It's Climate Change I tell'ya!! IT'S CLIMATE CHANGE!!
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Funding government climate change programs costs every Canadian over $12,000
Figures are just the cost of funding government programs, not the cost of the impact of these programs on the economy.
Author of the article:Lorrie Goldstein
Published Nov 01, 2025 • Last updated 9 hours ago • 3 minute read
Figuring out how much Canadians are paying for government climate change programs is difficult because the information is scattered across the three levels of government we have in Canada.
That said, a rough estimate of the cost for federal, provincial and territorial programs alone (excluding municipal governments) is $503 billion, or $12,062 per Canadian.
To arrive at this number, I’m using a statement by former federal environment minister Steven Guilbeault on April 14, 2023 that that year’s federal budget “representing the single biggest package of climate commitments in Canada’s history, will take total federal investments north of $200 billion” since the Liberals were elected in 2015.
This to fund 149 programs administered by 13 federal departments.
Provincial/territorial spending has been estimated at $303 billion for 364 programs, based on data from the Canadian Climate Institute and Navius Research, cited by retired energy consultant Robert Lyman in a May 15, 2024 Financial Post column.
(That estimate put total federal spending on climate change programs at $172.8 billion, slightly below Guilbeault’s $200 billion figure. In that case, combined federal and provincial/territorial spending would be $475.8 billion or $11,410 for every Canadian, with the precise amount depending on what province the individual resides in.)
But these figures are just the cost of funding government programs, not the cost of the impact of these programs on the economy.
In a report for the Fraser Institute in January 2025, University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, estimated federal policies to reduce Canada’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 will cost every Canadian worker $8,000 annually in 2050 because of their negative impact on the economy, reducing Canada’s GDP by 6.2% and costing 254,000 jobs.
In July 2024, McKitrick estimated the government’s interim goal of reducing emissions to at least 40% below 2005 levels by 2030, will cost the average Canadian worker $6,700 annually.
While committed to the 2050 target of net zero emissions, Prime Minister Mark Carney has not committed to former PM Justin Trudeau’s 2030 target.
Carney will soon unveil strategy
In the wake of cancelling Trudeau’s consumer carbon tax in March, Carney is about to unveil a “climate competitiveness strategy,” centred around what he says will be an expanded and improved industrial carbon tax.
With Canada’s emissions estimated at 8.5% below 2005 levels as of last year, two major monitoring agencies — the Canadian Climate Institute and the Trottier Energy Institute at Polytechnique Montreal — recently concluded the 2030 target is unachievable, and that emission reductions will be about half of the 40% target.
In terms of total public and private-sector investment needed to achieve Canada’s target of net-zero emissions by 2050, the Liberals said in their April 2022 budget that Canada will need an annual investment of $125 billion to $140 billion compared to $15 billion to $25 billion today.
Cost estimated at about $2 trillion over three decades
In October 2021, RBC estimated the cost at about $2 trillion over the next three decades, requiring an investment of at least $60 billion annually from governments, businesses and communities.
Proponents of these initiatives argue that focusing only on costs does not take into account the damage that will be caused to the economy by increasingly severe weather if we do not address climate change, plus the new jobs and economic activity that will be created by investing in green technology.
However, as the parliamentary budget officer noted in October 2024, “Canada’s own emissions (about 1.4% of the global total) are not large enough to materially impact climate change and therefore their reduction would not materially affect the Canadian economy” without global action.
In 2024, according to the International Energy Agency, global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions hit an all-time high of 37.8 billion tonnes.
In a report last month, the United Nations estimated global emissions will decrease by 17% compared to 1990 levels by 2035, far short of its 60% target.
As for boosting the Canadian economy, the federal government’s own data last year estimated the annual hit to the Canadian economy would reach almost 1% of GDP by 2030, or $25 billion.
fraserinstitute.org
torontosun.com
Figures are just the cost of funding government programs, not the cost of the impact of these programs on the economy.
Author of the article:Lorrie Goldstein
Published Nov 01, 2025 • Last updated 9 hours ago • 3 minute read
Figuring out how much Canadians are paying for government climate change programs is difficult because the information is scattered across the three levels of government we have in Canada.
That said, a rough estimate of the cost for federal, provincial and territorial programs alone (excluding municipal governments) is $503 billion, or $12,062 per Canadian.
To arrive at this number, I’m using a statement by former federal environment minister Steven Guilbeault on April 14, 2023 that that year’s federal budget “representing the single biggest package of climate commitments in Canada’s history, will take total federal investments north of $200 billion” since the Liberals were elected in 2015.
