Alberta
Poor forest management, not climate change causing record wildfires: Forest Products Association of Canada and the Indigenous Resource Network
Article submitted by Derek Nighbor, President and CEO of the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) and John Desjarlais, Executive Director of Indigenous Resource Network (IRN)
Canada’s present and future wildfire threat demands more sustainable forest management
A 2021 study by the Canadian Forest Service, suggests the threat to communities is expected to increase in the future. It also highlights that remote First Nations communities made up almost one-third of all evacuees and evacuation events in recent decades and will be at the forefront of the impact in the future years.
To chart our path forward, it is important to recognize that 60% of the trees in Canada’s boreal forest are in the 61-140 year age range. As trees reach maturity, they lose their ability to sequester carbon and are at greater risk of succumbing to the effects of drought, windstorms, pests, and fire. And as our climate continues to change, the severity of these disturbances will continue to escalate.
Simply protecting forests across a natural fire-prone region like the boreal is not an effective climate strategy. Nor is it an effective public safety plan. This is further supported by findings of Parks Canada that show many of Canada’s parks are now net carbon sources due to worsening natural disturbances.
Indigenous leadership offers a deep understanding of how the forest evolves and how it can be managed in a way that is both environmentally and economically sustainable. For centuries, Indigenous communities have renewed and regenerated the forest, preserving biodiversity, and mitigating the impacts of wildfire by removing excess fuel (dead or decaying wood that can be kindling for the next fire) through cultural burns. These practices in turn make forests less prone to other disturbances like insects and disease.
In Finland, Norway and Sweden a January 2022 publication by the International Boreal Forest Researchers Association (IBFRA) shows how an active approach to forest management is paying dividends. Fire and natural disturbance levels are 50-60 times less than they are in Canada. Furthermore, Scandinavians are getting 5 to 7 times the amount of wood out of the same sized plot of land compared to Canada to produce low carbon products for domestic infrastructure, household, and bioenergy needs.
There is a way to ensure our forests remain both productive and sustainable in Canada, and it’s not a choice between the environment and forest management. The two go together. We need to embrace more active management of our forests, collaboration with Indigenous communities, and look to lessons learned from the Nordic countries to help get us there. In the face of a changing climate, active management of our forests is more important than ever.
Derek Nighbor is the President and CEO of the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC).
John Desjarlais is the Executive Director of Indigenous Resource Network (IRN)
Alberta
Alberta government should eliminate corporate welfare to generate benefits for Albertans
From the Fraser Institute
By Spencer Gudewill and Tegan Hill
Last November, Premier Danielle Smith announced that her government will give up to $1.8 billion in subsidies to Dow Chemicals, which plans to expand a petrochemical project northeast of Edmonton. In other words, $1.8 billion in corporate welfare.
And this is just one example of corporate welfare paid for by Albertans.
According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, from 2007 to 2021, the latest year of available data, the Alberta government spent $31.0 billion (inflation-adjusted) on subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select firms and businesses, purportedly to help Albertans. And this number excludes other forms of government handouts such as loan guarantees, direct investment and regulatory or tax privileges for particular firms and industries. So the total cost of corporate welfare in Alberta is likely much higher.
Why should Albertans care?
First off, there’s little evidence that corporate welfare generates widespread economic growth or jobs. In fact, evidence suggests the contrary—that subsidies result in a net loss to the economy by shifting resources to less productive sectors or locations (what economists call the “substitution effect”) and/or by keeping businesses alive that are otherwise economically unviable (i.e. “zombie companies”). This misallocation of resources leads to a less efficient, less productive and less prosperous Alberta.
And there are other costs to corporate welfare.
For example, between 2007 and 2019 (the latest year of pre-COVID data), every year on average the Alberta government spent 35 cents (out of every dollar of business income tax revenue it collected) on corporate welfare. Given that workers bear the burden of more than half of any business income tax indirectly through lower wages, if the government reduced business income taxes rather than spend money on corporate welfare, workers could benefit.
Moreover, Premier Smith failed in last month’s provincial budget to provide promised personal income tax relief and create a lower tax bracket for incomes below $60,000 to provide $760 in annual savings for Albertans (on average). But in 2019, after adjusting for inflation, the Alberta government spent $2.4 billion on corporate welfare—equivalent to $1,034 per tax filer. Clearly, instead of subsidizing select businesses, the Smith government could have kept its promise to lower personal income taxes.
Finally, there’s the Heritage Fund, which the Alberta government created almost 50 years ago to save a share of the province’s resource wealth for the future.
In her 2024 budget, Premier Smith earmarked $2.0 billion for the Heritage Fund this fiscal year—almost the exact amount spent on corporate welfare each year (on average) between 2007 and 2019. Put another way, the Alberta government could save twice as much in the Heritage Fund in 2024/25 if it ended corporate welfare, which would help Premier Smith keep her promise to build up the Heritage Fund to between $250 billion and $400 billion by 2050.
By eliminating corporate welfare, the Smith government can create fiscal room to reduce personal and business income taxes, or save more in the Heritage Fund. Any of these options will benefit Albertans far more than wasteful billion-dollar subsidies to favoured firms.
Authors:
Alberta
Official statement from Premier Danielle Smith and Energy Minister Brian Jean on the start-up of the Trans Mountain Pipeline
-
Addictions1 day ago
City of Toronto asks Trudeau gov’t to decriminalize hard drugs despite policy’s failure in BC
-
Business2 days ago
When politicians gamble, taxpayers lose
-
Automotive1 day ago
Vehicle monitoring software could soon use ‘kill switch’ under the guise of ‘safety’
-
Environment2 days ago
Climate Alarmists Want To Fight The Sun. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
It Gets Late Early These Days: Time To Bounce Biden & Trudeau?
-
National1 day ago
British Columbia quickly shoots down bill to ban men from competing in women’s sports
-
Economy1 day ago
Ottawa’s homebuilding plans might discourage much-needed business investment
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta government should eliminate corporate welfare to generate benefits for Albertans