Net Zero Part Three: No One Tells You How Much it Will Cost

Dan McTeague

Published

3 years ago

5 minute read

Last week, the National Observer, one of the voices of environmental activism in Canada, published an article entitled Natural Resources Canada probes net zero affordability.

The article references an internal memo from a senior public servant at Natural Resources Canada (NRCan – the federal government department that deals with resource issues such as energy). NRCan Assistant Deputy Minister Mollie Johnson, a senior bureaucrat, is the memo’s author, and in it she notes that the department has been looking into questions on how, amongst other things, the “Net Zero by 2050” campaign will affect affordability for consumers.

“how, amongst other things, the “Net Zero by 2050” campaign will affect affordability for consumers.”

Now, the National Observer provides a customary green dodge on the legitimate question about the costs of Net Zero by 2050, noting that this is the kind of question oil and gas industry players focus on. The National Observer goes on to insist that the real issue is that the costs of the climate crisis are soaring – they do not really specify what costs except to point to weather events and suggest these are getting worse and that the costs of them are becoming unmanageable (both are untrue – we will address in a future blog).

It is as if they are saying “How dare energy companies and their lobbyists have the nerve to ask questions about how government policy will affect their interests! How dare Mollie Johnson suggest questions concerning a policy’s impact on affordability might be appropriate for government officials to consider before advancing the policy!”

To the environmental activists and their friends at the National Observer, the very act of daring to raise one’s hand and ask about the radical green agenda that is Net Zero by 2050, to ask ‘how much will it cost?’, is simply unacceptable. Indeed, to the activists, raising such questions is so unacceptable that asking such questions should be forbidden.

And these green propagandists consistently fall back on the usual apocalyptic rhetoric about a “climate emergency” or “climate crisis”.

ADM Mollie Johnson of NRCan appears to be doing what you would hope a public servant would do: asking how much a policy will cost the taxpayer. Thank you Ms. Johnson!

But in this time of ideological green fervor, in the cult of climate action, you cannot dare ask such heretical and vulgar questions as how policy will affect the economic well-being of citizens.

I encourage all of our readers to do just that. Call your local utility, or bank or insurance company, or a mining company, or any other company that is currently espousing a commitment to Net Zero by 2050 – and ask them how much it will cost. How much will it cost in terms of direct taxpayer dollars? How many jobs will this cost? How much in lost tax revenue will it cost the government when the jobs are gone?

My bet is they can’t answer your question.

They don’t know.

Yet they still commit to Net Zero by 2050.

Net Zero Part 4 will be published on Todayville Thursday, June 10

Click here for more articles from Dan McTeague of Canadians for Affordable energy

Dan McTeague | President, Canadians for Affordable Energy

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.

Related Topics:#AffordableEnergy.ca #CanadiansForAffordableEnergy #DanMcTeague #NetZeroBy2050 #NoOneTellsYouHowMuchItWillCost feature

Up Next

Emmy Award Winning Journalist reveals how “fact checkers” punish ‘tone’ even when the facts check out

Don't Miss

Jordan Peterson and Rex Murphy on “Woke Culture Wars”

Dan McTeague

affodableenergy.ca

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.

Follow Author

The Carbon Tax is part of a bigger plan to change the way you live

Energy / 6 months ago

Trudeau government doubles down on unaffordability – Carbon Tax set to increase April 1st

Energy / 7 months ago

Take Notice – Question the Net Zero Agenda, and You’re Out the Door

Economy

Federal government should listen to Canadians and trim the bureaucracy

Published on October 2, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Under Prime Minister Trudeau the government has introduced sweeping national programs in the areas of dental care, daycare and pharmacare, increased cash transfers to some Canadians while also spending billions on corporate welfare.

Under the Trudeau government, the number of federal government employees has grown substantially, and new polling shows that many Canadians would prefer to see that number decline. This would be a step in the right direction, as the growing size of government imposes costs on Canadians with little to no evidence suggesting they’re better off because of it.

Specifically, from 2015 (the year Prime Minister Trudeau was first elected) to March 2024 (the latest month of available data), the number of federal employees grew from 257,034 to 367,772. In other words, in nine years the Trudeau government has increased the size of the federal bureaucracy by 43.1 per cent, nearly three times the rate of population growth (15.2 per cent) over that same period.

In response, many Canadians believe the government should begin cutting back. According a recent poll, when made aware of this increase, nearly half (47 per cent) of respondents said the federal government should start reducing the number of employees while only 7 per cent said the government should hire more.

