Open Letter to OSFI on the Climate-Aligned Finance Act (CAFA) and Net Zero Realities

June 4, 2025

Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions

ATTN: Peter Routledge, Superintendent

Cc:

• Bank of Canada, ATTN: Governor Tiff Macklem
• Canadian Securities Administrators
• Alberta Securities Commission
• Parliamentary Budget Officer
• Premier Danielle Smith, Alberta
• Premier Scott Moe, Saskatchewan

RE: OPEN LETTER – 2050 Net Zero is not possible – Analysis by Prof. Emeritus Vaclav Smil

Dear Superintendent Routledge and others,

We would like to update you on recent insights on Net Zero and climate change.

Professor Emeritus Vaclav Smil has published a new book, presently available in French.  We provide you with an overview in French and English by Professor Emeritus Alain Préat, titled: “La transition énergétique : un vœu pieux ?/Energy transition : nothing else than wishful thinking?”

We know that people like Senator Rosa Galvez are still advocating for Bill S-243 “Climate Aligned Finance Act (CAFA)” which includes this passage: “Whereas the Parliament of Canada adopted the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which requires a Government of Canada plan to achieve a prosperous net-zero-emissions future in Canada by 2050 at the latest, supported by public participation and expert advice;” we request that you review the work of Vaclav Smil and recognize that this proposed Act defies reality. Thus, financial institutions and security companies engaging in the discriminatory activities outlined in Bill S-243, as it was proposed before Parliament was prorogued, would put such organizations in the position of acting in a fraudulent manner, as no amount of financial effort can make Net Zero a reality; and society will need to use fossil fuels for decades to come.

The federal government claims that planting trees or methods to remove carbon from the air can make Canada reach Net Zero.  This CBC edition of “The House” explains that tree planting will not do the trick as planned for the 2 billion tree project.  This review of the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) goal of net zero “over-relied on CCUS (33 to 38-fold increase), and a thousand-fold increase in direct air capture.”  Neither of these are realistic.  Robert Lyman, former federal public servant, reports that “Carbon Capture and Storage is a Trap for Taxpayers.”

Likewise, according to this article summarizing debate points by President Obama’s former Chief Scientist, Steve Koonin and energy analyst Mark Mills, the premise of Bill S-243, that by reducing fossil fuel use, humans can control the global climate, keeping temperatures below the Paris Agreement target of 2 °Celsius warming over pre-industrial time, is based on a made-up limit. 

 “When Hans Schellnhuber, (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) the so-called “father of the two-degree limit,” was once asked why he gave that number, he responded that it was about right, and it was an easy number for politicians to remember. There is no credible case to make that all manner of chaos will suddenly break out if the temperature rises two, or even three, degrees.”

A new paper by Richard Lindzen and William Happer argues that increasing CO₂ concentrations from 420 ppm to 840 ppm would increase the amount of food available worldwide by roughly 40% while having little effect on temperatures.  

Their (along with van Wijngaarden) “Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase” paper abstract says “If the entire world forced net zero CO₂ emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 °C (0.13 F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 °C (0.061 F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 °C (0.50 F).”

Canada’s 1.5% contributions would be 0.001 °C (CO₂ only) and 0.004 °C (based on the IPCC positive feedback assertion).

The authors are career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics, which describes how CO₂ and greenhouse gases (GHG) affect heat flow in Earth’s atmosphere. They state that in their scientific opinion the Net Zero Theory, all the Net Zero Theory rules and congressional subsidies are scientifically wrong. GHGs will not cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather. Instead, there will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, Americans, and other countries if CO₂ and other GHGs are reduced to Net Zero and fossil fuels eliminated. Net Zero policies will endanger public health and welfare. The summary says, “… the blunt scientific reality requires urgent action because we are confronted with policies that destroy western economies, impoverish the working middle class, condemn billions of the world’s poorest to continued poverty and increased starvation, leave our children despairing over the alleged absence of a future, and will enrich the enemies of the West who are enjoying the spectacle of our suicide march.”

Indeed, in this short review of climate data, it is clear that carbon dioxide is not the major climate driver – “CO2’s Moneyball Moment.”

As you may know, the US House Judiciary Committee, last spring, issued this interim report “Climate Control: Exposing the Decarbonization Collusion in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Investing”  and is continuing an investigation into what they call the “climate cartel” – a collection of banks, asset managers, financial institutions, pension plans and related bodies – which they claim have “declared war on the American way of life.”  They believe the activities of these organizations may have violated US antitrust laws, which, if proven in court, may result in millions of dollars in fines and jail sentences.  The “climate control” report is based on “272,294 documents and 2,565,258 pages of non-public information.”  Following the release of the report, most of the participants in the Net Zero Banking Alliance walked away, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero crumbled and had to restructure, and Blackrock walked back from several Net Zero/ESG commitments. These points are from the ”Climate Control” report.

• The climate cartel has declared war on the American way of life. The climate cartel is waging “a Global World War” for net zero against disfavored American companies, including those in the fossil fuel, aviation, and farming industries that allow Americans to drive, fly, and eat. It has described Climate Action 100+ as “the global Navy,” and compared Ceres’s efforts to “the Army ground troops” and “an ‘air cover’ strategic and silent bombing campaign by a newly funded division of the Air Force.”

• The climate cartel has agreed to force corporations to “decarbonize.” Members of groups like Climate Action 100+ expressly commit to engage “with the companies in which [they] invest” to make them reach “net zero [greenhouse gas (GHG)] emissions by 2050” by disclosing their carbon emissions, reducing their carbon emissions, and adopting enforcement mechanisms to strengthen these commitments.

• The climate cartel “[r]amp[s] up” and “[e]scalate[s]” pressure against corporations on the “wrong side of climate history.” The climate cartel is “willing to go to the top rung” by filing shareholder resolutions, voting against management, and “replac[ing] board members” with those of its own choosing.

• The climate cartel seeks to “keep fossil fuels in the ground,” raising prices and reducing output for American consumers. To reach net zero, as ESG activists demand, “fossil fuel use has to be reduced.” Airplane travel must be “capp[ed] . . . at 2019 levels” and “total flights” must be reduced by 12%. Food demand growth must be “reduce[d],” with beef consumption slashed to “about half of current U.S. levels.”

Continue reading the letter …