Ottawa should follow Britain and tap the brakes on ‘net zero’

In a recent speech, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak put a dent in the façade of the global “net zero” greenhouse gas emission agenda—that is, the idea that countries will emit no more greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and methane) into the air than are taken back out and “sequestered” in some form that won’t increase atmospheric heating. The net zero framework has subsumed virtually all energy, environment and natural resource policies in many countries including Canada.

Sunak did not reject net zero, but he clearly took his foot off the gas and started tapping the brake, acknowledging that people are not happy with the way it’s playing out: “We seem to have defaulted to an approach which will impose unacceptable costs on hard-pressed British families. Costs that no one was ever told about, and which may not actually be necessary to deliver the emissions reduction that we need.”

And Sunak extended some timelines in the United Kingdom’s net zero program. His government increased the deadline for ceasing sales of new internal combustion vehicles from 2030 to 2035. And rather than phasing out the sale of all gas boilers by 2035, the U.K. will phase out 80 percent of them by that date. The government will also now not require homeowners and landlords to meet various energy efficiency guidelines. Small changes to a large program, but a pioneering move away from today’s net zero timelines.

Here at home, Canadians also labour under the economic impacts of the Trudeau government’s net zero zeal. Canada’s carbon tax, a key net zero pillar, slated to rise to $170 per tonne by 2030, will put the hurt on Canadian households well in excess of the rebates given out by Ottawa. And a $170-per tonne carbon tax will cause the economy to shrink by about 1.8 per cent, causing a permanent loss of nearly 185,000 jobs and reducing real incomes in every province.

Similarly, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 60 per cent of households in Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba—the four provinces where the federal carbon tax applies—will pay more in carbon taxes than they get in rebates. By 2030, 80 per cent of households in Ontario and Alberta will be worse off and 60 per cent will be worse off in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Of course, the cost impacts of Canada’s net zero plan will likely expand well beyond the carbon tax, with emission caps on Canada’s oil and gas sector, a net zero goal for Canadian waste management, ambitious (some would say impossible) mandates to electrify transportation in Canada, new “Clean Electricity Regulations” that will raise the cost of electricity, energy-efficient construction standards that can only further increase the already insane costs of housing and commercial property development in Canada, and possible restrictions on agricultural use of fertilizers that could raise Canadian food prices beyond even today’s outrageous levels.

Sunak’s net zero slowdown is not exactly the stuff of Brexit, but it may be a harbinger of things to come for other countries shaking under the weight of their own net zero ambitions. Most importantly, it’s a precedent other governments can invoke to justify adjusting their own destructive net zero programs. The Trudeau government would do well to follow Sunak’s lead and reduce net zero targets, soften timelines, remove regulatory burdens, and generally reform the policy before the full brunt of the economic impact throws more Canadian households into the red.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Up Next

Lest we forget our military

Don't Miss

Canada creates a brand new fossil fuel subsidy – Awkward: Etam

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

Parent and gender dysphoria groups granted intervenor status in New Brunswick school policy case

Censorship Industrial Complex / 4 hours ago

Elon Musk skewers Trudeau gov’t Online Harms bill as ‘insane’ for targeting speech retroactively

MAiD / 4 hours ago

Even Canadian leftists are starting to recognize the ‘dystopian’ nature of MAiD

Economy

Young Canadians are putting off having a family due to rising cost of living, survey finds

Published on May 5, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

An April study has found that 42% of Gen Z and 39% of Millennials are putting off starting families due to a lack of work-life balance spurred by an increase in the cost of living.

A survey has found that more Canadians are delaying starting a family due to a lack of work-life balance spurred by the rising cost of living.

According to an April 24 Express Employment Professionals-Harris Poll survey, one-third of employed job seekers stated that they are putting off starting a family due to a lack of work-life balance, including 42% of Gen Z and 39% of Millennials.

“The most common thing I hear from candidates who are putting off starting a family is that the cost of living is too high,” Jessica Culo, an Express franchise owner in Edmonton, Alberta stated.

“We definitely hear more and more that candidates are looking for flexibility, and I think employers understand family/work balance is important to employees,” she added.

Two-thirds of respondents further stated that they believe it’s essential that the company they work for prioritizes giving its employees a good work-life balance as they look to start a family. This included 77% of Gen Z and 72% of Millennials.

The survey comes as Canada’s fertility rate hit a record-low of 1.33 children per woman in 2022. According to the data collected by Statistics Canada, the number marks the lowest fertility rate in the past century of record keeping. 