The growth of the federal public service is part of the Trudeau government’s approach to governance, which has been to increase Ottawa’s involvement in the economy and day-to-day lives of Canadians. Under Prime Minister Trudeau the government has introduced sweeping national programs in the areas of dental care, daycare and pharmacare, increased cash transfers to some Canadians while also spending billions on corporate welfare.

In other words, the Trudeau government has vastly increased the size of government in Canada.

One way to understand the size of government is to measure government spending as a share of the overall economy (GDP), which shows the extent to which economic activity is directly or indirectly controlled by government activities. From 2014/15 to 2024/25, total federal spending (as a share of GDP) will increase from 14.1 per cent to a projected 17.9 per cent—meaning federal bureaucrats now control a larger share of economic activity than they did before the Trudeau government came to power.

Of course, Canadian taxpayers ultimately foot the bill for a larger federal government, and 86 per cent of middle-income Canadians now pay higher taxes than in 2015. Yet for all this increased spending and taxation, it’s unclear Canadians are better off.

In fact, inflation-adjusted GDP per person (a broad measure of living standards) has been in a historic decline since mid-2019, and as of the second quarter of 2024 it sat below the level it was at the end of 2014. And recent polling shows that 74 per cent of respondents feel the average Canadian family is overtaxed, while 44 per cent feel they receive “poor” or “very poor” value from government services.

Clearly, the federal government should break from the status quo and take a different approach focused on smaller and smarter government. A good first step would be to listen to Canadians and trim the number of bureaucrats.

Authors:

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Subs

Economy

Minister Wilkinson’s flawed crystal ball

Published on October 1, 2024

Todayville

From Resource Works

The federal minister of energy and natural resources’ statements are at odds with the energy industry’s leaders and economists.

Meet Canada’s new expert on the global oil-and-gas market, and the world’s future demand for those commodities.

He is (surprise) Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s federal minister of energy and natural resources, who has announced this outlook for oil:

“Oil and gas will peak this decade. In fact, oil is probably peaking this year.”

The world oil market now eats up some 102.21 million barrels per day, so Wilkinson’s anticipated peak this year would be around that much.

But that’s not what market-watchers and oil-sector experts see:

Goldman Sachs Research: “While some prominent forecasters have predicted oil demand will peak by 2030, our researchers expect oil usage will increase through 2034.

“That’s in part because of demand for oil from emerging markets in Asia and demand for petrochemicals. We think peak demand is another decade away.”

The 2024 outlook of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (12 of the world’s major oil-exporting nations) says simply: “There is no peak oil demand on the horizon.

“For oil alone, we see demand reaching over 120 million barrels a day by 2050, with the potential for it to be higher.”

“What the Outlook underscores is that the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas bears no relation to fact. Combined they make up well over 50% of the energy mix today and are expected to do the same in 2050.”

In an outlook for 2024-2050, one scenario from energy giant BP sees this: “Oil continues to play a major role in the global energy system over the first half of the outlook, with the world consuming between 100-80 Mb/d of oil in 2035.

“Oil demand declines over the outlook but continues to play a significant role in the global energy system for the next 10-15 years. This requires continuing investment in upstream oil (and natural gas).”

Greg Ebel, CEO of Calgary-based Enbridge, says global oil consumption will be “well north” of 100 million barrels per day by 2050 — and could exceed 110 million barrels.

“You continue to see economic demands, and particularly in the developing world, people continue to say lighter, faster, denser, cheaper energy works for our people. . . And that’s leading to more oil usage.”

Even the optimistic International Energy Agency sees global demand increasing to 105.4 million barrels a day by 2030.

So take Minister Wilkinson’s crystal-ball outlook, of oil “probably” peaking this year, with at least a barrel of salt.

Then there’s Wilkinson’s contention that continuing to rely on oil and gas “will leave Canada uncompetitive and poorer on a go-forward basis.”

If so, why did his why his government invest $4.5 billion of your taxpayer money in 2018 to buy the Trans Mountain oil pipeline system and its TMX expansion?

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland: “Because we knew it was a serious and necessary investment — one that is in the national interest and will make Canada and the Canadian economy more sovereign and more resilient.”

And from Prime Minister Trudeau: “By moving forward with TMX, we’re creating jobs, opening new markets, accelerating our clean energy transition, and generating new avenues for Indigenous economic prosperity. . . .

“This project isn’t about expanding our production. It’s about expanding our options. TMX will reduce our reliance on our single customer, the United States, and give us access to the growing markets of Asia.”

All of that seems to have escaped Minister Wilkinson and his flawed crystal ball.