‘Net-zero’ targets neither feasible nor realistic

Canada and other developed countries have committed to achieving “net-zero” carbon emissions by 2050. Yet here at the midway point between the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the first international treaty to set binding targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and the looming deadline of 2050, recent findings cast doubt on the feasibility of this ambitious transition.

According to a new study published by the Fraser Institute, despite international agreements, significant government spending and regulations, and some technological progress, the world’s dependence on fossil fuels has been steadily and significantly increasing over the past three decades. By 2023, global fossil fuel consumption was 55 per cent higher than in 1997. The share of fossil fuels in global energy consumption has only slightly decreased, dropping from nearly 86 per cent in 1997 to approximately 82 per cent in 2022.

Viewed through a historical lens, this sluggish pace of change is not surprising. The first global energy transition, from traditional biomass fuels (wood, charcoal, straw) to fossil fuels, started more than two centuries ago and unfolded gradually. Coal only surpassed global wood consumption in 1900; crude oil surpassed coal only in the mid-1960s; and natural gas has yet to surpass crude oil. Even today, this transition remains incomplete, as billions of people still rely on traditional biomass energy for cooking and heating.

The scale of the energy transition ahead is daunting. The 19th-century transition from wood to coal and hydrocarbons replaced about 1.5 billion tons of wood, equivalent to 30 exajoules. But the current transition will require at least 400 exajoules of new non-carbon energies by 2050. To put this in a Canadian perspective, generating this amount of clean energy worldwide would require the equivalent of about 22,000 projects the size of British Columbia’s Site C or Newfoundland and Labrador’s Muskrat Falls.

Advocates for today’s mandated energy transition often overlook the complexity of energy transitions and their many challenges. Critical industries such as cement, primary iron, plastics and ammonia still rely heavily on fossil fuels, with no viable alternatives readily available for large-scale adoption.

The energy transition also imposes unprecedented demands for minerals vital for renewable energy technologies, such as copper and lithium, which require substantial time to mine and develop. According to the International Energy Agency, the widespread adoption of electric vehicles by 2040 will require more than 40 times more lithium and up to 25 times more cobalt, nickel and graphite than the world was producing in 2020. Assuming such scale is even possible, there are serious questions about whether mineral and metal production can expand nearly quickly enough to meet the 2050 deadline.

Transitioning to a net-zero carbon footprint also requires a massive overhaul of existing energy infrastructure, as well as development of new systems and technologies, all of which will be very costly. High-income countries (including Canada) would need to allocate between 20 and 25 per cent of their annual incomes (broadly measured as GDP) to the transition. That would create significant economic challenges for citizens in terms of living standards.

A final problem is that achieving decarbonization by 2050 hinges on extensive and sustained global cooperation, a difficult task given the conflicting political, strategic and economic interests of different countries. In 2024 it’s not easy to imagine how the major countries can coordinate their decarbonization efforts. The European Union and the United States are already reducing emissions. But China and India are still increasing their coal combustion and have decades of emissions growth ahead of them, while Russia’s economic stability depends on exporting fossil fuels. And low-income African countries are expanding their fossil fuel consumption to build infrastructure and lift their living standards to alleviate poverty.

After two centuries of rising global carbon emissions, the goal of zero carbon by 2050 faces significant economic, political and practical obstacles. Severing modern civilization’s reliance on fossil fuels may be a desirable long-term goal but it simply cannot be accomplished either rapidly or inexpensively.

Authors:

Vaclav Smil

Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of Manitoba

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#ElmiraAliakbari #FraserInstitute #NetZero #VaclavSmil Energy feature

Up Next

What’s behind the explosive growth in Canadian university costs?

Don't Miss

Texas Legislative Committee Proposes Ways to Protect, Expand LNG Industry

Todayville

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

Most Canadians say retaliatory tariffs on American goods contribute to raising the price of essential goods at home

Alberta / 40 mins ago

Cross-Canada NGL corridor will stretch from B.C. to Ontario

Business / 1 hour ago

B.C. premier wants a private pipeline—here’s how you make that happen

Automotive

America’s EV Industry Must Now Compete On A Level Playing Field

Published on July 10, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

America’s carmakers face an uncertain future in the wake of President Donald Trump’s signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) into law on July 4.

The new law ends the $7,500 credit for new electric vehicles ($4,000 for used units) which was enacted as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act as of September 30, seven years earlier than originally planned.

The promise of that big credit lasting for a full decade did not just improve finances for Tesla and other pure-play EV companies: It also served as a major motivator for integrated carmakers like Ford, GM, and Stellantis to invest billions of dollars in capital into new, EV-specific plants, equipment, and supply chains, and expand their EV model offerings. But now, with the big subsidy about to expire, the question becomes whether the U.S. EV business can survive in an unsubsidized market? Carmakers across the EV spectrum are about to find out, and the outlook for most will not be rosy.