This to fund 149 programs administered by 13 federal departments.
Provincial/territorial spending has been estimated at $303 billion for 364 programs, based on data from the Canadian Climate Institute and Navius Research, cited by retired energy consultant Robert Lyman in a May 15, 2024 Financial Post column.
(That estimate put total federal spending on climate change programs at $172.8 billion, slightly below Guilbeault’s $200 billion figure. In that case, combined federal and provincial/territorial spending would be $475.8 billion or $11,410 for every Canadian, with the precise amount depending on what province the individual resides in.)
But these figures are just the cost of funding government programs, not the cost of the impact of these programs on the economy.
In a report for the Fraser Institute in January 2025, University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, estimated federal policies to reduce Canada’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 will cost every Canadian worker $8,000 annually in 2050 because of their negative impact on the economy, reducing Canada’s GDP by 6.2% and costing 254,000 jobs.
In July 2024, McKitrick estimated the government’s interim goal of reducing emissions to at least 40% below 2005 levels by 2030, will cost the average Canadian worker $6,700 annually.
While committed to the 2050 target of net zero emissions, Prime Minister Mark Carney has not committed to former PM Justin Trudeau’s 2030 target.
Carney will soon unveil strategy
In the wake of cancelling Trudeau’s consumer carbon tax in March, Carney is about to unveil a “climate competitiveness strategy,” centred around what he says will be an expanded and improved industrial carbon tax.
With Canada’s emissions estimated at 8.5% below 2005 levels as of last year, two major monitoring agencies — the Canadian Climate Institute and the Trottier Energy Institute at Polytechnique Montreal — recently concluded the 2030 target is unachievable, and that emission reductions will be about half of the 40% target.
In terms of total public and private-sector investment needed to achieve Canada’s target of net-zero emissions by 2050, the Liberals said in their April 2022 budget that Canada will need an annual investment of $125 billion to $140 billion compared to $15 billion to $25 billion today.
Cost estimated at about $2 trillion over three decades
In October 2021, RBC estimated the cost at about $2 trillion over the next three decades, requiring an investment of at least $60 billion annually from governments, businesses and communities.
Proponents of these initiatives argue that focusing only on costs does not take into account the damage that will be caused to the economy by increasingly severe weather if we do not address climate change, plus the new jobs and economic activity that will be created by investing in green technology.
However, as the parliamentary budget officer noted in October 2024, “Canada’s own emissions (about 1.4% of the global total) are not large enough to materially impact climate change and therefore their reduction would not materially affect the Canadian economy” without global action.
In 2024, according to the International Energy Agency, global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions hit an all-time high of 37.8 billion tonnes.
In a report last month, the United Nations estimated global emissions will decrease by 17% compared to 1990 levels by 2035, far short of its 60% target.
As for boosting the Canadian economy, the federal government’s own data last year estimated the annual hit to the Canadian economy would reach almost 1% of GDP by 2030, or $25 billion.
Canada’s Path to Net Zero by 2050: Darkness at the End of the Tunnel
GOLDSTEIN: Funding government climate change programs costs every Canadian over $12,000
After cancelling Justin Trudeau’s consumer carbon tax, Mark Carney is about to unveil a “climate competitiveness strategy." Read more.
Just imagine the environmental uses that money could be used for . Habitat restoration for one .
Shit happens. Was it crude? LPG? Molten Sulphur? Whist living in oil country the black tank cars I observed hundreds of or even thousands of times were mainly LPG, 1202, 1203 and Sulphur the rest. I don't recall ever seeing crude.
It can't be worse than the Vistra power plant in Moss Landing, Monterey County that had a massive lithium-ion battery warehouse fire in the midst of the central valley salad bowl can it?
We all grazed on those heavy metal laced balled, clustered or root salad weeds last spring thru summer.
There's gotta be Swedes or Norwegians that would love organic sulphuric trout. It might even already be an Icelandic thing with cod and haddock considering volcanism venting and gassing can be very Sulphuric in nature. Cod and haddock ain't Canadian trout though.
Make sun while the hay is smiling.
aviation fuel
Nice. A Regina product. That'll thin out the 2-stroke oil from boats and jet-skis.aviation fuel
Wildfires burned nearly 6,000 square kilometres in Ontario this year: Ministry
Author of the article:Canadian Press
Canadian Press
Published Nov 03, 2025 • 1 minute read
The Ministry of Natural Resources says nearly 6,000 square kilometres burned in Ontario this wildfire season, much more than last year and well above the province’s 10-year average.
The ministry says 643 wildfires were recorded between April and October, with 597,654 hectares — or just over 5,976 square kilometres — burned.