Sadly, while 2022 experienced a record-breaking low fertility rate, the same year, 97,211 Canadian babies were killed by abortion.

Canadians’ reluctance or delay to have children comes as young Canadians seem to be beginning to reap the effects of the policies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, which has been criticized for its overspending, onerous climate regulations, lax immigration policies, and “woke” politics.

In fact, many have pointed out that considering the rising housing prices, most Canadians under 30 will not be able to purchase a home.   

Similarly, while Trudeau sends Canadians’ tax dollars oversees and further taxes their fuel and heating, Canadians are struggling to pay for basic necessities including food, rent, and heating. 

A September report by Statistics Canada revealed that food prices are rising faster than the headline inflation rate – the overall inflation rate in the country – as staple food items are increasing at a rate of 10 to 18 percent year-over-year.  

While the cost of living has increased the financial burden of Canadians looking to rear children, the nation’s child benefit program does provide some relief for those who have kids.

Under the Canadian Revenue Agency’s benefit, Canadians families are given a monthly stipend depending on their family income and situation. Each province also has a program to help families support their children.

Young Canadians looking to start a family can use the child and family benefits calculator to estimate the benefits which they would receive.

Regardless of the cost of raising children, the Catholic Church unchangeably teaches that it is a grave sin for married couples to frustrate the natural ends of the procreative act through contraceptives, abortion or other means.

Economy

Today’s federal government—massive spending growth and epic betting

Published on May 5, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

One can legitimately ask whether the federal government has simply grown too big, complex and unwieldy to be managed at all

The Trudeau government’s 2024 budget landed with a thud, evoking little enthusiasm and drawing spirited criticism from business leaders, investors, provincial premiers and (of course) the opposition parties. Several elements of the budget have garnered outsized attention, notably the pledge to run endless deficits, the imposition of higher capital gains taxes, and various new programs and policy initiatives intended to address Canada’s housing crisis.

But the budget includes a few eye-catching data points that have been downplayed in the subsequent political and media commentary.

One is the sheer size of the government. The just-completed fiscal year marked a milestone, as Ottawa’s total spending reached half a trillion dollars ($498 billion, to be exact, excluding “actuarial losses”). According to the budget, the government will spend $95 billion more in 2024-25 than it planned only three years ago, underscoring the torrid pace of spending growth under Prime Minister Trudeau.

One can legitimately ask whether the federal government has simply grown too big, complex and unwieldy to be managed at all, even if we assume the politicians in charge truly care about sound management. How many parliamentarians—or even cabinet ministers—have a sufficient understanding of the sprawling federal apparatus to provide meaningful oversight of the vast sums Ottawa is now spending?

The ArriveCAN scandal and chronic problems with defence procurement are well-known, but how good a job is the government doing with routine expenditure programs and the delivery of services to Canadians? The auditor general and the Parliamentary Budget Officer provide useful insights on these questions, but only in a selective way. Parliament itself tends to focus on things other than financial oversight, such as the daily theatre of Question Period and other topics conducive to quick hits on social media. Parliament isn’t particularly effective at holding the government to account for its overall expenditures, even though that ranks among its most important responsibilities.

A second data point from the budget concerns the fast-rising price tag for what the federal government classifies as “elderly benefits.” Consisting mainly of Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, these programs are set to absorb $81 billion of federal tax dollars this year and $90 billion by 2026-27, compared to $69 billion just two years ago. Ottawa now spends substantially more on income transfers to seniors than it collects in GST revenues. At some point, a future government may find it necessary to reform elderly benefit programs to slow the relentless cost escalation.

Finally, the budget provides additional details on the Trudeau government’s epic bet that massive taxpayer-financed subsidies will kickstart the establishment of a major, commercially successful battery and electric vehicle manufacturing “supply chain” in Canada. The government pledges to allocate “over $160 billion” to pay for its net-zero economic plan, including $93 billion in subsidies and incentives for battery, EV and other “clean” industries through 2034-35. This spending, the government insists, will “crowd in more private investment, securing Canada’s leadership” in the clean economy.

To say this is a high-risk industrial development strategy is an understatement. Canada is grappling with an economy-wide crisis of lagging business investment and stagnant productivity. Faced with this, the government has chosen to direct hitherto unimaginable sums to support industries that make up a relatively small slice of the economy. Even if the plan succeeds, it won’t do much to address the bigger problems of weak private-sector investment and slumping productivity growth.