These carmakers will be entering into a brave new world in which the market for their cars had already turned somewhat sour even with the subsidies in place. Sales of EVs stalled during the fourth quarter of 2024 and then collapsed by more than 18% from December to January. Tesla, already negatively impacted by founder and CEO Elon Musk’s increased political activities in addition to the stagnant market, decided to slash prices in an attempt to maintain sales momentum, forcing its competitors to follow suit.

But the record number of EV-specific incentives now being offered by U.S. dealers has done little to halt the drop in sales, as the Wall Street Journal reports that the most recent data shows EV sales falling in each of the three months from April through June. Ford said its own sales had fallen by more than 30% across those three months, with Hyundai and Kia also reporting big drops. GM was the big winner in the second quarter, overtaking Ford and moving into 2nd place behind Tesla in total sales. But its ability to continue such growth absent the big subsidy edge over traditional ICE cars now falls into doubt.

The removal of the per-unit subsidies also calls into question whether the buildout of new public charging infrastructure, which has accelerated dramatically in the past three years, will continue as the market moves into a time of uncertainty. Recognizing that consumer concern, Ford, Hyundai, BMW and others included free home charging kits as part of their current suites of incentives. But of course, that only works if the buyer owns a home with a garage and is willing to pay the higher cost of insurance that now often comes with parking an EV inside.

Decisions, decisions.

As the year dawned, few really expected the narrow Republican congressional majorities would show the political will and unity to move so aggressively to cancel the big IRA EV subsidies. But, as awareness rose in Congress about the true magnitude of the budgetary cost of those provisions over the next 10 years, the benefit of getting rid of them ultimately subsumed concerns about the possible political cost of doing so.

So now, here we are, with an EV industry that seems largely unprepared to survive in a market with a levelized playing field. Even Tesla, which remains far and away the leader in total EV sales despite its recent struggles, seems caught more than a little off-guard despite Musk’s having been heavily involved in the early months of the second Trump presidency.

Musk’s response to his disapproval of the OBBBA was to announce the creation of a third political party he dubbed the American Party. It seems doubtful this new vanity project was the response to a looming challenge that members of Tesla’s board of directors would have preferred. But it does seem appropriately emblematic of an industry that is undeniably limping into uncharted territory with no clear plan for how to escape from existential danger.

We do live in interesting times.

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.

Automotive

Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate

Published on July 9, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Two recent events exemplify the fundamental irrationality that is Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) policy.

First, the Carney government re-committed to Justin Trudeau’s EV transition mandate that by 2035 all (that’s 100 per cent) of new car sales in Canada consist of “zero emission vehicles” including battery EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs and fuel-cell powered vehicles (which are virtually non-existent in today’s market). This policy has been a foolish idea since inception. The mass of car-buyers in Canada showed little desire to buy them in 2022, when the government announced the plan, and they still don’t want them.

Second, President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” budget bill has slashed taxpayer subsidies for buying new and used EVs, ended federal support for EV charging stations, and limited the ability of states to use fuel standards to force EVs onto the sales lot. Of course, Canada should not craft policy to simply match U.S. policy, but in light of policy changes south of the border Canadian policymakers would be wise to give their own EV policies a rethink.

And in this case, a rethink—that is, scrapping Ottawa’s mandate—would only benefit most Canadians. Indeed, most Canadians disapprove of the mandate; most do not want to buy EVs; most can’t afford to buy EVs (which are more expensive than traditional internal combustion vehicles and more expensive to insure and repair); and if they do manage to swing the cost of an EV, most will likely find it difficult to find public charging stations.

Also, consider this. Globally, the mining sector likely lacks the ability to keep up with the supply of metals needed to produce EVs and satisfy government mandates like we have in Canada, potentially further driving up production costs and ultimately sticker prices.

Finally, if you’re worried about losing the climate and environmental benefits of an EV transition, you should, well, not worry that much. The benefits of vehicle electrification for climate/environmental risk reduction have been oversold. In some circumstances EVs can help reduce GHG emissions—in others, they can make them worse. It depends on the fuel used to generate electricity used to charge them. And EVs have environmental negatives of their own—their fancy tires cause a lot of fine particulate pollution, one of the more harmful types of air pollution that can affect our health. And when they burst into flames (which they do with disturbing regularity) they spew toxic metals and plastics into the air with abandon.

So, to sum up in point form. Prime Minister Carney’s government has re-upped its commitment to the Trudeau-era 2035 EV mandate even while Canadians have shown for years that most don’t want to buy them. EVs don’t provide meaningful environmental benefits. They represent the worst of public policy (picking winning or losing technologies in mass markets). They are unjust (tax-robbing people who can’t afford them to subsidize those who can). And taxpayer-funded “investments” in EVs and EV-battery technology will likely be wasted in light of the diminishing U.S. market for Canadian EV tech.

If ever there was a policy so justifiably axed on its failed merits, it’s Ottawa’s EV mandate. Hopefully, the pragmatists we’ve heard much about since Carney’s election victory will acknowledge EV reality.