Since 2000, the United States has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other country in the world. U.S. emissions are down 21 percent, while the rest of the world has increased its emissions by 47 percent. Clearly, America “showing leadership” reducing carbon dioxide emissions is leading to nothing other than the rest of the world free license to jack up their own emissions.
The Biden administration has just signed an economic suicide pact that would require the United States and six other Western democracies to shut down its coal power plants by 2035, while China, India and the rest of the world currently have more than 1,000 new coal power plants in the planning or construction phase. The no-coal pact allows all nations but the Suicidal Seven to continue using as much affordable coal power as they like.
Climate activists often point to China as a climate role model, noting that China manufactures more wind and solar power equipment than any other nation. China, however, isn’t stupid enough to use much of that equipment. Realizing that conventional energy – and especially coal power – is more affordable and reliable than wind and solar power, China manufactures wind and solar equipment, sells the equipment to America and Western Europe, and then powers its own economy primarily with coal power.
In America, government intervention has already caused the shutdown of many coal power plants and the construction of expensive wind and solar projects. In more than half the states, renewable power mandates require a certain percentage of electricity in the state to come from wind or solar. Federal laws and regulations punish coal power at nearly every step of coal mining and utilization. Massive subsidies for wind and solar allow wind and solar providers to charge substantially reduced prices for their product at taxpayers’ expense.
Even with government tipping the scale so heavily in favor of wind and solar power, the so-called green transition is coming with an enormous price tag. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there was a 21 percent increase in wind and solar power since Joe Biden took office in January 2021 through the end of 2023. At the same time, electricity prices also rose by 21 percent. Prior to Biden taking office, the long-term electricity price trend was an increase of approximately 1 percent per year. The green transition has increased the pace of electricity price inflation by 700 percent. And that doesn’t account for all the wind and solar subsidies that are hidden in our tax bills.
There is little reason to believe we are on the verge of a climate crisis. A good resource documenting this good news is ClimateRealism.com. Yet, even if a climate crisis were imminent, unilateral coal disarmament is a foolish way for America to approach carbon dioxide emissions.
Since 2000, the United States has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other country in the world. U.S. emissions are down 21 percent, while the rest of the world has increased its emissions by 47 percent. Clearly, America “showing leadership” reducing carbon dioxide emissions is leading to nothing other than the rest of the world free license to jack up their own emissions. Even if the United States and the rest of the Suicidal Seven could somehow eliminate all of their emissions, it would have little impact on the global trend.
Ultimately, Biden’s pact to eliminate American coal use will further ramp up inflation. After all, energy is an important cost component in almost every product bought and sold in the economy. In addition to the inflation impact, Biden’s pact will force American businesses into a major competitive disadvantage versus businesses in China, India, and the rest of the world, which will be paying substantially lower energy costs than American businesses.
Under Biden’s plan, we will end up sinking vast economic resources into eliminating coal power and as much carbon dioxide as possible from the American economy. Even then, we will still be looking at global emissions continuing to rise. At that point, Biden’s plan is for America to assume the lion’s share of global “climate reparations” and financial bribes to induce China, India, and the rest of the world to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. After sabotaging our own economy with higher energy prices, we will literally borrow money from China in order to then bribe China to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions.
It would be hard to think of a crazier domestic energy policy.
James Taylor ([email protected]) is president of The Heartland Institute.
Originally published by The Center Square. Republished with permission.
For more on the U.S. electric power system, click here.
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.
Cutting the food tax is one clear way to ease the cost-of-living crisis for Canadians
About a year ago, Canada experimented with something rare in federal policymaking: a temporary GST holiday on prepared foods.
It was short-lived and poorly communicated, yet Canadians noticed it immediately. One of the most unavoidable expenses in daily life—food—became marginally less costly.
Families felt a modest but genuine reprieve. Restaurants saw a bump in customer traffic. For a brief moment, Canadians experienced what it feels like when government steps back from taxing something as basic as eating.
Then the tax returned with opportunistic pricing, restoring a policy that quietly but reliably makes the cost of living more expensive for everyone.
In many ways, the temporary GST cut was worse than doing nothing. It opened the door for industry to adjust prices upward while consumers were distracted by the tax relief. That dynamic helped push our food inflation rate from minus 0.6 per cent in January to almost four per cent later in the year. By tinkering with taxes rather than addressing the structural flaws in the system, policymakers unintentionally fuelled volatility. Instead of experimenting with temporary fixes, it is time to confront the obvious: Canada should stop taxing food altogether.
Start with grocery stores. Many Canadians believe food is not taxed at retail, but that assumption is wrong. While “basic groceries” are zero-rated, a vast range of everyday food products are taxed, and Canadians now pay over a billion dollars a year in GST/HST on food purchased in grocery stores.
That amount is rising steadily, not because Canadians are buying more treats, but because shrinkflation is quietly pulling more products into taxable categories. A box of granola bars with six bars is tax-exempt, but when manufacturers quietly reduce the box to five bars, it becomes taxable. The product hasn’t changed. The nutritional profile hasn’t changed. Only the packaging has changed, yet the tax flips on.
