Canada’s CO2 crusade is a flawed policy that harms the economy without delivering meaningful environmental gains
Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault recently unveiled a plan requiring the oil and gas industry to cut CO2 emissions by over one-third from 2019 levels by 2030. While this deadline may seem distant, it includes a mandate that at least 20 per cent of light-duty vehicle sales must be zero-emission by 2026 – a deadline looming just around the corner.
This initiative is part of Guilbeault’s broader strategy to achieve a net-zero emissions target by 2050.
However, there are at least 10 reasons why this plan is fundamentally flawed.
- Co2 is not a pollutant
Carbon dioxide, far from being a pollutant, is a vital component of the Earth’s ecosystem. It acts as a natural fertilizer, enabling plant growth and contributing to a healthy biosphere. When CO2 levels rise, crops grow faster, forests become more robust, and ecosystems flourish. For example, studies have shown that higher atmospheric CO2 levels improve agricultural yields for staples like wheat, rice, and corn, which are critical to global food security. Demonizing CO2 without acknowledging its benefits creates a distorted view of its role in maintaining life on Earth.
- CO2 is a trace gas
Many people, including policymakers, lack a basic understanding of CO2’s presence in the atmosphere. Surveys I conducted as a professor revealed that nearly all students were unaware that CO2 is a trace gas, comprising just 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere (approximately 420 ppm). For context, nitrogen accounts for 78 per cent and oxygen for 21 per cent. Moreover, human activity contributes only about four per cent of annual CO2 emissions (16 ppm). Canada’s share is a mere 1.5 per cent of that (0.24 ppm) – a rounding error in the global picture. Focusing on reducing Canada’s emissions at such a high cost ignores the negligible impact these reductions will have on overall atmospheric CO2 levels.
- Why Alberta and not China?
Guilbeault’s policies disproportionately target Alberta, the heart of Canada’s energy sector, despite the province being a relatively small global player. Meanwhile, China – the world’s largest CO2 emitter – continues to construct two new coal-fired power plants every week. These plants emit more pollution annually than Alberta’s oil sands. Even more striking, Canada exports coal to China, directly enabling their emissions growth. Yet Guilbeault, during his 2023 climate talks in China, refrained from criticizing the country’s environmental policies. Instead, he targeted Alberta’s oil sands development. This blatant double standard suggests an ideological bias rather than a commitment to genuine global environmental improvement.
- Watch what they do, not what they say
The lifestyles of climate advocates often contradict their rhetoric. Celebrities and political elites warning of climate catastrophes frequently fly on private jets, own multiple sprawling residences, and drive luxury vehicles. For example, high-profile climate activists like John Kerry or Leonardo DiCaprio have been criticized for their outsized carbon footprints. Their actions send a clear message: they don’t live under the restrictions they advocate for others. This hypocrisy undermines public trust in the policies they champion and raises doubts about the severity of the crisis they proclaim.
- Magical thinking
The expectation that the oil and gas industry can quickly pivot to meet these aggressive emission targets without clear technological solutions is a form of magical thinking. The industry already invests heavily in innovation, from carbon capture technology to renewable energy initiatives. For instance, Alberta’s oil sands producers have pledged billions toward emission-reduction technologies. Yet politicians like Guilbeault seem oblivious to the complexity and costs of these efforts, treating systemic change as though it were as simple as flipping a switch. This naive approach ignores the intricate realities of energy production and global supply chains.
- A multiplier of human misery
Far from making energy more accessible, these policies drive up costs, disproportionately affecting middle- and working-class families. High energy prices force families to make difficult choices, such as limiting home heating in winter or cutting back on transportation. For instance, Europe’s recent energy crisis, exacerbated by overreliance on renewables and the phase-out of fossil fuels, left millions unable to afford basic utilities. Meanwhile, politicians avoid supporting nuclear energy – a proven, scalable, and low-emission alternative – highlighting their lack of commitment to practical solutions.
- Extreme weather events
No amount of CO2 reduction will eliminate extreme weather events. Hurricanes, droughts, and floods have occurred throughout history, long before industrialization. What’s concerning is that misguided climate policies weaken our capacity to respond to these events. For example, high energy costs make it harder for municipalities to maintain infrastructure or fund disaster relief. Instead of investing in resilience measures, governments pour resources into emission-reduction strategies that offer little tangible benefit in mitigating immediate threats.
- The used-car salesman syndrome
Politicians often present their policies in glowing terms, emphasizing benefits while ignoring costs. For instance, proponents of the net-zero agenda rarely address the economic fallout of transitioning away from fossil fuels. Alberta alone stands to lose tens of thousands of jobs if Guilbeault’s regulations are fully implemented. Just as a used-car salesperson might downplay a vehicle’s faults, policymakers gloss over the financial burden their policies impose on ordinary citizens. This lack of transparency erodes public confidence in their leadership.
- Anti-human perspective
Radical climate policies often reflect an anti-human worldview, treating people as liabilities rather than assets. This perspective contrasts sharply with the Judeo-Christian tradition, which values human ingenuity and sees individuals as stewards of the Earth. Policies prioritizing environmental purity over human welfare – such as restricting energy access in developing countries – ignore the transformative power of affordable energy to lift millions out of poverty. Viewing humanity as a problem to be solved rather than a source of solutions is both counterproductive and ethically troubling.
- A matter of debate
Despite claims of consensus, human-induced climate change remains a hypothesis. Historical climate data often contradicts the predictions of modern climate models, which are prone to significant error margins. For example, the “hockey stick” graph popularized in the early 2000s has been widely criticized for its methodological flaws. Before dedicating trillions of dollars to policies that risk devastating economies, we must critically examine the evidence and consider alternative approaches that balance environmental stewardship with human flourishing.
As Bjorn Lomborg, founder of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, wisely reminds us, addressing environmental concerns is important, but climate change is not necessarily an existential crisis. Policies should focus on practical solutions that foster innovation and resilience without sacrificing human well-being. Canada must adopt a balanced approach that prioritizes people, practical energy solutions, and economic stability over ideological fervour.
Pierre Gilbert is Associate Professor Emeritus at Canadian Mennonite University. His commentary was submitted by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Explore more on Environmental extremism, Trudeau government, Environment
The views, opinions, and positions expressed by our columnists and contributors are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of our publication.
© Troy Media Troy Media is committed to empowering Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in building an informed and engaged public by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections, enriches national conversations, and helps Canadians learn from and understand each other better.
