs, higher taxes, and fewer job opportunities as businesses struggle to absorb the additional costs.

CBAM in context: implications for Canada

Has this been tried elsewhere?

The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is currently in effect. It entered its transitional phase on October 1, 2023, during which importers of certain carbon-intensive goods are required to report the embedded emissions of their imports without incurring financial liabilities. This phase is set to last until the end of 2025. The definitive regime, where importers will need to purchase CBAM certificates corresponding to the carbon emissions of their imported goods, is scheduled to begin in 2026.

However, Europe is not Canada’s largest trading partner—that is the United States. With Donald Trump back in the presidency, there is no chance that the U.S. will implement a CBAM of its own. If Canada were to move forward with a unilateral carbon tariff, if anyone prepared to argue that it would not face significant economic punishment from the Trump White House?

Moreover, with 91 percent of the world having no carbon tariff, other countries would impose countermeasures, leaving Canadian businesses struggling to remain competitive.

This raises the question: is the push for a carbon tariff in Canada more about political positioning than economic pragmatism? Given the unlikelihood of U.S. participation, a Canadian CBAM would amount to a unilateral economic sacrifice. While this may appeal to certain voter bases, the reality is that such a policy would carry immense risks without global coordination. Policymakers should carefully consider whether pursuing this path makes sense in a world where Canada’s largest trading partner is unlikely to follow suit.

Where do others stand?

Chrystia Freeland, the former finance minister and current Liberal leadership candidate, has not explicitly detailed her stance on carbon tariffs. However, she has emphasized the importance of defending Canadian interests against U.S. economic nationalism, particularly in response to potential tariffs from the U.S.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is a vocal critic of carbon pricing mechanisms, including carbon taxes, and has pledged to repeal such measures if elected.

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, has consistently advocated for strong environmental policies, including carbon pricing, but has not specifically addressed carbon tariffs in recent statements.

What it means to consumers

Here are some relatable examples of carbon-intensive exports and imports for the average Canadian:

Carbon-Intensive Exports from Canada

Oil & Gas – Canada is a major exporter of crude oil, natural gas, and refined petroleum products, particularly to the U.S. If a carbon tariff were applied to these products, it could make them more expensive and less competitive in global markets, affecting jobs in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland.

Lumber & Pulp – Canada is a leading exporter of forestry products, including lumber, paper, and pulp, which require significant energy and emissions to produce. If tariffs are imposed on Canadian wood products, the forestry sector could suffer.

Agricultural Products – Fertilizers, beef, and grain production all have significant carbon footprints. If trading partners retaliate with tariffs, Canadian farmers may struggle to compete in global markets.

Carbon-Intensive Imports into Canada

Steel & Aluminum – Canada imports a large amount of steel, primarily from China and the U.S., which is essential for industries like construction, manufacturing, and automotive production. A carbon tariff would drive up costs for these industries.

Consumer Goods from China – Many everyday products (electronics, clothing, appliances) are imported from countries with high-carbon electricity grids. A carbon tariff could increase the price of these goods for Canadian consumers.

Food Products – Imported produce, meats, and packaged foods from countries like the U.S. and Mexico often have high transportation-related emissions. A carbon tariff could increase grocery bills.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Business / 6 hours ago

RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate

International / 6 hours ago

RFK Jr. tells Tucker how Big Pharma uses ‘perverse incentives’ to get vaccines approved

Censorship Industrial Complex / 7 hours ago

Global media alliance colluded with foreign nations to crush free speech in America: House report

Business

RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate

Published on July 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

They got rid of all the older children essentially and just had younger children who were too young to be diagnosed and they stratified that, stratified the data

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found newborn babies who received the Hepatitis B vaccine had 1,135-percent higher autism rates than those who did not or received it later in life, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Tucker Carlson recently. However, the CDC practiced “trickery” in its studies on autism so as not to implicate vaccines, Kennedy said.

RFK Jr., who is the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, said the CDC buried the results by manipulating the data. Kennedy has pledged to find the causes of autism, with a particular focus on the role vaccines may play in the rise in rates in the past decades.

The Hepatitis B shot is required by nearly every state in the U.S. for children to attend school, day care, or both. The CDC recommends the jab for all babies at birth, regardless of whether their mother has Hep B, which is easily diagnosable and commonly spread through sexual activity, piercings, and tattoos.

“They kept the study secret and then they manipulated it through five different iterations to try to bury the link and we know how they did it – they got rid of all the older children essentially and just had younger children who were too young to be diagnosed and they stratified that, stratified the data,” Kennedy told Carlson for an episode of the commentator’s podcast. “And they did a lot of other tricks and all of those studies were the subject of those kind of that kind of trickery.”

But now, Kennedy said, the CDC will be conducting real and honest scientific research that follows the highest standards of evidence.

“We’re going to do real science,” Kennedy said. “We’re going to make the databases public for the first time.”

He said the CDC will be compiling records from variety of sources to allow researchers to do better studies on vaccines.

“We’re going to make this data available for independent scientists so everybody can look at it,” the HHS secretary said.

Health and Human Services also said it has put out grant requests for scientists who want to study the issue further.

Carlson asked if the answers would “differ from status quo kind of thinking.”

“I think they will,” Kennedy said. He continued on to say that people “need to stop trusting the experts.”

“We were told at the beginning of COVID ‘don’t look at any data yourself, don’t do any investigation yourself, just trust the experts,”‘ he said.

In a democracy, Kennedy said, we have the “obligation” to “do our own research.”

“That’s the way it should be done,” Kennedy said.

He also reiterated that HHS will return to “gold standard science” and publish the results so everyone can review them.

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk slams Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ calls for new political party

Published on July 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Robert Jones

The Tesla CEO warned that Trump’s $5 trillion plan erases DOGE’s cost-cutting gains, while threatening to unseat lawmakers who vote for it.

Elon Musk has reignited his feud with President Donald Trump by denouncing his “Big Beautiful Bill” in a string of social media posts, warning that it would add $5 trillion to the national debt.

“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it,” Musk exclaimed in an X post last month.

Musk renewed his criticism Monday after weeks of public silence, shaming lawmakers who support it while vowing to unseat Republicans who vote for it.

“They’ll lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,” he posted on X, while adding that they “should hang their heads in shame.”

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO also threatened to publish images branding those lawmakers as “liars.”

 

Trump responded on Truth Social by accusing Musk of hypocrisy. “He may get more subsidy than any human being in history,” the president wrote. “Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa… BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!”

Musk responded by saying that even subsidies to his own companies should be cut.

Before and after the 2024 presidential election, Musk spoke out about government subsidies, including ones for electric vehicles, stating that Tesla would benefit if they were eliminated.

This latest exchange marks a new escalation in the long-running and often unpredictable relationship between the two figures. Musk contributed more than $250 million to Trump’s reelection campaign and was later appointed to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which oversaw the termination of more than 120,000 federal employees.

Musk has argued that Trump’s new bill wipes out DOGE’s savings and reveals a deeper structural problem. “We live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!” he wrote, arguing that the legislation should be knows as the “DEBT SLAVERY bill” before calling for a new political party “that actually cares about the people.”

In June, Musk deleted several inflammatory posts about the president, including one claiming that Trump was implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein files. He later acknowledged some of his comments “went too far.” Trump, in response, said the apology was “very nice.”

With the bill still under Senate review, the dispute underscores growing pressure on Trump from fiscal hardliners and tech-aligned conservatives – some of whom helped deliver his return to power. Cracks in the coalition may spell longer term problems for the Make America Great Again movement.

Continue Reading

Trending

X