We should wonder, does the term, “net-zero” reference the future cash available for us to pay to heat and eat during Canada’s cold winters?

Canada’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Jonathon Wilkinson, a few days ago made the announcement that he has chosen his “Net-Zero Advisory Body” and it is reputedly filled with individuals with “a diverse range of expertise in science, business, labour, policy-making, rural economic development, and Indigenous governance.”  Their Mandate; “is to identify pathways to help Canada achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.”

Looking back to December 2020 when Wilkinson released his; “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy” report, one would note it stated; “The Government is proposing to increase the carbon price by $15 per year, starting in 2023, rising to $170 per tonne of carbon pollution in 2030. The increasing price will make cleaner options more affordable and discourage pollution-intensive investments.” 

It certainly appears based on the foregoing claim, increasing the carbon price (tax) would drive emissions down so why does Wilkinson believe increasing bureaucracy with “prejudiced” advisors will somehow add value? Is the “$170/tonne carbon tax”, that will inflict economic pain on all Canadian’s, somehow (in his “Rhodes Scholar” mind) insufficient?  Wilkinson’s Ministry reported: “Over the long term, Canada’s economy has grown more rapidly than its GHG emissions: the emissions intensity for the entire economy (GHG per Gross Domestic Product [GDP]) has declined by 36% since 1990 and 20% since 2005.” The Ministry also noted; “Canada represented approximately 1.6% of global GHG emissions in 2016”. It is worth noting the foregoing occurred before we had a carbon tax!

To make matters worse and add more costs to Canadian households the announced imposition of the CFS (Clean Fuel Standard) with separate requirements for liquid, gaseous and solid fossil fuels will add $1,395.00 in additional annual costs to the average Canadian household based on a study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute.

Both the “carbon tax” increase and the “CFS” were added to Liberal plans meant to reduce and eventually negate Canada’s 1.6% of global GHG emissions. Now, there appears to be further plans to negatively impact the Canadian economy via more tax related issues to achieve that goal.

One of those is associated with the recent Biden/Trudeau chat which suggested the possible implementation of “carbon adjustment fees or quotas on goods coming from countries “that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations.” What the foregoing implies is cheap imports from countries like China, India, Vietnam, Brazil, etc. will suddenly attract an import tariff raising the import costs of products from those countries and impact the ability of households to purchase them.  One should expect the foregoing would result in those countries retaliating; meaning they would impose tariffs on imports from Canada, thereby reducing our trade, the associated economic activity and the jobs resulting from that trade.

What followed from the Biden/Trudeau virtual meeting was another meeting the following day between John Kerry and Jonathan Wilkinson and one of the major issues they focused on was; “things like working on vehicle emission standards for Canada and the U.S., again, looking to see how we can accelerate work to both enhance the energy efficiency of the existing types of vehicles that are being sold, but also to look at how we can accelerate the deployment of zero-emission technologies,”. One must assume the reflection suggested in Wilkinson’s remark, references electric vehicles (EV) and some of that EV production will be coming to Canada! Thanks to the generosity of all of Canada’s and Ontario taxpayers who are anteing up $590 million for Ford’s Oakville plant, 3,000 of the current 3,400 jobs at that plant will be saved at a cost of approximately $200K per job to produce electric vehicles.

To top things off the Federal government will also hand out a $5K “incentive” if you purchase an eligible EV and should you be a Quebec resident they will top that up with another $8K and if a BC resident they will add another $5K.                                                                                                                          We Canadian taxpayers are truly generous in our efforts to save the world from “climate change” thanks to the dolts we reward with our votes come election time!   As one of those whose tax dollars they are using to achieve “net-zero” by 2050 I am dubious I will live to see that day. I would suggest I am one of the many, including those who are blithely writing the cheques, who, at that time, will be shocked to realize our elimination of Canada’s 1.6% of emissions to achieve “net-zero” had no effect on climate change

PS:  To all who have read the article, I would recommend you watch a 1 hour and 13-minute documentary released in 2007 called: The Great Global Warming Swindle.   

Author: parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog

Retired international banker.

6 thoughts on “We should wonder, does the term, “net-zero” reference the future cash available for us to pay to heat and eat during Canada’s cold winters?”

  1. One wonders what it will take in terms of increased taxes, regulations, and committees set up to advise the government to do what it was already intending to do before Canadian taxpayers and voters will have had too much of this nonsense and will push back.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Hi Parker

    The issue of carbon tax however applied is going to be inevitable world wide. Now I am certainly no brainchild on this issue but I did cocotte an idea as to what would be a fairer method of application for carbon so that people could let price lead their decisions. To me it seems a value added tax scheme (VAT) like our beloved HST might help drive the elimination of carbon from end use consumer product. Very simply you start at the top level of a product process (ie Oil extraction from the well) and apply the carbon tax to the sale price when it passes hands to the next person in the chain. Eventually that products accumulated tax would wind its way down the chain to the ultimate consumer. In concert you could apply a tax credit to a non carbon based product, like hydrogen which comes at a significantly high cost of production but that credit would offset that higher cost as it blends down the chain. In the end the ultimate consumer end product may be fairly matched for price comparison. Properly managed this could define net zero with carbon debits funding non-carbon credits.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “The issue of carbon tax however applied is going to be inevitable world wide.”

      Here’s am excellent analysis of the carbon credit scheme. Is this legalized extortion?

      EXPOSING the BOGUS Paris Accords. Clean Air will come from Innovation, not Carbon Credits.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. if they are so intent on reducing carbon ”pollution” CO2 why don’t they stop all immigration ?? The 400K + who come here every year are not ”carbon neutral”.Why is that fact just ignored??? Why don’t we ask them.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The countries producing 70% of global emissions (China, USA, EU, Russia, India, Japan) have no carbon tax. Canada’s emissions are 1.6%. Why is Canada punishing it’s people in order to go from 1.6% to 1.5% as China builds new coal plants every month? Is the Canadian government using the carbon tax to lower emissions (We don’t know.) or to reward someone such as Frank Baylis with $237 million to produce 10 000 non-approved ventilators with the result that Baylis keeps $ 100 million for himself (We do know)? And “the budget will balance itself”.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: