Climate subsidies: Costs outweigh the benefits

Oops, they did it again.

Despite a constant barrage of attacks from the federal government, Alberta continues its failed strategy of climate appeasement.

In case you missed it, in the past two weeks the federal government has announced new methane and carbon dioxide emissions regulations designed to weaken and ultimately destroy Western Canada’s oil and gas industries. 

In addition, the Ottawa Brain Trust announced a new methane credit trading system designed to limit the emissions of cattle burps. The idea here is to pressure ranchers into feeding more corn as well as potentially some chemical additives to reduce methane emissions.

So how does Alberta respond? In true Jason Kenney fashion, our provincial government fired off an angry press release to protest Ottawa’s presence in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Premier Danielle Smith also criticized the cow burp scheme calling it “a new low for the eco-extremists.”

But the next day Alberta’s government merrily went back to pumping millions into corporate welfare for emissions-reducing projects. This time the government is providing unspecified subsidies through its provincial carbon tax fund for a renewable natural gas plant near Calgary. The plant will produce RNG gas for about 10 times the production cost typically associated with conventional natural gas. It will also, coincidentally, provide “methane-reducing” cattle feed. Yikes. 

A week ago I called on conservatives at all levels to end this failed policy of climate appeasement. I was also pleased to read a similar opinion by Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition — Canada. In his column, Mr. Harris stated, “Merely contesting the way in which Canada should meet its climate commitments… while continuing to accept the need to reduce emissions is a loser’s strategy. It’s time Conservatives fought this war to actually win it.”

I couldn’t agree more.

You see, taxpayers are currently dumping millions, if not billions, of dollars every single week into wasteful corporate welfare projects of little value. Where Ottawa is subsidizing EV battery plants, Alberta is subsidizing Net Zero plastics and the burgeoning cattle burb reduction industry.

Both governments defend these obvious boondoggles by waving the magic wand of “emissions reduction.” I’m sorry, but for responsible conservatives the concept of emission reductions at any cost simply does not pass the smell test.

Taxpayers deserve to see a full cost-benefit analysis of every subsidy awarded, whether it’s for Trudeau’s cars that nobody wants, or Smith’s magic methane. In addition, we need to start questioning the costs and benefits of emission reductions more generally. 

The costs are numerous and relatively easy to calculate. First of all, there are the direct costs to taxpayers in the form of carbon taxes and corporate welfare. Secondly, there are the indirect expenses associated with the government driving up the cost of virtually every product and service through carbon taxes and climate-driven regulations. In addition, there is the indirect cost of lost competitiveness in global markets, as our competitors are clearly stepping away from the Paris Accord and its arbitrary targets. 

Finally, we must not dismiss the cost to our communities in the form of job losses. For example, when Alberta chose to phase our coal for electricity, the cost of electricity spiked, but the job losses in our coal communities also proved devastating to local economies. 

On the benefits side of the equation, we need to take a more critical eye to government claims. At a time when China, India and others are increasing emissions far faster than we cut them, it seems obvious that any global environmental benefits are null and void. 

So, we need to ask ourselves, “what is the actual dollar value of emissions reduction per tonne? We need to demand receipts, because nebulous claims of investment or job creation don’t pay the bills. 

As rural Albertans have learned the hard way, the so-called green energy jobs are not replacing natural resource jobs, just like EV battery plant jobs are not going to laid off auto workers. 

If somebody is getting rich off all this, it ain’t us.

The fact that governments are not giving us an accurate cost-benefit analysis of green energy subsidies should tell us something. 

If the costs are unlimited and the benefits are largely imaginary, this is the very definition of a bad deal.

the very definition of a bad deal.