What’s happening in Sri Lanka? After months of massive protests, President Gotabaya Rajapaska fled the country last month. He’s since resigned over email from the safety of Singapore. Probably a wise move. Crowds had stormed his official residence and set fire to the Prime Minister’s home.
Gota, as he’s known, played a key role in wrecking the economy. Inflation runs over 50% and the government has defaulted on 51 billion US dollars in foreign debt. In Sri Lanka, the power cuts out every day. There are shortages of fuel, and medicine. The UN predicts that a third of the population could soon be starving. Now the crowds have turned their fury on the governing elites who haven’t run away.
But why is the economy in ruins?
The government blames the Covid-19 pandemic. Mainstream media nods along, alluding to a few other things. But the obvious explanation – “suicide by Net Zero” – is ignored or dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theory.
Gota announced his new fertilizer policy at COP 26 (United Nations Climate Change Conference) in November 2021. He reminded everyone of Sri Lanka’s “national commitment” to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 in pursuit of the now famous globalist goals of “Net Zero by 2050”, or now more commonly known as simply “Net Zero”. The problem, it was said, was that nitrogen emissions from “artificial fertilizer” are “a major contributor to climate change”. Gota was determined to lead the world in addressing that “problem”. He was going to make his whole country go organic!
It was clearly a green policy. And perfectly in synch with the exhortations of the other Zeros.
The British Deputy High Commissioner to Sri Lanka spoke of “a responsibility to take action – now”. The UN’s “Climate Action Champion” called for “ambitious policies”. COP President Alok Sharma said that the “window” for action was “closing fast”.
Canadian Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, made the preposterous claim that “the global financial system has been transformed to deliver Net Zero”. And Prime Minister Justin Trudeau demanded that everyone “must do more, and faster.” No one warned Gota to slow down and think again.
And the result?
Sri Lankan farmers had been supplying – in full – the domestic Sri Lanka demand for rice since 2005, but only because they’ve been using those very same dreaded “artificial fertilizers”. Inevitably, six months into Gota’s hare-brained experiment, Sri Lanka was importing hundreds of millions of US dollars of rice, and domestic prices were soaring. Sri Lanka’s main source of export revenue and foreign currency is tea. Inevitably, production fell by a devastating 20 percent under Gota’s organic farming diktat.
And now? Disaster. Total disaster.
How do the climate apologists explain away what is going on in Sri Lanka?
The BBC reports that Gota’s demand that farmers use only organic fertilizers was meant to cope with “foreign currency shortages” but led to “widespread crop failure”.
And a “climate disinformation specialist” debunks the theory that “green policies” might “lie behind” Sri Lanka’s misery.
An “expert” says that Gota’s policy “had nothing to do” with his “environmentally sound, principled position”. Besides, he dropped it after “just” seven months. (Just seven months. What’s the big deal?) The fertilizer policy “hurt the economy” but “other factors” also “contributed”.
Non-experts might wonder whether things that “hurt” an economy may also “lie behind” its collapse. The obvious explanation is right: Efforts to implement Net Zero in Sri Lanka was the main cause of the Sri Lankan crisis, and of most “other factors” that contributed.
All this hysterical moralizing was a “sound, principled position”: according to the green extremists, climate change is an existential threat to life on earth. Everyone needs to act right now to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions orders of magnitude greater than any in human history – and in less than a decade.
But now, as Sri Lanka sinks into abject misery, the Zeros say they didn’t really mean it. Sure, they wanted Gota to drive his country over a cliff – but not quite so fast.
Net Zero is inherently ruinous, not just in Sri Lanka, but everywhere it is tried. It implies economic collapse. Indeed it is designed to bring it about. The choice is stark: a functioning economy or Net Zero. No country can have both.
It was a form of “economic suicide”, but how else could Gota meet the radical targets to which he’d already agreed?
NEXT: The Zero plan unfolds in the Netherlands and Canada
Dan McTeague | President
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.
