If this is their plan for hitting their ‘climate goals’, all Canadians should be deeply concerned.
In theory, it’s very easy to quickly reduce carbon emissions.
We already know how to do it.
Simply lock down the economy, destroy massive numbers of jobs, and decimate supply-chains.
If fewer people are working and travelling, and if people aren’t making things, emissions will certainly go down.
Of course, there’s a reason politicians don’t frame things that way, since even the most pro ‘climate action’ voters wouldn’t knowingly vote for their own impoverishment.
Note how I said ‘quickly reduce’ carbon emissions, rather than ‘reduce.’
The distinction is important, because countries like Canada and the United States have already been slowly but surely reducing emissions over time, even during periods of economic growth.
This has happened without government intervention, because technological innovation and the market benefit of increased efficiency leads to lower emissions in advanced economies.
We don’t hear much about this, because a problem being solved without government intervention doesn’t serve the interests of those who want to centralize power in their own hands.
Thus, the endless demands for ‘more climate action,’ talk of a ‘climate emergency,’ and all of that rhetoric is about fuelling a fear-based environment where people are willing to give up their personal and economic freedom in order to have the government ‘save them.’
Where the Liberals run into trouble with this is when they attempt to have it both ways: Claiming to want a stronger economy while bragging about climate goals/emission reductions that are only possible by severely damaging that same economy.
Case in point, these Tweets by Gerald Butts and Mark Gerretsen:
https://twitter.com/gmbutts/status/1555184616662863872
“For all those that said it can not be done – It’s happening.”
https://twitter.com/MarkGerretsen/status/1556026703968968716
Let’s take a closer look at these charts.
What stands out most?
Well, you get the sense of the long-term trends that play a big role in emissions.
You see almost non-existent per capita emissions until the industrial revolution reaches Canada, then a steady rise until a period of stagnation during World War One, the Spanish Flu, The Great Depression, and World War Two.
Then, as the long post-war economic boom heats up emissions rise dramatically, before levelling off due to technological innovation and the lingering impact of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.
You can see that emissions drop in the Mulroney Era, the Chretien Era, the Martin Era, and the Harper Era.
Indeed, as noted by The Real Andy Lee Show on Twitter, emissions dropped more in the Harper Era than in the Trudeau Era so far:
Let’s shorten that graph down to the reign of this Liberal Party of Canada.
It’s almost as if something unusual happened in 2020… pic.twitter.com/6gAcRgOkd4
— The Real Andy Lee Show (@RealAndyLeeShow) August 6, 2022
Let’s look at the “dreaded” Harper years of irresponsible polluting policies up close, shall we? pic.twitter.com/5I359VpnJe
— The Real Andy Lee Show (@RealAndyLeeShow) August 6, 2022
But what’s that big drop in 2020 under Trudeau?
Hmmm…
What took place that year?
Massive global economic lockdowns and an unprecedented shutdown of global economies.
Tens of millions of global job losses, a massive surge in debt, the severe disruption of supply chains, money printing to ‘offset’ productivity collapses, etc…
Until the era of information-based economies, lower per capita emissions and human suffering were inextricably linked:
Look again at the long-term emissions chart.
Do you notice how every time per capita emissions went down it coincided with a period of immense human suffering?
World Wars, pandemics, economic collapses.
That is what brings down per capita emissions quickly.
Meanwhile, the years in which per capita emissions rise coincide with periods of human flourishing, relative peace, and expanding opportunity.
The only thing that has changed that trend has been the emergence of a more information-based, digital economy in wealthier countries.
And even that dramatic change has merely blunted, rather than completely reversed the link between emissions and quality of life.
Even a highly digital-based economy is still built on a tangible foundation. Things still need to be made. People still need to work.
So, it’s no surprise that the biggest drop in emissions in recent years took place when the economy was decimated.
Is this the Liberal climate plan?
All of this raises a concerning question:
Is this the Liberal climate plan?
Are they tacitly admitting that they can only hit their targets by wrecking the economy?
The fact that they have been so hostile to the energy sector, and now the farming sector, indicates that is the case.
After all, if you wanted to reduce emissions quickly (rather than allowing technological trends to do so slowly), you would have to make everything more expensive, impose a tax that rises every year to ensure that inflation is built in, disincentivize manufacturing and energy production, and try to keep people down economically. Poorer people consume less on average, so you would want more people to be poor.
Thus, it’s no coincidence that we see exactly that happening in Canada.
It’s also no coincidence that our per capita GDP growth is projected to lag behind almost all comparable nations.
The Liberal ‘plan’ to hit their ‘climate targets’ is heavily reliant upon doing deliberate damage to our economy, and Canadians who are struggling need to realize this.
The choice in the next election could very well come down to whether our nation seeks to grow and prosper, or drive ourselves further into economic decline.
Spencer Fernando
Photo – YouTube
***
I am funded by Canadians like you, not the Trudeau government. If you support my writing, you can make a contribution through PayPal, or directly through Stripe below.
[simpay id=”28904″]