This pattern now permeates the grocery aisle. A 650-gram bag of chips shrinks to 580 grams and becomes taxable. Muffins once sold in six-packs are reformatted into three-packs or individually wrapped portions, instantly becoming taxable single-serve items. Yogurt, traditionally sold in large tax-exempt tubs, increasingly appears in smaller 100-gram units that meet the definition of taxable snacks. Crackers, cookies, trail mixes and cereals have all seen slight weight reductions that push them past GST thresholds created decades ago. Inflation raises food prices; Canada’s outdated tax code amplifies those increases.
At the same time, grocery inflation remains elevated. Prices are rising at 3.4 per cent, nearly double the overall inflation rate. At a moment when food costs are climbing faster than almost everything else, continuing to tax food—whether on the shelf or in restaurants—makes even less economic sense.
The inconsistencies extend further. A steak purchased at the grocery store carries no tax, yet a breakfast wrap made from virtually the same inputs is taxed at five per cent GST plus applicable HST. The nutritional function is not different. The economic function is not different. But the tax treatment is entirely arbitrary, rooted in outdated distinctions that no longer reflect how Canadians live or work.
Lower-income households disproportionately bear the cost. They spend 6.2 per cent of their income eating outside the home, compared with 3.4 per cent for the highest-income households. When government taxes prepared food, it effectively imposes a higher burden on those often juggling two or three jobs with limited time to cook.
But this is not only about the poorest households. Every Canadian pays more because the tax embeds itself in the price of convenience, time and the realities of modern living.
And there is an overlooked economic dimension: restaurants are one of the most effective tools we have for stimulating community-level economic activity. When people dine out, they don’t just buy food. They participate in the economy. They support jobs for young and lower-income workers. They activate foot traffic in commercial areas. They drive spending in adjacent sectors such as transportation, retail, entertainment and tourism.
A healthy restaurant sector is a signal of economic confidence; it is often the first place consumers re-engage when they feel financially secure. Taxing prepared food, therefore, is not simply a tax on convenience—it is a tax on economic participation.
Restaurants Canada has been calling for the permanent removal of GST/HST on all food, and they are right. Eliminating the tax would generate $5.4 billion in consumer savings annually, create more than 64,000 foodservice jobs, add over 15,000 jobs in related sectors and support the opening of more than 2,600 new restaurants across the country. No other affordability measure available to the federal government delivers this combination of economic stimulus and direct relief.
And Canadians overwhelmingly agree. Eighty-four per cent believe food should not be taxed, regardless of where it is purchased. In a polarized political climate, a consensus of that magnitude is rare.
Ending the GST/HST on all food will not solve every affordability issue but it is one of the simplest, fairest and most effective measures the federal government can take immediately.
Food is food. The tax system should finally accept that.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.
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.
Canadians have been told for years that population decline was unthinkable, that it was an economic death spiral, that only mass immigration could save us. That was the line. Now the numbers are in, and suddenly the people who said that are very quiet.
Statistics Canada reports that between July 1 and October 1, 2025, Canada’s population fell by 76,068 people, a decline of 0.2 percent, bringing the total population to 41,575,585. This is not a rounding error. It is not a model projection. It is an official quarterly population loss, outside the COVID period, confirmed by the federal government’s own data
The reason matters. This did not happen because Canadians suddenly stopped having children or because of a natural disaster. It happened because the number of non‑permanent residents dropped by 176,479 people in a single quarter, the largest quarterly decline since comparable records began in 1971. Permit expirations outpaced new permits by more than two to one. Outflows totaled 339,505, while inflows were just 163,026
That is the so‑called growth engine shutting down.
Permanent immigration continued at roughly the same pace as before. Canada admitted 102,867 permanent immigrants in the quarter, consistent with recent levels. Births minus deaths added another 17,600 people. None of that was enough to offset the collapse in temporary residency. Net international migration overall was negative, at minus 93,668
And here’s the part you’re not supposed to say out loud. For the Liberal‑NDP government, this is bad news. Their entire economic story has rested on population‑driven GDP growth, not productivity. Add more people, claim the economy is growing, borrow more money, and run the national credit card a little harder. When population growth reverses, that illusion collapses. GDP per capita does not magically improve. Housing shortages do not disappear. The math just stops working.
The regional numbers make that clear. Ontario’s population fell by 0.4 percent in the quarter. British Columbia fell by 0.3 percent. Every province and territory lost population except Alberta and Nunavut, and even Alberta’s growth was just 0.2 percent, its weakest since the border‑closure period of 2021
Now watch who starts complaining first. Universities are already bracing for it. Study permit holders alone fell by 73,682 people in three months, with Ontario losing 47,511 and British Columbia losing 14,291. These are the provinces with the largest university systems and the highest dependence on international tuition revenue
You’re going to hear administrators and activists say this is a crisis. What they mean is that fewer students are paying international tuition to subsidize bloated campuses and programs that produce no measurable economic value. When the pool of non‑permanent residents shrinks, departments that exist purely because enrollment was artificially inflated start to disappear. That’s not mysterious. That’s arithmetic.
For years, Canadians were told that any slowdown in population growth was dangerous. The truth is more uncomfortable. What’s dangerous is building a national economic model on temporary residents, borrowed money, and headline GDP numbers while productivity stagnates. The latest StatsCan release doesn’t just show a population decline. It shows how fragile the story really was, and how quickly it unravels when the numbers stop being padded.
