Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

McTEAGUE – Net Zero Part One: Defining the Terms


“Net Zero by 2050” is all over the news these days. Countries, international organizations, corporations, cities and other entities are making grand commitments to the idea.


My view is that Net Zero by 2050 is a dangerous idea, and I am alarmed by how it is taking hold. I plan to write several blogposts on Net Zero by 2050 over the next few weeks to explain this view. This introductory piece lays the context for that series.


First, let me provide a quick definition of Net Zero by 2050. In simplistic terms, any entity abides by the goal of Net Zero if that entity emits no more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere than it draws out of it. Net Zero by 2050 means that the year 2050 is the target for achieving that emissions “balance”.  


That sounds straight forward, but it isn’t.


Is the starting assumption – that we can achieve this kind of balance – a fair one given the earth’s complexity? 


Is the fact that CO2 levels have been significantly higher in the past (before industrialization) not a consideration? The earth has seen higher and lower levels of CO2 before there was any significant human activity. So why should we assume that a “balance,” as we define it, is necessary?


And how do we assure that balance when there are all kinds of things we can’t control - like emissions from natural events like volcanoes, or windstorms? 


What about the fact that the science on emissions is changing?


How do we factor these things in?


And if we do commit to this kind of balance, what measure of government control does this represent? What will the cost of that control be? Should we not have some sense of that before we commit to it?


These are just some of the many questions that come to mind when discussing the idea of Net Zero by 2050. But it is really hard to get answers to these questions. More often than not what you do get is some version of “the sky is falling”.


Politicians, business leaders, environmentalists say things like “we have to act now” or “time is running out” or “our future depends on it”.  But people have been using that kind of rhetoric about the environment for decades, and yet by virtually every environmental measure things are getting better


But no matter. Net Zero by 2050 is the latest version of the environmental scare tactic of forcing consumers to accept things like Justin Trudeau’s carbon taxes, or green energy plans, or any other policy madness that really means expanding government control, enriching special interests, and hurting consumers.


We at Canadians for Affordable Energy find this really alarming: we think Net Zero by 2050 will definitely mean one thing: less affordable energy for Canadians.


Over a series of blogposts we want to shed some more light on Net Zero by 2050.

An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan McTeague is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.


Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.


Popular posts from this blog

It seems the call for blood donors is being responded to, however ... “This effort is a marathon, not a sprint” says Canadian Blood Services

A week and a half ago I wrote the commentary ... “ While the national inventory is currently strong, an increase in blood donor cancellations is a warning sign of potential challenges to maintaining a health inventory of blood ” It was written as a result of talk about a potential blood shortage that would occur if people stopped donating due to the COVID-19 virus. It seems the call to Canadians was responded to, however, as I was told this afternoon ... “ T his effort is a marathon, not a sprint ”. As it now stands now, donors are able to attend clinics which are held in Vancouver (2), Victoria, Surrey, and in Kelowna, so I asked if there any plans to re-establish traveling clinics to others communities - for example in Kamloops, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Revelstoke or Cranbrook, and perhaps further north at perhaps Ft. St. John? According to Communications Lead Regional Public Affairs Specialist Marcelo Dominguez, Canadian Blood Services is still on

FEDLSTED -- Rules will have to relax-- the question is how and when

The media has created a fervour over the mathematical models that allegedly help governments predict the future of Coronavirus infections in the general population. Mathematical modelling has limited use and value. We need to understand is that the data available on Coronavirus (COVID-19) infections in Canada is far too small for statistical reliability. The data available for the whole world is useless due to variables in how nations responded to Coronavirus infections. There is no commonality in steps taken to combat virus spread and no similarity in the age demographics of world nations, so the numbers you see on the daily tracking of world infections are not useful in developing a model of infection rates that can be relied on. Mathematical models of the future spread of Coronavirus are better than nothing, but not a whole lot better.  Mathematical models must include assumptions on virus spreads, and various factors involved. As they are used in projections, a small erro

AARON GUNN -- He is, at his core, an ideologue, meaning the facts of any particular issue don’t actually matter

Ben Isitt - City Councillor and Regional Director Victoria City Council and its resident-genius Ben Isitt is back with another dumb idea. Introducing a motion to ban the horse-drawn carriages that have coloured Victoria’s downtown streets for decades, calling them “an outdated mode of transportation”. Are you serious?   No one is actually commuting by horse and carriage. They are here for tourists and residents alike to interact with world-class animals and discover the magic and history of our provincial capital. It’s part of what gives Victoria its charm. And the truth is these horses are treated better than anywhere else in the world. They probably live better lives than many British Columbians.   And talk to anyone who works with these horses and they’ll all tell you the exact same thing: this is what the horses love to do. This is what they were bred for and trained for. This is what gives their lives purpose and meaning. But maybe we shouldn’t be su


Show more