Connect with us

Economy

Net Zero Part Two: Misleading Language

Published

6 minute read

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

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

Dan McTeague | President, Canadians for Affordable Energy

 

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.

Follow Author

More from this author

Automotive

Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate

Published on

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.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Economy

The stars are aligning for a new pipeline to the West Coast

Published on

From Resource Works

By

Mark Carney says another pipeline is “highly likely”, and that welcome news.

While attending this year’s Calgary Stampede, Prime Minister Mark Carney made it official that a new pipeline to Canada’s West Coast is “highly likely.”

While far from a guarantee, it is still great news for Canada and our energy industry. After years of projects being put on hold or cancelled, things are coming together at the perfect time for truly nation-building enterprises.

Carney’s comments at Stampede have been preceded by a number of other promising signs.

At a June meeting between Carney and the premiers in Saskatoon, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith proposed a “grand bargain” that would include a privately funded pipeline capable of moving a million barrels of oil a day, along with significant green investments.

Carney agreed with Smith’s plan, saying that Canada needed to balance economic growth with environmental responsibility.

Business and political leaders have been mostly united in calling for the federal government to speed up the building of pipelines, for economic and strategic reasons. As we know, it is very difficult to find consensus in Canada, with British Columbia Premier David Eby still reluctant to commit to another pipeline on the coast of the province.

Alberta has been actively encouraging support from the private sector to fund a new pipeline that would fulfil the goals of the Northern Gateway project, a pipeline proposed in 2008 but snuffed out by a hail of regulations under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

We are in a new era, however, and we at Resource Works remarked that last month’s G7 meeting in Kananaskis could prove to be a pivotal moment in the history of Canadian energy. An Ipsos poll found that Canada was the most favoured nation for supplying oil in the G7, and our potential as an energy superpower has never been more important for the democratic world, given the instability caused by Russia and other autocratic energy powers.

Because of this shifting, uncertain global climate, Canadian oil and gas are more attractive than ever, and diversifying our exports beyond the United States has become a necessity in the wake of Donald Trump’s regime of tariffs on Canada and other friendly countries.

It has jolted Canadian political leaders into action, and the premiers are all on board with strengthening our economic independence and trade diversification, even if not all agree on what that should look like.

Two premiers who have found common ground are Danielle Smith and Ontario Premier Doug Ford. After meeting at Stampede, the pair signed two memorandums of understanding to collaborate on studying an energy corridor and other infrastructure to boost interprovincial trade. This included the possibility of an eastward-bound pipeline to Ontario ports for shipping abroad.

Ford explicitly said that “the days of relying on the United States 100 percent, those days are over.” That’s in line with Alberta’s push for new pipeline routes, especially to northwestern B.C., which are supported by Smith’s government.

On June 10, Resource Works founder and CEO Stewart Muir wrote that Canadian energy projects are a daunting endeavour, akin to a complicated jigsaw puzzle, but that getting discouraged by the complexity causes us to lose sight of the picture itself. He asserted that Canadians have to accept that messiness, not avoid it.

Prime Minister Carney has suggested he will make adjustments to existing regulations and controversial legislation like Bill C-69 and the emissions cap, all of which have slowed the development of new energy infrastructure.

This moment of alignment between Ottawa, the provinces, and other stakeholders cannot be wasted. The stars are aligning, and it will be a tragedy if we cannot take a great step into the future of our country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X