The province says 480 fires burned nearly 900 square kilometres in 2024 and the 10-year average for Ontario is 712 fires and about 2,100 square kilometres burned.
Figures released by the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre in August showed that Canada’s 2025 wildfire season was the second-worst on record.
Those figures suggested the fires tore through 72,000 square kilometres, an area roughly the size of New Brunswick.
Scientists say that climate change, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, has made Canada’s fire seasons longer and more intense.
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources says although the 2025 wildfire season had “an early active start,” co-ordinated efforts of front-line staff, municipalities, Indigenous communities and firefighting crews ensured a quick response.
Ontario also sent fire crews to help battle wildfires in other provinces.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Canadian Press
Canadian Press
Published Nov 03, 2025 • 1 minute read
The Ministry of Natural Resources says nearly 6,000 square kilometres burned in Ontario this wildfire season, much more than last year and well above the province’s 10-year average.
The ministry says 643 wildfires were recorded between April and October, with 597,654 hectares — or just over 5,976 square kilometres — burned.
The province says 480 fires burned nearly 900 square kilometres in 2024 and the 10-year average for Ontario is 712 fires and about 2,100 square kilometres burned.
Figures released by the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre in August showed that Canada’s 2025 wildfire season was the second-worst on record.
Those figures suggested the fires tore through 72,000 square kilometres, an area roughly the size of New Brunswick.
Scientists say that climate change, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, has made Canada’s fire seasons longer and more intense.
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources says although the 2025 wildfire season had “an early active start,” co-ordinated efforts of front-line staff, municipalities, Indigenous communities and firefighting crews ensured a quick response.
Ontario also sent fire crews to help battle wildfires in other provinces.
Wildfires burned nearly 6,000 square kilometres in Ontario this year: Ministry
The province says the 10-year average for Ontario is 712 fires and about 2,100 square kilometres burned.
This gas plant is a HUGE issue right now in my riding.
I'm suspect of the US connection, considering Dominic LeBlanc being the lead guy to negotiate with the US for trade.
Now - my issues are more based on the lies and the fact this is a US company. I don't mention the Environment because there are more educated people involved against this who can speak on that.
Secondly - I don't have an issue with bringing in new industry, new jobs to my region. So long as they're smart about it, so long as it's respectful to the people locally, I'm good with it (my area has a history of being STUPID with things coming in and most of the time I absolutely disagree with the stances against these things). But when it's based on lies and risks and, frankly, American Arrogance... fuck that.
Liberals gotta Lib, & you’ve got a fresh one out there, or will tomorrow I guess. The story is dated for tomorrow as the dude is probably still pondering the location of his ambassadorship in 3&1/2yrs…
I don't understand why that is allowed for ANY party. They should resign & a bi-election held. His constituents deserve nothing less!!
1) It’s time to put human welfare at the centre of our climate policies. This includes improving agriculture and health in poor countries.
2) Countries should be encouraged to grow their economies even if that means a reliance on fossil fuels like natural gas. Economic growth is essential to human progress.
3) Although climate change will hurt poor people, it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to the lives and welfare of the vast majority of them. The biggest problems are poverty and disease.
I would add to these wise declarations two inconvenient truths: First, the solution to changing temperatures and weather patterns is technological progress. A much smaller percentage of people die of severe weather events today than did 50 or 100 or 1,000 years ago.
Second, energy is the master resource, and to deny people reliable and affordable energy is to keep them poor and vulnerable — and this is inhumane.
OPINION: Bill Gates gets mugged by reality — Toronto Sun
To deny people reliable and affordable energy is to keep them poor and vulnerable.
Gates still endorses the need for communal action (which won’t work), but he has sensibly disassociated himself from the increasingly radical and economically destructive dictates from the green movement. For that, the Left has tossed him out of their tent as a “traitor.” Now he says he rejects the “doomsday” predictions of the more extreme global warming prophets.
Or take a reasonable approach, examine all sides, and select the course of action that is not gonna bankrupt us, without being pigs, etc…
But if global warming is good for people, sulfur dioxide must be amazing!
I offer you Los Angeles as an example. Back in the day, it was shrouded in a permanent cloud of toxic smoke. It was where the term "smog" came from. And those were LA's glory days.
Same thing with London (England) in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Toxic air, poisonous water, and the glories of the Empire.
Given those two correlations, should we not at least examine the possible link between toxic air and water and socio-economic greatness?
Say what you will about clean air and fresh water and green growing things, the fuckin' Ozarks ain't exactly the most desirable real estate on the planet, now are they?