Connect with us

2025 Federal Election

Don’t double-down on net zero again

Published

8 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

In the preamble to the Paris Agreement, world leaders loftily declared they would keep temperature rises “well below 2°C” and perhaps even under 1.5°C. That was never on the cards—it would have required the world’s economies to effectively come to a grinding halt.

The truth is that the “net zero” green agenda, based on massive subsidies and expensive legislation, will likely cost more than CAD$38 trillion per year across the century, making it utterly unattractive to voters in almost every nation on Earth.

When President Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement for the first time in 2017, then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was quick to claim the moral high ground, declaring that “we will continue to work with our domestic and international partners to drive progress on one of the greatest challenges we face as a world.”

Trudeau has now been swept from the stage. On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order that again begins the formal, twelve-month-long process of withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement.

It will be tempting for Canada to step anew into the void left by the United States. But if the goal is to make effective climate policy, whoever is Canada’s prime minister needs to avoid empty virtue signaling. It would be easy for Canada to declare again that it’ll form a “coalition of the willing” with Europe. The truth is that, just like last time, that approach would do next to nothing for the planet.

Climate summits have generated vast amounts of attention and breathless reporting giving the impression that they are crucial to the planet’s survival. Scratch the surface, and the results are far less impressive. In 2021, the world promised to phase-down coal. Since then, global coal consumption has only gone up. Virtually every summit has promised to cut emissions but they’ve increased almost every single year, and 2024 reached a new high.

Way before the Paris Agreement was inked, the Kyoto Protocol was once sold as a key part of the solution to global warming. Yet studies show it achieved virtually nothing for climate change.

In the preamble to the Paris Agreement, world leaders loftily declared they would keep temperature rises “well below 2°C” and perhaps even under 1.5°C. That was never on the cards—it would have required the world’s economies to effectively come to a grinding halt.

The truth is that the “net zero” green agenda, based on massive subsidies and expensive legislation, will likely cost more than CAD$38 trillion per year across the century, making it utterly unattractive to voters in almost every nation on Earth.

The awkward reality is that emissions from Canada, the EU, and other countries pursuing climate policies matter little in the 21st century. Canada likely only makes up about 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions. Add together Canada’s output with that of every single country of the rich-world OECD, and this only makes up about one-fifth of global emissions this century, using the United Nations’ ‘middle of the road’ forecast. The other four-fifths of emissions come mostly from China, India and Africa.

Even if wealthy countries like Canada impoverish themselves, the result is tiny — run the UN’s standard climate model with and without Canada going net-zero in 2050, and the difference is immeasurable even in 2100. Moreover, much of the production and emissions just move to the Global South—and even less is achieved.

One good example of this is the United Kingdom, which—like Prime Minister Trudeau once did—has leaned into climate policies, suggesting it would lead the efforts for strong climate agreements. British families are paying a heavy price for their government going farther than almost any other in pursuing the climate agenda: just the inflation-adjusted electricity price, weighted across households and industry, has tripled from 2003 to 2023, mostly because of climate policies. This need not have been so: the US electricity price has remained almost unchanged over the same period.

The effect on families is devastating. Had prices stayed at 2003 levels, an average family-of-four would now be spending CAD$3,380 on electricity—which includes indirect industry costs. Instead, it now pays $9,740 per year.

Rising electricity costs make investment less attractive: European businesses pay triple US electricity costs, and nearly two-thirds of European companies say energy prices are now a major impediment to investment.

The Paris Treaty approach is fundamentally flawed. Carbon emissions continue to grow because cheap, reliable power, mostly from fossil fuels, drives economic growth. Wealthy countries like Canada, the US, and European Union members have started to cut emissions—often by shifting production elsewhere—but the rest of the world remains focused on eradicating poverty.

Poor countries will rightly reject making carbon cuts unless there is a huge flow of “climate aid” from rich nations, and want trillions of US dollars per year. That won’t happen. The new US government will not pay, and the other rich countries cannot foot the bill alone.

Without these huge transfers of wealth, China, India and many other developing countries will disavow expensive climate policies, too. This potentially leaves a rag-tag group led by a few Western European progressive nations, which can scarcely afford their own policies and have no ability to pay off everyone else.

