Latest dire predictions about Carney’s emissions cap

According to a new report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), the federal government’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap will curtail production, cost a not-so-small fortune and kill a lot of jobs. This news will surprise absolutely no one who’s been paying attention to Ottawa’s regulatory crusade against greenhouse gases over the past few years.

To be precise, according to the PBO’s report of March 2025, under the proposed cap, production for upstream industry oil and gas subsectors must be reduced by 4.9 per cent relative to their projected baseline levels out to 2030/32. Further, required reduction in upstream oil and gas sector production levels will lower GDP (inflation-adjusted) in Canada by an estimated 0.39 per cent in 2032 and reduce nominal GDP by $20.5 billion. And achieving the legal upper bound will reduce economy-wide employment in Canada by an estimated 40,300 jobs and fulltime equivalents by 54,400 in 2032.

The federal government is contesting the PBO’s estimates, with Jonathan Wilkinson, federal minister of Energy and Natural Resources of Canada, claiming that the “PBO wasted their time and taxpayer dollars by analyzing a made up scenario.” Of course, one might observe that using “made up scenarios” is what making forecasts of regulatory costs is all about. No one, including the government, has a crystal ball that can show the future.

But the PBO’s projected costs are only the latest analysis. A 2024 report by Deloitte (and commissioned by the federal Treasury Board) found that the proposed “cap results in a significant decline in GDP in Alberta and the Rest of Canada.” The main impacts of the cap are lower oil and gas activity and output, reduced employment, reduce income, lower returns on investment and a higher price of oil.

Consequently, according to the report, by 2040 Alberta’s GDP will be lower by 4.5 per cent and Canada’s GDP will be lower by 1 per cent compared to a no-cap baseline. Cumulatively over the 2030 to 2040 timeline, Deloitte estimated that real GDP in Alberta will be $191 billion lower, and real GDP in the Rest of Canada will be $91 billion lower compared to the no-cap (business as usual) baseline (in 2017 dollars). Employment also took a hit in the Deloitte report, which found the level of employment in 2040 will be lower by 2 per cent in Alberta and 0.5 per cent in the Rest of Canada compared to a no-cap baseline. Alberta will lose an estimated 55,000 jobs on average (35,000 in the Rest of Canada) between 2030 and 2040 under the cap.

Another 2024 report by the Conference Board of Canada estimated that the “oil and gas productions cuts forecasted lead to a one-time, permanent decline in total Canadian real GDP of between 0.9 per cent (most likely outcome) to 1.6 per cent (least likely outcome) relative to the baseline in 2030. This is equivalent to a loss of $22.8 to $40.4 billion (in 2012 dollars)… In Alberta, real GDP would fall by between $16.3 and $28.5 billion—or by 3.8 per cent and 6.7 per cent, respectively.”

Finally, a report by S&P Global Commodity Insights (and commissioned by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers) estimated that a “production cut driven by a stringent 40% emission cap could cause $75 billion lower upstream spend and $247 billion lower GDP contribution (vs. a no cap reference case).”

All of these estimates, by respected economic analysis firms, raise serious questions about the government’s own 2024 Regulatory Impact Analysis, which suggested that the proposed regulations will only have incremental impacts on the economy—namely, $3.3 billion (plus administrative costs to industry and the government, estimated to be $219 million). According to the analysis, the “proposed Regulations are expected to result in a net decrease in labour expenditure in the oil and gas sector of about 1.6% relative to the baseline estimate of employment income over the 2030 to 2032 time frame.”

But according to the new PBO report, the costs of the government’s proposed cap on greenhouse gas emission from Canada’s oil and gas sector will be costly and destructive to the sector, it’s primary province (Alberta), and its employees in Alberta and across Canada. All this in the face of likely-resurgent U.S. oil and gas production.

Now that policymakers in Ottawa have seemingly recognized the unpopularity of the consumer carbon tax, a good next step would be to scrap the cap.

Related Topics:#EmissionsCap #FraserInstitute #KennethGreen CanadaEnergyPolicy feature MarkCarneyEmissionsCap oilandgas

Up Next

How gender activists stole the media, distorted medicine, and hurt Canadian kids:

Don't Miss

Time to finally change the Canada Health Act for the sake of patients

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

RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate

International / 7 hours ago

RFK Jr. tells Tucker how Big Pharma uses ‘perverse incentives’ to get vaccines approved

Censorship Industrial Complex / 7 hours ago

Global media alliance colluded with foreign nations to crush free speech in America: House report

Business

World Economic Forum Aims to Repair Relations with Schwab

Published on July 1, 2025

Todayville

By Martin Armstrong

The whistleblower has always been anonymous, and it remains very suspicious that the very organization he created would turn on him after receiving an anonymous letter that they admitted may not have been credible.

World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab stepped down from his chairman position at the organization on April 20, 2025, amid accusations of fraud. Our computer had forecast that the WEF would enter a declining trend with the 2024 ECM turning point. This staged coup happened about 37 years after the first Davos meeting (8.6 x 4.3). From our model’s perspective, this was right on time. Now, Schwab and the WEF are working to repair ties.

