Op-Eds
Support for Canada’s federal carbon tax for the control of greenhouse gas emissions appears to be crumbling after Ottawa’s decision in the fall to exempt home heating oil from the tax until 2027. Polling by the Angus Reid Institute indicates that two-thirds of Canadians support a further exemption for all home heating fuels, including natural gas, and many (42 per cent) want the carbon tax abolished altogether.
Yet exempting natural gas from the carbon tax, or eliminating the tax altogether, would actually harm most of the households who support the idea. That is because the proceeds from the tax are pooled and then rebated to households in the jurisdiction in which they are collected (the federal carbon tax applies…
Suggestions that carbon pricing is not working because Canada’s emissions have kept rising miss the mark, as a large chunk of the increase is due to rapid population growth. The country’s energy efficiency has, in fact, improved considerably under the carbon tax introduced by the federal government.
But unfortunately for carbon price supporters, Ottawa has directly contradicted the principle underlying the tax. In late October, it decided to selectively pause its application to heating oil, a fuel used primarily in homes in Atlantic Canada, ostensibly on affordability grounds, but largely viewed as a cynically political move. Quite logically, provincial leaders immediately asked for exemptions covering fuels used in their regions…
The national conversation about net-zero has tended to focus on renewable forms of energy, such as wind and solar, both of which have important roles to play in future. But nuclear energy and liquefied natural gas (LNG) have also emerged as pragmatic drivers on the road toward a low-carbon future. Each has its own unique advantages.
Nuclear stands out as a reliable source of base-load electricity. Unlike wind and solar installations, which produce much less energy than their rated capacities when, respectively, the wind isn’t blowing or the sun shining, nuclear reactors can operate more or less indefinitely at close to capacity output. That ensures a stable energy supply, offsetting the intermittency associated…
Four years ago, the federal government enacted the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), also known as Bill C-69. The reception was not good. In some circles, the legislation became known as the “no-more pipelines bill.” Industry associations, scholars and governments expressed their misgivings with the act and the effects it was likely to have on resource development. This month the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the act is unconstitutional. Whoops!
The door is not shut on a better approach, however. But Ottawa and the provinces need to work together to achieve it, starting now. In the decision’s conclusion, Chief Justice Wagner wrote: “This scheme plainly overstepped the mark.” What are the key elements that federal policy-makers…
Ottawa’s policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will cost Canadians, both directly and indirectly. In 2021, the Royal Bank estimated that reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 could cost as much as $2 trillion — which is almost three-quarters of last year’s entire GDP. We will also need to spend more to protect against a changing climate. To pay for all this, Canada badly needs economic growth.
Though virtually all governments and opposition parties twist themselves into knots to avoid saying it, trying to prevent climate change will cause economic pain. Yes, there will be new “sustainable” jobs and businesses, but the net impact will almost surely be negative. Assigning a price, by tax or regulation, to…
