Article from Canadians For Affordable Energy, AffordableEnergy.ca
As I continue to offer comment on the whole Net Zero by 2050 discussion, I am starting with a series of pieces to lay some groundwork. My recent blog, Net Zero Part One: Defining the Terms explained the challenges with the language used by the “Net Zero” lobby.
Today’s blog digs a bit further on the problematic language behind the Net Zero by 2050 agenda.
The advocates of Net Zero by 2050 talk in very rosy terms about how they want to eliminate the bad practices.
In particular, they say their plan is to de-carbonize society and thereby eliminate carbon dioxide pollution. Trudeau’s carbon taxes are all about achieving these ends. You have to pay more, but that’s necessary because Trudeau says we need to de-carbonize and eliminate carbon dioxide pollution.
But stop and think about that.
Trudeau and his ideological allies are twisting language here to advance their agenda. This is part of a trend of course – remember the Liberals don’t use the term tax when describing their carbon taxes, instead calling them by misleading terms such as “Clean Fuel Standard” or “CFS”. It isn’t only a Trudeau trend either – Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole has endorsed carbon taxes in his so-called climate plan but insists on calling them by other names. And so the trend continues in respect to terms like de-carbonization and carbon dioxide pollution.
First, remember from high school science that carbon is an abundant element and every living thing contains it. You can’t de-carbonize the world, nor should you want to: doing so would bring a very quick end to any life on the planet. That is enabling a bad outcome, not ending a bad practice. De-carbonization has become a term of common usage. But using it suggests you support an incoherent agenda. Reducing emissions is one thing and can have merit, but de-carbonization is incoherent.
Second (and still from high school science) remember that carbon dioxide is a molecule that is essential for life: plants thrive on it, we exhale it with every breath we have. CO2 levels swing up and down over centuries and millennia and geologic cycles in ways we are only beginning to understand. We know human activity is producing a lot of CO2 right now, but the levels are well below what they have been in the past. And as societies become more affluent, they become more efficient in their use of resources and the CO2 levels per unit of human activity drop.
Moreover, we have observed in the last few decades a dramatic increase in global green vegetation cover. That makes sense. CO2 is food for plants – just go to a greenhouse and note how they try to heighten CO2 levels to improve growth rates – so more CO2 means more abundant forests, more productive farms, etc. This isn’t pollution: this is life.
But saying these things – obvious things I remind you, that we learned as adolescents – gets you into trouble these days. The Net Zero crowd wants to deny the obvious as a means to advance their green agenda. It is easy to fall into the trap of using the language of “de-carbonization” or “carbon dioxide pollution” but both terms lead down a deceptive road that is inconsistent with the science we know, and ultimately leading to a more and more costly society.
Trudeau’s carbon taxes – as expensive as they are – are just a foretaste of what the misleading language around Net Zero really means: less affordable energy, higher food bills, and a higher cost of living.
Net Zero Part 3 will be published on Todayville Tuesday, June 8
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.
A recent University of Toronto paper by Jeff Allen and Steven Farber examines work access as measured in travel time to get to work.
• A recent University of Toronto paper by Jeff Allen and Steven Farber examines work access as measured in travel time to get to work. The “30-minute job access” is a rounded-up average in all heavily populated regions in Canada.
• The 2021 census revealed that nationwide, 66.8% of Canadian workers had a one-way travel time less than 30 minutes.
• Automobiles overwhelmingly dominate work access in the reviewed census metropolitan areas (CMA) in Canada compared to public transit which trail automobiles by multiple orders of magnitude.
• Transit in Montreal performs the best with automobiles providing 30-minute access to about 3 times (300%) as many jobs as transit. On the other end, automobiles provide access to almost 10 times as many jobs in a 30 minute trip in Edmonton.
• Canada’s transit commuting share of 30-minute accessible jobs remains a fraction of those available by automobile despite vast increases in public spending designed to decrease automobile usage.
• Governments and their politicians may see this data as a challenge to be met by policies that narrow the gap between auto and transit access. However, the chances of achieving this are virtually nil. Further, the remote work revolution following the Covid lockdowns will make it even less possible.
• Politicians and policy makers would be much wiser to end their focus on forcing or urging Canadians to use transit as opposed to automobiles. From an economic development perspective minimizing work trip travel times should be a primary objective. Improving and adding to road infrastructure is a much wiser use of tax money.
The government planned to spend $478.6 billion in 2024/25 and run a deficit of $27.8 billion. Its latest forecast, however, shows a larger deficit of $38.4 billion despite revenues being $32.6 billion higher than anticipated.
The Trudeau government will table its next federal budget on April 16. Before and after budget day, Canadians should be wary of carefully crafted and overly positive government rhetoric, which may bear little resemblance to the actual state of Ottawa’s finances and the government’s fiscal track record.
For example, federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland recently said the government plans “to invest in Canadians… in a fiscally responsible way.” At first glance, these comments seem reasonable. But consider the Trudeau government’s record on spending, deficits and debt over the last nine years.
Since taking office in 2015, the Trudeau government has demonstrated a proclivity to spend and borrow at nearly every turn. From 2018 to 2022, the Trudeau government recorded the five highest levels of federal spending per person (excluding debt interest costs) in Canadian history (inflation-adjusted). Recent projections from the government suggest it will possess the eight highest levels of per-person spending by the end of its current term next fall.
This repeated preference to turn on the spending taps has resulted in nine consecutive budget deficits, with federal debt reaching $2.0 trillion at the end of March 2024. Rapid debt accumulation means each Canadian was responsible for paying $1,160 in federal debt interest costs in 2023/24 alone and the government will likely need to raise taxes in the future.
The government also plans to continue running larger deficits than it did before COVID and borrow nearly $500 billion more by 2028/29.
To make matters worse, we can’t put much stock in their fiscal plans, as spending and deficits are almost always higher than government forecasts. Two years ago, for example, the government planned to spend $478.6 billion in 2024/25 and run a deficit of $27.8 billion. Its latest forecast, however, shows a larger deficit of $38.4 billion despite revenues being $32.6 billion higher than anticipated. A failure to restrain spending means the government now expects total spending to be $521.8 billion in 2024/25.
None of this points to any semblance of fiscal responsibility.
Ontario’s Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy has made similar erroneous claims. When tabling that province’s budget last month, he said his fiscal plan, which includes a $9.8 billion deficit in 2024/25 and $59.7 billion in debt over three years, was a “prudent, responsible approach.”
Despite paying lip service to their strong stewardship of government finances, Minister Bethlenfalvy and Premier Doug Ford rarely waste an opportunity to increase spending and burden Ontarians with more debt. From 2017/18 to 2024/25, provincial revenues will have increased by a projected 36.5 per cent, yet the Ford government has more than wiped out these gains by increasing program spending by nearly 41.0 per cent over the same timeframe.
Moreover, Ontario’s per-person inflation-adjusted spending is higher now than it ever was during Kathleen Wynne’s tenure as premier. Due to the Ford government’s decision to post deficits in five of six years, in conjunction with significant spending on infrastructure, provincial debt has increased by close to $92.0 billion since 2017/18.
None of these facts point to a “prudent, responsible approach” to finances at Queen’s Park.
The current governments in both Toronto and Ottawa have remarkably poor track records with spending and debt. Proclaiming yourself to be fiscally responsible does not make it so. It’s time for finance ministers to stop playing word tricks and be honest about their own mismanagement.
