Hugh Mackenzie is taking a break from Listen Up! This is a guest commentary by Dave Wilkin.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has blinked on his signature file, climate change.
After eight years of trumpeting his commitment and actions to become a world leader in reducing emissions, the centerpiece of his climate change plan, his carbon tax, has been compromised, undermined by a panicked move to shore up cratering Liberal support in Atlantic Canada. Exempting emissions-intensive heating oil for three years from the carbon tax mostly benefits Atlantic provinces. Only three percent of Canadian households heat with oil, but in Atlantic Canada, it’s up to 40 percent. The cry-outs of unfairness from other provinces/territories & opposition parties with calls for exemptions for much cleaner-burning natural gas and propane grow louder. Good grief, what did they expect?
In announcing this news, Trudeau also said they were “doubling down” on commitments to fight climate change. Seriously? He pointed to more incentives for heat pumps in Atlantic Canada and doubled the rebates for rural residents. Why did he wait until now? Looks like more attempts to shore up his sinking poll numbers. Yet despite the growing pressure, he has flatly stated that there will be no more carve-outs from the carbon tax. But the precedent is now set, and Canadians can see securing votes and protecting Liberal seats trumps all else. Rural Economic Development Minister Gudie Hutchings even said that if Western and Prairie provinces want to get carbon pricing carve-outs, they should elect more Liberal ministers. So much for Trudeau’s populist slogan ‘putting a price on pollution’.
So what progress has Trudeau made on reducing emissions from fossil fuels? According to the Energy Institute’s 2023 Energy Statistical Review, we find progress has been underwhelming, falling just 6 percent since Trudeau became Prime Minister, leaving the primary energy share from fossil fuels unchanged at 65 percent. Looks like Trudeau’s carbon tax thus far has been a bust. It has however been successful in contributing to rising costs across the economy, the financial impacts of which far exceed the Climate Action Incentive Payments for the average household.
Looking at the global picture, again from the Energy Institute’s 2023 Statistical Review, we see emissions from combustion continue to rise to new heights, following a steep decline in 2020 due to the pandemic impacts. In 2022 they rose in both non-OECD countries (66 percent global emission share) and OECD countries (34 percent share). Even in the EU, where almost all of the countries with material carbon pricing reside, emissions dropped a tiny ½ percent in 2022, with much of that drop due to energy cutbacks in response to Russian energy import cuts. Decades of rising fuel taxes and increasingly restrictive regulations have still left fossil fuels comprising over 70 percent of their primary energy and leaving over 50 percent of all their energy imported.
Replacing today’s fossil fuel-based energy system will take a lot of time, huge capital investments, and more innovation. The pace of the transition will be determined primarily by countries’ economic capabilities. Driving up the cost of fossil fuels with high taxes and restricting domestic supply through excessive regulation is fraught with problems and risks. Outside of the energy-insecure EU, and now Canada, no country is following that path. The reality is that fossil fuels remain a necessity, as affordable alternatives are just not available for most households today. Government incentives and subsidies help, but they are limited by government fiscal realities. An energy transition has to happen, but it won’t be fast enough to achieve ambitious net zero targets, and thus the need for much more climate change impact mitigation investment. Much of this seems to elude the Trudeau government.
In a previous Doppler commentary, I wrote that the ‘winds of change’ were blowing for PM Trudeau. With the flip-flop on his carbon tax, we can see how desperate this Liberal government has become. I am now more convinced that the time left for PM Trudeau’s leadership is quickly shrinking.
Dave Wilkin is a Professional Engineer, with a master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Toronto. His career spans over 40 years in Information Technology, banking, energy, and consulting. A former resident of Huntsville, Ontario, he now lives in Burlington but still spends time at his Huntsville area cottage.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Doug Ford Conservatives axe renewable energy projects!
What’s the plan Federal Conservatives? Is there one?
I agree with David Caswell who wrote a few days ago, that he is surprised anyone denies climate change has occurred but is equally surprised that anyone believes that increasing taxes will do anything about the change in climate. All it seems to do is make some people richer (those who get government grants to develop “green energy”) and some poorer (the tax payers). I also agree with him that the earth’s climate has ALWAYS changed, since way before mankind was here burning fossil fuels, and way before there was much of a population to do so. The real record is there, in various proxies of temperature. Interestingly, the data show that atmospheric CO2 rises as a CONSEQUENCE of warming–not the other way around. In any case, CO2 has been much, much higher in terms of a percentage of the atmosphere, in eons past–as determined from ice core samples.
