Net Zero, Infinite Damage - How Policy is Undermining Canada
Is Canada on track to meet its climate goals? The honest answer is no, and the really honest answer is that Canada’s climate goals will never be reached. They are folly and were designed by climate ideologues who had no concept of consequence, economic reality or understanding of how Canada was founded and thrived before and after we became a nation. This way of thinking has damaged Canada.
The debate is increasingly polarized, with positions hardened on all sides. Yet the economic implications of net-zero policies cannot be ignored. In an increasingly unstable world, energy security is no longer theoretical - it is strategic. Climate policy that outpaces economic reality will not succeed.
Since the 2015 election of Justin Trudeau, Canada has emphasized measures that stunted growth, caused needless cost-of-goods increases, instituted policies that turned industry away to more welcoming international pastures which has resulted in our responsibly produced natural resources staying undeveloped. Capital chases opportunity and the “Open for Business” sign had been flipped to “Closed”. The jury is still out on whether Mark Carney is anchored to his climate change past or if he recognizes the national benefits of responsible resource development.
Consumer and industrial carbon pricing, restrictive-by-design regulations, reckless spending on unproven replacement technologies, lack of knowledge of the actual meaning of the word “transition”, a bureaucracy with an open chequebook, marching orders from a climate zealot who was demonstrably unqualified to think in Canada’s best interest and a national leader who was, at best, unserious about what Canada had to offer the world when it needed it most. He was someone who lacked vision consequence.
Too often, the debate is framed as a binary choice: expand petroleum production or meet climate goals. This is a false choice. The real challenge is how Canada can responsibly limit emissions while maintaining economic benefits that play to Canada’s strength. Our strengths are in what we have in and on the ground, willing buyers for what we have and a stable governance system and economy that once existed to get these things done. Any country in the world would want those elements to the degree we have, yet the opportunities have been squandered and - in many cases - deliberately.
As an example, the petroleum resource off Newfoundland and Labrador’s coast is world class and just waiting to be unleashed to fulfil its potential. Picture this: oil and natural gas that are sought at the highest prices globally, the lowest carbon-emitting petroleum production in the world, direct and unfettered access to world markets - no pipelines or petro railways required - a highly-skilled workforce, the highest safety and labour standards in the world, and a single stop and best-in-class regulator in charge of health & safety, environment, resource management and industrial benefits.
If global demand persists and it will for decades, then the world should be looking to jurisdictions like Newfoundland and Labrador and to Canada generally, not away from them with bizarre and ill-informed comments like “there is no business case for natural gas” when every G7 + CETA country and many more are begging for it.
Constraining such production does not reduce global emissions. It shifts supply to countries with weaker environmental, safety and labour standards. That is not climate leadership, it is exporting emissions.
At the same time, Canada is uniquely positioned to contribute to any transition if or when it comes. We have significant potential in offshore wind, massive hydro projects, small nuclear reactors, enormous reserves of natural gas and so much more. Enormous good comes from responsible resource development. It increases a country’s standard of living, it provides employment that keeps families and communities strong and vibrant, it can reduce or eliminate poverty and provides for circulation of private money thus supporting an economy. By any measure, this strengthens a country.
Canada accounts for roughly 1.5 percent of global carbon emissions. Eliminate Canada’s emissions to stone-age levels and it would not make one iota of difference to lowering global carbon emissions.
We should focus on reducing emissions, not eliminating industries. That means investing in carbon capture, methane reduction, and relying more on offshore operations. It means setting clear, predictable rules so that capital stays in Canada. And it means recognizing that responsibly produced Canadian energy can displace higher-emission alternatives globally.
This is the balance Canada must strike for this country and for the world.