Things have only gone from bad to worse for the global Electric Vehicle industry. And that’s a problem for Canada, because successive Liberal governments have done everything in their power to hitch our cart to that horse.
Earlier this month, the Trump Administration rolled back more Biden-era regulations that effectively served as a back-door EV mandate in the United States. These rules mandated that all passenger cars be able to travel at least 65.1 miles (and for light trucks, 45.2 miles) per gallon of gasoline or diesel, by the year 2031. Since no Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle could realistically conform to those standards, that would have essentially boxed them out of the market.
Trump’s rolling them back was a fulfillment of his campaign promise to end the Biden Administration’s stealth EV mandates. But it was also a simple recognition of the reality that EVs can’t compete on their own merits.
For proof of that, look no further than our second bit of bad news for EVs: Ford Motor Company has just announced a massive $19.5 billion write-down, almost entirely linked to its aggressive push into EVs. They’ve lost $13 billion on EVs in the past two years alone.
The company invested tens of billions on these go-carts, and lost their shirt when it turned out the market for them was miniscule.
Ford’s EV division president Andrew Frick explained, “Ford is following the customer. We are looking at the market as it is today, not just as everyone predicted it to be five years ago.”
Of course, five years ago, the market was assuming that government subsidies-plus-mandates would create a market for EVs at scale, which hasn’t happened.
As to what this portends for the market, the Wall Street Journalargued, “The company’s pivot from all-electric vehicles is a fresh sign that America’s roadways – after a push to remake them – will continue to look in the near future much like they do today, with a large number of gas-powered cars and trucks and growing use of hybrids.”
And that’s not just true in the U.S. Across the Atlantic, reports suggest the European Union is preparing to delay their own EV mandates to 2040. And the U.K.’s Labour government is considering postponing their own 2030 ICE vehicle ban to align with any EU change in policy.
It’s looking like fewer people around the world will be forced by their governments to buy EVs. Which means that fewer people will be buying EVs.
Now, that is a headache for Canada. Our leaders, at both the federal and provincial levels, have bet big on the success of EVs, investing billions in taxpayer dollars in the hopes of making Canada a major player in the global EV supply chain.
To bolster those investments, Ottawa introduced its Electric Vehicle mandate, requiring 100 per cent of new light-duty vehicle sales to be electric by 2035. This, despite the fact that EVs remain significantly more expensive than gas-and-diesel driven vehicles, they’re poorly suited to Canada’s vast distances and cold climate, and our charging infrastructure is wholly inadequate for a total transition to EVs.
But even if these things weren’t true, there still aren’t enough of us to make the government’s investment make sense. Their entire strategy depends on exporting to foreign markets that are rapidly cooling on EVs.
Collapsing demand south of the border – where the vast majority of the autos we build are sent – means that Canadian EVs will be left without buyers. And postponed (perhaps eventually canceled) mandates in Europe mean that we will be left without a fallback market.
Canadian industry voices are growing louder in their concern. Meanwhile, plants are already idling, scaling back production, or even closing, leaving workers out in the cold.
As GM Canada’s president, Kristian Aquilina, said when announcing her company’s cancellation of the BrightDrop Electric delivery van, “Quite simply, we just have not seen demand for these vehicles climb to the levels that we initially anticipated…. It’s simply a demand and a market-driven response.”
Prime Minister Mark Carney, while sharing much of the same environmental outlook as his predecessor, has already been compelled by economic realities to make a small adjustment – delaying the enforcement of the 2026 EV sales quotas by one year.
But a one-year pause doesn’t solve the problem. It kicks the can down the road.
Mr. Carney must now make a choice. He can double down on this troubled policy, continuing to throw good money after bad, endangering a lot of jobs in our automotive sector, while making transportation more expensive and less reliable for Canadians. Or he can change course: scrap the mandates, end the subsidies, and start putting people and prosperity ahead of ideology.
Here’s hoping he chooses the latter.
The writing is on the wall. Around the world, the forced transition to EVs is crashing into economic reality. If Canada doesn’t wake up soon, we’ll be left holding the bag.