I’m all for doing what we can to decrease air pollution in our cities by decreasing the burning of fossil fuels and thus reducing the amount of the poisoning of the planet. But I’d like to think that we are intelligent enough to separate real science from political opinion.
Physicist and Nobel Laureate (2022), Dr. John Clauser has joined the growing numbers of distinguished scientists who are skeptical that we have a “climate emergency” as a result of the burning of fossil fuel. The earth has been undergoing a mild warming since the beginning of the 20th century, but the warming was much more pronounced in historical periods such as the Roman Warm Period (from approximately 250 B.C. to 400 A.D.). Through researchers’ analysis of sediment, it has been determined that the Mediterranean Sea was then about 3.6 degrees warmer than now. In addition, it has been established that the earth is now, in fact, cooling, which is a hazard to agriculture. Looking at the “Little Ice Age,” which was arguably from the 16th to 19th centuries (experts prefer the period of 1300 to 1850) tens of thousands of northern Europeans starved because of massive crop failures. During the worst of the Little Ice Age, there were NO frost-free summers across northern Europe. In any case, the warming and cooling of the earth appears to be highly correlated to the intensity of solar activity. The increase in solar activity that occurred around the beginning of the 20th century, appears to be now over, along with the decrease in solar activity.
The bottom line is that decreasing pollution is ALWAYS a good idea, but EVs actually contribute more pollution than the burning of fossil fuel, when the entire pollution scenario is examined. But don’t believe me–look it up for yourselves. As an example of things we can do to reduce pollution, the potential use of hydrogen power would be MUCH, much cleaner than any other form of energy production. Instead of hysterically racing in the direction of EVs, we should focus our attention on the development of hydrogen power.
A few more thoughts.
If you’re replacing an old AC unit or furnace, it’s a good time to consider a heat pump. Note that if your home has an old/smaller electrical panel, you may have to upgrade it first. Consider a 200 amp service, if its available to your home.
Regarding SMR’s, they are not unproven technology. They can be deployed much faster and at lower cost compared to the big CANDU nuc’s and they can provide both base load & dispatchable power (unlike wind/solar). They do however have the downside of nuclear waste. They are not a silver bullet, but are part of the transition equation. Likewise for carbon capture.
As I stated, getting the world to net zero is gong to extend well beyond 2050. The faster growing non-OECD countries want to develop as wealthy countries have, and they will continue to use fossil fuels for the bulk of their energy needs, just as we did. That’s just the economics of energy systems today. Unless wealthy countries are prepared to dramatically increase payments to help them (like by 10 fold), they will continue on that path. Canada can’t change that.
We need to transition to a cleaner energy system, but not destroy our natural resource sector and tank our economy in the process. The current gang running things in Ottawa are incompetent managers of just about everything, but especially the economy.
That’s the bottom line.
Climate change is real and happening now and accelerating, with most harmful impacts on those who have least contributed to making the problem of greenhouse gases- ( say the world’s infants and children) from our fossil fuel addictions. We cannot continue to ignore the increasing risks to human health from burning fossil fuels.Business as usual, industries only mitigating emissions if ” cost effective” is stupid greed. There may still be time for humanity, but undemonstrated technology like small nuclear reactors and carbon capture will not solve the problem we have created by our dependence on oil, and natural gas and derivatives.If the carbon tax, or spiralling fossil fuel costs do not incentivize us to priorize different choices or spur us to find other ways to live, to do business, to expect more from our leadership now, not just as election announcements, then what are we leaving for those infants and children to deal with in the next decade? As you mark National Child’s Day on Monday November 20, ask yourself, Mr Wilkins too, what is your plan for your legacy?
Admittedly, I don’t know statistics like others who have commented here, but looking around my neighbourhood, it seems to my that a luxury tax on the unoccupied, but heated secondary/seasonal homes would help the local people with retrofits.
I visualize a program to promote heat pumps to help the local/permanent population change from oil/propane to the new technology. And possibly including the generacs in that program too, for the winter storms that knock out the hydro. That might be helpful for all of us. Speaking on my own behalf, the price of the heat pump gives me heart paplitations.
Good discussions! Here are a few points responding to some comments.
First for Bob Braan. Again , the gas plants are critical to keeping the power on/predictable. You should read the IESO reports.(https://www.ieso.ca/en/Learn/Ontario-Electricity-Grid/Supply-Mix-and-Generation).
Ontario got about 8% of all power from wind/solar, most of it wind, last year. The seasonal swing is huge though, from a high of about 12% in January, to under 3% in July. There is no viable storage alternative to cover such a large seasonal swing in demand nor even the daily/weekly fluctuations in them. As weather extremes get more frequent and severe, the need for dependability only grows, thus the need for the gas peaker plants rises, not falls. Also, as the big nuc’s go through their refurbishment cycles, their baseload power must be replaced, and intermittent renewables won’t cut it. That is why the IESO clearly states the need for the gas plants continues.