An anonymous whistleblower claimed that Klaus Schwab and his wife collaborated with USAID to steal tens of millions in funding. The whistleblower has always been anonymous, and it remains very suspicious that the very organization he created would turn on him after receiving an anonymous letter that they admitted may not have been credible. Something like this would never be acceptable in any court of law, especially if it’s anonymous. It would be the worst or the worst hearsay, where you cannot even point to who made the allegation.

Back in April, the WEF said its board unanimously supported the decision to initiate an independent investigation “following a whistleblower letter containing allegations against former Chairman Klaus Schwab. This decision was made after consultation with external legal counsel.”

Now, the WEF is attempting to repair its relationship with its founder ahead of the next Davos meeting. Bloomberg reported that the WEF would like to “normalize their relationship [with Klaus Schwab] in order to safeguard the forum and the legacy of the founder.”

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe has replaced Schwab for the time being, but is less of a commanding force. Schwab’s sudden departure has caused instability in the organization and its ongoing mission. Board members are concerned that support for the organization will begin to decline as this situation remains unresolved.

The World Economic Forum’s annual revenue in 2024 was 440 million francs ($543 million), with the majority of proceeds coming from member companies and fees. Yet, the number of people registered to attend the 2025 Davos event is on par if not slightly exceeding the number of participants from the year prior.

Schwab’s departure has damaged the Davos brand. There is a possibility that the organization is attempted to rebrand after Agenda 2030 failed. The WEF attempted to move away from its zero tolerance stance on ESG initiatives after they became widely unpopular among the big industry players and shifting governments. The brand has attempted to integrate the importance of digital transformation and AI to remain relevant as the tech gurus grow in power and popularity. Those who are familiar with Klaus Schwab know the phrase, “You will own nothing and be happy.” These words have been widely unpopular and caused a type of sinister chaos to surround the brand that was once respected as the high-brow institution of globalist elites.

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde was slated to replace Schwab in 2027 when her term ends, and all reports claimed that he was prepared to remain in the chairman role for an additional two years to ensure Lagarde could take his place. What changed seemingly overnight that would cause the organization to discard Schwab before he was due to retire?

Schwab denies any misconduct and filed lawsuits against the whistleblowers, calling the accusations “calumnious” and “unfounded.” He believes “character assassination” was the premise of the claims.

I am no fan of Klaus Schwab, as everyone knows. I disagree with his theories from start to finish. Nevertheless, something doesn’t smell right here. This appears to be an internal coup, perhaps to distract attention from the question of alleged funds for the WEF from USAID, or to try to salvage the failed Agenda 2030. Perhaps they will claim that no misconduct had occurred since DOGE did not raise concerns or there is a possibility that those behind the internal coup are concerned that Schwab’s counter lawsuit could uncover new corruption. The investigation into Schwab has not concluded, but after only three months, the WEF would like to wrap it up. It appears that the WEF does not want to welcome Schwab back; rather, they would like to ensure an amicable resolution to maintain both the brand’s reputation as well as the founder’s.

Business

Canada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump

Published on June 30, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

Canada caved to President Donald Trump demands by pulling its digital services tax hours before it was to go into effect on Monday.

Trump said Friday that he was ending all trade talks with Canada over the digital services tax, which he called a direct attack on the U.S. and American tech firms. The DST required foreign and domestic businesses to pay taxes on some revenue earned from engaging with online users in Canada.

“Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,” the president said. “We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”

By Sunday, Canada relented in an effort to resume trade talks with the U.S., it’s largest trading partner.

“To support those negotiations, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States,” according to a statement from Canada’s Department of Finance.

Canada’s Department of Finance said that Prime Minister Mark Carney and Trump agreed to resume negotiations, aiming to reach a deal by July 21.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Monday that the digital services tax would hurt the U.S.

“Thank you Canada for removing your Digital Services Tax which was intended to stifle American innovation and would have been a deal breaker for any trade deal with America,” he wrote on X.

Earlier this month, the two nations seemed close to striking a deal.

Trump said he and Carney had different concepts for trade between the two neighboring countries during a meeting at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, in the Canadian Rockies.

Asked what was holding up a trade deal between the two nations at that time, Trump said they had different concepts for what that would look like.

“It’s not so much holding up, I think we have different concepts, I have a tariff concept, Mark has a different concept, which is something that some people like, but we’re going to see if we can get to the bottom of it today.”

Shortly after taking office in January, Trump hit Canada and Mexico with 25% tariffs for allowing fentanyl and migrants to cross their borders into the U.S. Trump later applied those 25% tariffs only to goods that fall outside the free-trade agreement between the three nations, called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Trump put a 10% tariff on non-USMCA compliant potash and energy products. A 50% tariff on aluminum and steel imports from all countries into the U.S. has been in effect since June 4. Trump also put a 25% tariff on all cars and trucks not built in the U.S.

Economists, businesses and some publicly traded companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families, and pay down the national debt.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods paid by the person or company that imports them. The importer can absorb the cost of the tariffs or try to pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices.

Trump’s tariffs give U.S.-produced goods a price advantage over imported goods, generating revenue for the federal government.