In its 2022 Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP)[1], the Canadian federal government committed to the target of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to at least 40% below 2005 levels by 2030. In 2023, the government released a progress report[2] updating its policy package and adding some details concerning its implementation.
In July, 2024 the Fraser Institute published an analysis[3] by Professor Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph of the economic impact and GHG effects of the government’s plan through 2030. In fact, the analysis does something that the federal government has consistently failed to do – offer a coherent and reasonably rigorous assessment of the costs and benefits of the federal climate measures. The Fraser Institute also published a companion two-pager[4] in which Dr. McKitrick evaluated the government’s progress towards the 2030 target in terms of the three key “drivers”- GHG intensity, Canada’s income and population.
As Canada is responsible for only 1.5% of global GHG emissions, the federal objective to reduce emissions by 40% would reduce global emissions by 0.6%, some or all of which will be offset by increased emissions elsewhere. If Canada achieved the intended emissions reduction and maintained that reduction in future, the global average temperature would be reduced by 0.007 degrees C. (seven thousandths of a degree Celsius) as of 2100 compared to a case in which Canada does nothing. (Again, this assumes that these emissions cuts would not be offset elsewhere).
Dr. McKitrick considers that the government exaggerated the costs of climate change and has presented them in a “misleading and overstated” way. The government also has over-stated the benefits of Canada’s emission reductions.
Dr. McKitrick analyzed the emissions-reducing effects of the ERP by examining its three components: carbon pricing, the Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR), and the various regulatory measures. The total effect of the three components would be a reduction of 26.5%.
The ERP is projected to cost $6,700 per worker annually by 2030. It thus would impose significant economic burdens on Canadian households.
The two-pager’s analysis examines three drivers of GHG emissions using the simple formula Emissions = GHG Intensity x Income x Population.
Dr. McKitrick states, “On a compound basis, if population grows on average by 1.2% per year and real per-capita income grows by 0.7% per year, over the nine years from 2022 to 2030 they will contribute an increase of about 19% to Canada’s GHG emissions. Hitting the 2030 target of -38% compared to current emissions will require emissions intensity to fall by 57% over nine years… A decline of 57% over nine years requires a compound annual average decline of 9.0%, more than six times faster than the rate achieved since 2001.”
Dr. McKitrick’s analysis indicates that, despite the high costs and at best uncertain benefits of federal government climate measures, Canada probably will not meet its 2030 emissions reduction target. It remains to be seen whether the federal government will reconsider its present approach and at least establish a revised target that is feasible and more affordable.
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/climate-plan-overview/emissions-reduction-2030.html
[2] https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/climate-plan-overview/emissions-reduction-2030/2023-progress-report.html
[3] https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/canadas-progress-towards-meeting-2026-and-2030-ghg-emission-reduction-targets
[4] https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/canadas-progress-towards-meeting-2026-and-2030-ghg-targets.pdf
Thanks for posting this. The Fraser Institute has a limited subscriber base and that important McKitrick report needs as much coverage as possible.
To hammer the message home, the Friends of Science will greater exposure. Maybe an advertising campaign ?