Re heat pumps, they are definitely a good option for most households that can afford the upfront cost, which can exceed $15K in some cases, especially for larger homes. However, just be aware that in most of Ontario, a backup heating system, like electric heating coils or natural gas/propane is still needed to handle those very cold days and nights. Your insurance likely requires it. Also be aware that on cold days they will run continuously, putting out lower grade heat, which may take some getting use to for some people vs. gas or propane furnaces. Everyone should do their own ROI/benefit analysis, as well as getting multiple quotes, as prices can vary significantly.
Lastly, on the carbon tax, the main point of my article. As I pointed out, with the hard facts, carbon pricing has had very limited success to-date, both in Canada and more significantly, in the EU (after decades). They may work in theory for economists and perhaps only at far higher levels, but that would cause economies to falter, or worse. For Canada, it’s real important, since our largest trading partner, the US, doesn’t have a national carbon tax, and is unlikely to any time soon.
As for the impact of our carbon tax, a few comments here are misleading. The PBO clearly found that for most income brackets, and the country as a whole, the NET impact was negative, not positive. That analysis takes into account its impact on business & government revenues, investments and capital returns. Check it out!
https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases–communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages
Thank you Bob Braan for your knowledgeable, in depth comments on our energy and environment issues.
I live in the KW area and am a regular visitor to the Huntsville area during the Fall colour change seasons. I’m glad I subscribe to Doppler where I can find these meaningful and informative discussions.
I had a chance to meet Mr. Graydon Smith, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry this past season. He seemed to show a lot of concern about preserving and managing our natural resources. I would hope that he had read your comments here and try to convince Doug Ford and the other Conservative Ostriches to listen up.
This conversation shows that many in our community are looking for solutions to the climate crisis we are facing and it is heartening to see some discuss pathways forward. There is an opportunity for all of us to learn more and see what solutions across sectors can look like at the Engage Muskoka Climate Action Film Festival at the Algonquin Theatre on Nov. 29th at 7:00 p.m. The HHS Eco Club and their teachers as well as community partners are hosting a series of short powerful films that will focus on climate action and invite conversation towards local solutions. Our community, like others, can come together. Tickets are available on the Algonquiin Theatre website. Let’s support this initiative.
The Liberal pause in carbon tax on heating oil across Canada is just for 3 years to allow people to switch to home heating with heat pumps. Even with the carbon tax removed oil is still far more expensive to heat with than natural gas, including the tax, that most Canadians use.
On new builds heat pumps can be less expensive than a natural gas furnace plus a/c.
Heat pumps replace both.
Modern cold climate air source heat pumps work down to -25C then the built in resistance heat kicks in as required so they work at any temp. No backup furnace needed.
Ground source heat pumps don’t need backup heat at all as the ground temp down a few metres is always much higher than the air temp in winter.
Most popular type in Sweden.Search
“How Sweden electrified its home heating — and what Canada could learn.”
To learn a little bit about modern heat pumps:
Search “Will a heat pump work in my region’s climate? How low can it go? Your questions answered”
And search “How do Canadians like their heat pump?People from three provinces tell the story.”
There is another type of heat pump that drastically cuts costs and GHG emissions and avoids multi-billion dollar new generation.
Search “A Heat Pump Water Heater Will Save All The Electricity You’ll Need To Power Your Electric Vehicle” compared to electric resistance water heaters so ZERO new energy would be needed for EVs.
In the US after federal, state and utility rebates they are the least expensive type to buy and, by far, the least expensive to operate.
In California they will pay $3KUSD to switch from GHG spewing natural gas to a heat pump water heater.
$3KUSD is more than it’s worth.
If Canada was serious about net zero we would have matching rebates like the US and avoid multi-billion dollar new generation.
Energy conservation, storage and shifting demand to off peak times with timers has the same effect as new generation for pennies on the dollar.
In Ontario simply putting a timer (EH40 at HD) on your existing electric resistance water heater and switching to the ultra low 2.8 cents per kWh overnight rate means the operating cost is lower than natural gas and no ever-increasing carbon tax. In that case gas water heaters would be obsolete since they are far more expensive to buy and install and more expensive to operate.
You just have to avoid the weekday 28 cents per kWh rate 4-9 pm on the new plan if you can. The rest of the weekday is the same or lower cost.
