From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

The PBO estimates that the CFR will decrease Canada’s economic output by up to 0.3 per cent—or approximately $9.0 billion—in 2030. For context, that’s more than the entire output of Prince Edward Island in 2024, so the effects are roughly equivalent to wiping out the economy of a whole province.

The Carney government recently announced changes to the Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR), signalling stricter carbon content rules for gasoline and diesel—though few details were provided. While the prime minister expressed confidence that the changes will strengthen the Canadian economy, in reality, the CFR is designed to increase fuel prices in exchange for negligible environmental benefits. If the government is serious about prioritizing the wellbeing of Canadians, it shouldn’t tinker with the CFR—it should eliminate it.

The CFR, which came into effect in July 2023, aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by requiring a gradual reduction in the carbon content of gasoline and diesel. By 2030, fuels must contain 15 per cent fewer GHG per unit of energy than in 2016. Those who don’t meet the target must buy compliance credits, which raises their costs. Ultimately, these costs are all passed on to Canadians at the pump.

According to a recent study by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), the CFR is expected to increase fuel prices by up to 17 cents per litre for gasoline and 16 cents for diesel by 2030. These costs will be added on top of already high, policy-driven fuel costs. In 2023, for example, the average price of gasoline in Canada was 157.3 Canadian cents per litre, compared to just 129.4 cents per litre in the United States—a 21 per cent difference, mainly the result of fuel taxes in Canada.

As fuel prices rise due to the CFR, the costs of running tractors, powering machinery, and producing and transporting goods and services will all increase, setting off ripple effects across our economy. The PBO estimates that the CFR will decrease Canada’s economic output by up to 0.3 per cent—or approximately $9.0 billion—in 2030. For context, that’s more than the entire output of Prince Edward Island in 2024, so the effects are roughly equivalent to wiping out the economy of a whole province.

Of course, increases in fuel prices also mean more pressure to household budgets. The PBO estimates that in 2030, the average Canadian household will incur $573 in additional costs because of the changes to the CFR, and lower-income households will bear a disproportionately larger burden because they spend more of their budget on energy.

The policy’s uneven impact across provinces is particularly significant for lower-income regions. For example, households in Nova Scotia and P.E.I.—two of the provinces with the lowest median household incomes—are expected to bear average annual costs of $635 and $569, respectively. In contrast, families in Ontario and British Columbia—two of the provinces with higher median household incomes—will pay less, $495 and $384 per year, respectively. Simply put, the CFR imposes more costs on those who make less.

To make matters worse, the expected environmental benefits of the CFR are negligible. Even if it delivers its full projected reduction of 26 million tonnes of GHG emissions by 2030, that represents only “two weeks of greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian economy,” according to the federal government.

Given that GHG emissions cross all borders regardless of where they originate, in a broader perspective, that reduction represents just 0.04 per cent of projected global emissions by 2030. So, Canadians are being asked to pay a material price for a measure that will have virtually no environmental impact.

Toughening regulations on carbon content for gas and diesel won’t benefit Canadians, in fact, it will do the opposite. The CFR places a real financial burden on Canadian households while delivering no meaningful environmental benefit. When a policy’s costs vastly outweigh its benefits, the answer isn’t to adjust it, it’s to scrap it.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fr

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Has the time come for America to seriously reassess its participation in and support for the United Nations (U.N.)?

It’s a question that some prominent people are asking this week after the increasingly woke and essentially useless globalist body attempted to sneak a global carbon tax in through the back door while no one was looking.

Except someone was looking, as it turns out. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who chairs the powerful Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is part of the majority on both the Senate Judiciary and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, said in an X post Thursday evening that this latest bit of anti-American action “warrants our withdrawal from the UN.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in his own X post on the matter on Wednesday that the Trump administration “will not allow the UN to tax American citizens and companies. Under the leadership of POTUS (President Donald Trump), the U.S. will be a hard NO. We call on other nations to stand alongside the United States in defense of our citizens and sovereignty.”

On Friday afternoon, Mr. Rubio took to X again to announce the news that efforts by himself and others in the Trump administration succeeded in killing an effort to move the tax forward during a meeting in London. However, the proposal is not fully dead – a final vote on it was simply delayed for a year.

The issue at hand stems from an attempt by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – an agency of the U.N. – to impose net-zero rules on fuels used for seaborne shipping operations. The Trump administration estimates the imposition of the new requirements will increase the cost of shipping goods by about 10%, thus creating yet another round of inflation hitting the poorest citizens the hardest thanks to the globalist obsession with the amount of plant food – carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere.

Known as the IMO Net-Zero Framework, the proposal claims it would effectively “zero out” emissions from the shipping industry by 2050.

The potential implications if the U.N. ultimately succeeds in implementing its own global carbon tax are obvious. If this unelected, unaccountable globalist body can levy a carbon tax on Americans, a concept that America’s own elected officials have steadfastly rejected across the terms of the last five U.S. presidents, what would then prevent it from imposing other kinds of taxes on the world to support its ideological goals?

President Trump’s opposition to exactly this kind of international intrusion into America’s domestic policy choices is the reason why he has twice won the presidency, each time de-committing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords.

It has become increasingly obvious in recent years that the central goal of the global climate alarm movement is to dramatically raise the cost of all kinds of energy in order to force the masses to live smaller, more restricted lives and make their behavior easier for authoritarian governments to control. This camel’s nose under the tent move by the U.N. to sneak a global carbon tax into reality is just the latest in a long parade of examples that serve as proof points for that thesis.

At some point, U.S. officials must seriously reassess the value proposition in continuing to spend billions of dollars each year supporting and hosting a globalist organization whose every action seems designed to inflict damage on our country and its people. Now would be a good time to do that, in fact.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.