When the United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2017, Canada’s doubling down on the Paris Treaty sent the signal that it would be worthwhile spending hundreds of trillions of dollars to make no real difference to temperatures. We fool ourselves if we pretend that doing so for a second time will help the planet.

We need to realize that fixing climate change isn’t about sanctimonious summits, lofty speeches, and bluster. In coming weeks I’ll outline the case for efficient policies like innovation, adaptation and prosperity.

Bjørn Lomborg

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

2025 Federal Election

Allegations of ethical misconduct by the Prime Minister and Government of Canada during the current federal election campaign

Published on

Preston Manning's avatar Preston Manning

A letter to the Ethics Commissioner sent April 9th, 2025

On April 4, 2025, during the current federal election period, in which employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) report on all aspects of the election, the unelected Prime Minister, without any consultation with or authorization by parliament but apparently with the concurrence of the Minister of Heritage, promised an increase of $150 million in the budget of the CBC on top of its $1.38 billion budget for the current fiscal year.

The CBC consistently and for obvious reasons tends to share the ideological orientation of the governing Liberal Party and its political allies, and supports many of their policy positions. It tends to ignore or oppose those of the Conservative Official Opposition which proposes dismantling the CBC.

The unelected Liberal Prime Minister promising a $150 million bonus to the CBC in the middle of an election campaign would thus strike any objective observer as unethical, damaging to public confidence in our democratic institutions, and deserving of investigation and commentary by your office.

In particular, it is respectfully requested that you address the following questions:

1. Has the Prime Minister acted unethically by promising the state owned broadcasting corporation, sympathetic to the governing party, a $150 million increase in its budget, during a federal election campaign?

2. Is the promise of a $150 million increase in the budget of the CBC, during an election period in which the CBC is expected to give objective coverage to the campaign, in effect a defacto bribe and contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Conflict of Interest Code and Act?

In addition, on April 7, 2025, again during the current election period, the Prime Minister has announced that the federal government will distribute approximately $4 billion in carbon rebate payments directly to approximately 13 million Canadians, many of whom are eligible voters, and will do so prior to the election day of April 28.

This naturally raises the following questions which it is again respectfully requested that you address:

3. Has the Prime Minister and the federal government acted unethically by authorizing the distribution, prior to election day, of almost $4 billion in rebate payments to approximately 13 million Canadians, many of whom are voters, and doing so with the suspected intent of winning the support of those voters?

4. Is the promise and delivery, prior to election day, of almost $4 billion in rebate payments to approximately 13 million Canadians, many of whom are voters, in effect a defacto attempt to bribe those voters with their own money, and contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Conflict of Interest Code and Act?

To assist in the consideration of these allegations, suppose the UN were to ask Canada to supervise a national election in a third world country where democracy is frail and elections subject to abuse by those in authority. Suppose further that the unelected president of that country, during the election campaign period, endeavored to secure:

· The support of the state broadcasting corporation by promising it a huge increase in its budget, and,

· The support of millions of voters by ensuring that they received a generous personal payment from his government just prior to election day.

In such a situation, would not the Canadian monitoring authority be obliged to strongly censure such behaviors and report to the UN that such behavior calls into question the democratic legitimacy of the election subjected to such abuses?

If we as Canadians would consider such political behaviors anti-democratic and unacceptable if practiced in a foreign country, ought we not to come to the same conclusion even more quickly and certainly when they are regrettably practiced in our own?

Please respond to questions 1-4 above prior to April 25, 2025 and please ensure that your responses are made public prior to that date.

Thanking you for your service and your commitment to safeguarding public confidence in Canada’s democratic institutions and processes.

Your sincerely,

Preston Manning PC CC AOE

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

BREAKING from THE BUREAU: Pro-Beijing Group That Pushed Erin O’Toole’s Exit Warns Chinese Canadians to “Vote Carefully”

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

As polls tighten in Canada’s high-stakes federal election—one increasingly defined by reports of Chinese state interference—a controversial Toronto diaspora group tied to past efforts to topple former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole has resurfaced, decrying what it calls a disregard for favoured Chinese Canadian voices in candidate selection.

At a press conference in Markham yesterday, the Chinese Canadian Conservative Association (CCCA) accused both the Liberal and Conservative parties of bypassing diaspora input and “directly appointing candidates without consulting community groups or even party members.”