BBQ or gas stove and a toaster oven for cooking avoids most of the high cost weekday time. Toaster ovens use 1/4 the energy as a full size oven.
There is no higher rate on weekends so you save more on weekends than you do during the week.
We will save about $150/year with timers on the hot water tank and hot tub. Without an EV.
The ultra low overnight rate can be used to charge your new EV.
Only $100/year to “fuel” an EV the size of a Model 3 including the 1.5 cent per kWh delivery charge.
15 kWh per 100 km for 15K kms/year is $100..
Instead of $100 every week or two for gas.
Actually FREE “fuel” since the carbon tax rebate covers it.
Ontario used to have rebates for EVs, energy conservation and timers.
Many provinces have EV rebates on top of the federal $5K rebate.
In PQ the total is $12K which makes a little Chevy Bolt EV cheaper than a Honda Civic.
And a giant base Ford Lightning SuperCrew cab 4×4 EV pickup cheaper than the base ICE SuperCrew 4×4 in PQ.
Ontario used to have a $14K EV rebate.
That would have made the total rebate $19K in Ontario.
But Doug Ford killed the additional EV rebate here.
Energy demand in Ontario went down for 12 years from 157 TWh to 132 TWh from 2005 until 2017 in spite of the population going up when we used to have energy conservation rebates..
Avoiding billions of dollars in new generation.
Conservation and storage has the same effect as new generation for pennies on the dollar.
Until Ford in 2018 cancelled all the conservation programs and demand is skyrocketing again.
He also cut 750 green energy projects already under construction, wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, saying we didn’t need the power at the time.
Now he’s blowing billions of your dollars on new GHG spewing gas plants instead.
The City of Thorold blocked one of the plants for environmental reasons. No kidding.
Search “Doug Ford government wants new gas plants to boost Ontario’s electricity system”
Ontario used to be 96% non-fossil fuel power.
Now it’s down to 90% and dropping fast since Doug Ford. Unlike most of the rest of the world.
Conservative Ostrich with his head in the sand, Doug Ford, means higher energy usage, higher costs and higher emissions.
Permanently.
Greater federal regulation could help reduce emissions. In Denmark for instance all new homes must have solar panels. Why are some new homes in Ontario allowed to have oil heating?
Regulation, price differentials to incentivize, and subsidies can all make a huge difference to the climate, as well as public education of course.
Dave, why are the provinces with the highest GDP per capita and no provincial sales tax (Alberta $101,816, Saskatchewan $97,089) due to their windfall on natural resources complaining about the feds giving a small but immediate helping hand to the resource-poor provinces with the lowest GDP per capita (NB $54,969, NS $53,034) and the highest (oil-based) heating cost? Sounds a bit selfish to me.
Scott Moe said on national TV that “Heat pumps don’t work in Saskatchewan”. How strange that they work well in every other province and country with a similar climate.
Has Alberta forgotten that they were on the receiving end of equalization payments for most of Canada’s history? Everything does not have to be political. Can there not be such a thing as a little fairness and generosity within the Canadian family?
So we can’t or won’t meet emission targets, so let’s spend trillions on so called mitigation? Carbon capture? Hazing the atmosphere with dust?
1. Let’s argue that Canada alone can’t make a difference. That’s the classic loser argument and is The Tragedy of the Commons where no one takes responsibility.
2. Let’s argue that change takes time. Yes it does But let’s not let it become an excuse to do nothing, We had some decades but now they’ve gone.
3, Let’s argue that pollution taxes don’t work in Canada. Why not? They do in other developed countries. Really the vested oil and gas industry and the SUV makers want you to believe carbon tax doesn’t work, but it does.
4. Let’s argue that we can switch to heat pumps … maybe but not at current prices.
Culturally, politically economically Canadians are untuned to the task of meeting emission targets. Never did it before, why do
It now.? The carrot of carbon taxing may not be acceptable, but the stick will surely follow.
Thank you Bob Braan for a scientifically accurate and common sense comment. We need a lot more of those instead of unsubstantiated political comments.
On another note, the 2024 Chevrolet Blazer EV just received Motor Trend magazine’s 2024 SUV of the year award, out of 22 contenders from around the world. I was happy to hear that since I have one on order. The single biggest thing I can personally do to help mitigate climate change is to buy an EV. Emissions from producing oil and gas are 26% of Canada’s total emissions, transportation is 25%, and emissions from heating buildings is 10%. So producing and using fossil fuels for transportation and heating are 61% of Canada’s total emissions output which is among the highest in the world on a per capita basis; twice as high as China and 3 times several European countries. The International Energy Agency says, ” We know what to do and how to do it, but political cooperation is crucial to success”.
In practical, non political terms, according to the latest Fuel Consumption Guide published by Natural Resources Canada, the Energy cost for the gasoline powered Blazer is $3,248 per year for 20,000 km at $1.25 per liter. The cost for a Blazer EV is $701 based on electricity at $.157 per kwh. If 2/3rds of my travel is local and I can charge the battery at Ontario’s new ultra-low night rate of $.028 per kwh for that portion, it will cost me $285 per year for transportation energy. Assuming I will live long enough to keep the EV for 5 Years, I will save ($3,248 – $285) x 5 = $14,815, and my vehicle emissions go to ZERO. That is something I am very happy to do for myself and our grandchildren.
We recently travelled to visit friends on Vancouver Island. While there, I read in the local Nanaimo newspaper that Town Council had just passed a bylaw, to not approve building permits for “ new builds “ that involved fossil fuel based heating systems. ( as of 2026 )
Leslie Hastie wrote a post, months ago, promoting heat pumps. I hesitated to get onside with that notion at the time, but the future of fossil fuels seems to be on the demise whether it be from over taxation or with new building codes such as in Nanaimo.
I think it is prudent to come to grips with this reality at least with new builds or renovations.
Green initiatives are working.
Not only cleaner air but also lower health care costs and a slowing of global warming.
Doing nothing, as some Conservative Ostriches prefer, is far more expensive.
While the earth literally burns.
“Last year, the PBO estimated that rising temperatures and precipitation since the early 1980s has already lowered Canada’s gross domestic product by $20 billion.”
Global warming has already slowed a bit from earlier estimates.
“Before the Paris Agreement, the world was on track to reach 3.5 C of warming before the end of the century. However, since then, we are on track to reach 2.5 C. But with announced pledges from countries, it could limit warming to 1.7 C, and if we reach net zero by 2050, it could limit warming to 1.5 C.”
Search “We are heading toward IPCC’s 1.5 C threshold of warming, but all is not lost”
EVs are already bringing air improvements and reducing health care costs.
Search “California neighbourhoods with more EVs see better air quality, public health”
“As EV adoption increased within a given zip code, local air pollution levels and emergency room visits also dropped, the authors found.”
A very Canadian example search “This EV is wiping out indoor air pollution in arenas across Canada”
There were record wildfires around the world including Canada.
3X the GHG from wildfires than everything else combined.
Search “Wildfires turn Canada’s vast forests from carbon sink into super-emitter”
Drier conditions as a result of climate change make controllable wildfires uncontrollable.
Poilievre and other Conservative Ostriches prefer to just watch the earth burn while axing the tax.
Axe the tax and you axe the big rebate of course.
You won’t save a dime.
Poilievre keeps complaining about the tax and consistently fails to mention the rebate.
Up to $1,544/year. Depends on province.
Low incomes all get more back with the rebate than they pay in the tax so it’s a net benefit Poilievre wants to take away from those who need it most.
“No, that PBO study doesn’t prove the carbon tax is a stealth cash grab”
“Far from refuting the government’s claim, in fact it confirms it. In six of the seven provinces where the federal carbon tax applies, the PBO estimates that, even at the $170 per tonne the tax will have reached by then (it was recently increased to $65 a tonne), 80 per cent of households will get back more in rebates than they pay in the tax. The only exception is Nova Scotia, where it is more like 50 per cent. But even in Nova Scotia, the average household is a net beneficiary.”
Don’t like the tax? Don’t pay it by going EV and heat pump.
And still get the big rebate.
In that case ALL incomes get FAR more back with the rebate than they pay in the tax.
Which is the point of the tax and rebate.
Reward those who switch to low carbon energy without penalizing those who don’t/can’t.
The rebate pays the entire yearly cost of “fuel” for an EV (FREE “fuel” courtesy of the gas burners), road tax if any and helps to pay off the EV and heat pump.
One would expect that we would’ve heard from Climate Action Muskoka on this issue by now? After all, as a “non partisan” lobby group, they would be disappointed by this climb down by the Trudeau government, and would want to register their disapproval just as loudly as they have on other issues with other politicians? I wonder why they’re so quiet here?
Well stated Dave.
I would love to see analysis by you on the subject of residential heat pumps.
Real world expectations for efficiency and cost compared to forced air natural gas which is the most common system in most Muskoka urban homes.
This would deal with efficiencies at various temperatures experienced in Muskoka. Such an analysis should not be confused by factors around air-conditioning. Heating only.
An unbiased BS free set off facts would be very useful.
Great Opinion Article Dave !