In what reads as a carefully coded message to the Chinese diaspora across Canada, Mandarin-language reports covering the event stated that the group “stressed at the media meeting that people should think rationally and vote carefully,” and urged “all Chinese people to actively participate and vote for the candidate they approve of—rather than the party.”

The CCCA’s latest press conference—surprising in both tone and timing—came just weeks after political pressure forced the resignation of Liberal MP Paul Chiang, following reports that he had allegedly threatened his Conservative opponent, Joseph Tay—now the party’s candidate in Don Valley North—and suggested to Chinese-language journalists that Tay could be handed over to the Toronto consulate for a bounty.

Chiang, who had been backed by Prime Minister Mark Carney, stepped down amid growing concern from international NGOs and an RCMP review.

One of the CCCA’s leading voices is a Markham city councillor who campaigned for Paul Chiang in 2021 against the Conservatives, and later sought the Conservative nomination in Markham against Joseph Tay. While the group claims to represent Conservative-aligned diaspora interests, public records and media coverage show that it backed Paul Chiang again in 2025 and is currently campaigning for Shaun Chen, the Liberal candidate in the adjacent Scarborough North riding.

The Toronto Sun reported today that new polling by Leger for Postmedia shows Mark Carney’s Liberals polling at 47 percent in the Greater Toronto Area—just three points ahead of Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives at 44 percent. In most Canadian elections, this densely populated region proves decisive in determining who forms government in Ottawa.

In a statement that appeared to subtly align with Beijing’s strategic messaging, the group warned voters:

“At today’s press conference, we called on all Canadian voters: please think rationally and vote carefully. Do not support parties or candidates that attempt to divide society, launch attacks or undermine important international relations, especially against countries such as India and China that have important global influence.”

In a 2024 review of foreign interference, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) warned that nomination contests in Canada remain highly vulnerable to manipulation by state-backed diaspora networks, particularly those run by Chinese and Indian diplomats.

The report found that these networks have “directed or influenced Canadian political candidates,” with efforts targeting riding-level nominations seen as a strategic entry point for foreign influence.

The Chinese Canadian Conservative Association first attracted national attention in the wake of the 2021 federal election, when it held a press conference blaming then-Conservative leader Erin O’Toole’s “anti-China rhetoric” for the party’s poor showing in ridings with large Chinese Canadian populations.

At that event, CCCA’s lead spokesperson—a York Region councillor and three-time former Conservative candidate—openly defended Beijing’s position on Taiwan and Canada’s diplomatic crisis over the “two Michaels,” claiming China’s detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor only occurred because “Canada started the war.”

The councillor also criticized Canada’s condemnation of China’s human rights abuses, saying such statements “alienate Chinese voters.”

The group’s views—repeatedly echoed in Chinese-language media outlets close to the PRC—resonate with talking points promoted by the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department, a political influence operation run by Beijing that seeks to mobilize ethnic Chinese communities abroad in support of Party objectives.

Shortly after denouncing O’Toole’s China policy, the CCCA publicly endorsed Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown to replace him—a candidate known for cultivating strong relationships with United Front-linked groups. Brown gave a speech in 2022 at an event co-organized by the Confederation of Toronto Chinese Canadian Organizations (CTCCO)—a group repeatedly cited in Canadian national security reporting for its alignment with PRC political messaging and its close working relationship with the Chinese consulate in Toronto.

CTCCO also maintains ties with Peter Yuen, a former Toronto Police Deputy Chief who was selected as Mark Carney’s Liberal candidate in the riding of Markham–Unionville. As first revealed by The Bureau, Yuen joined a 2015 Ontario delegation to Beijing to attend a massive military parade hosted by President Xi Jinping and the People’s Liberation Army, commemorating the CCP’s victory over Japan in the Second World War. The delegation included senior CTCCO leaders and Ontario political figures who, in 2017, helped advocate for the establishment of Nanjing Massacre Memorial Day and a monument in Toronto—a movement widely promoted by the Chinese consulate and supported by figures from CTCCO and the Chinese Freemasons of Toronto, both of which have been cited in United Front reporting.

Yuen also performed in 2017 at diaspora events affiliated with the United Front Work Department, standing beside CTCCO leader Wei Cheng Yi while singing a patriotic song about his dedication to China—as the Chinese Consul General looked on.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Trending

X