Joe Oliver: Banning ‘greenwashing’ is part of the war on free enterprise Ottawa seems not to understand that public opinion is turning against the high cost of its net-zero climate campaign
The new laws will hit companies making net-zero or carbon-reduction claims that cannot be substantiated using an undefined internationally recognized methodology. A reverse onus is imposed
Joe Oliver: Banning ‘greenwashing’ is part of the war on free enterprise
Ottawa seems not to understand that public opinion is turning against the high cost of its net-zero climate campaign
Author of the article:
Published Jun 11, 2024 • Last updated 5 hours ago • 4 minute read
Article content
The Liberal-NDP informal coalition, with assistance from the Bloc and the Green Party, is expanding its war on the energy industry by criminalizing “greenwashing” — i.e., making false statements about environmental accomplishments.
This latest sortie in the left-wing assault on the free enterprise system may be an unconstitutional infringement of free expression, but that hardly worries authoritarian progressives, who, dedicated to saving the world from climate apocalypse, are always more comfortable with central control than individual rights. Nor does the government seem deterred that voters both here and abroad are in open revolt against the debilitating cost of climate change policies or that faddish climate alarmism is faltering among youthful demonstrators.
The new laws will hit companies making net-zero or carbon-reduction claims that cannot be substantiated using an undefined internationally recognized methodology. A reverse onus is imposed on companies, requiring them to prove no misrepresentation, if enforcement action is pursued by the Competition Bureau or by private parties (which is permitted by the legislation). Penalties are severe, up to three per cent of global revenue, and litigation can be costly and uncertain. The obvious purpose of such draconian punishment is to silence oil and gas companies. The government does not want the industry to present itself in a positive light, irrespective of the facts.
An enormous academic, commercial and deep-state network pushes climate alarmism in schools, media and the public square, with startling consequences that defy common sense: Last month, the European Court of Justice ruled that climate inaction by Switzerland was a human rights violation. This sets up a Herculean battle between the “Conscience of Europe” and the newly elected European Parliament filled with climate skeptics determined to scrap green policies.
Top Stories
Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.
Sign Up
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
Article content
Advertisement 3
STORY CONTINUES BELOW
Article content
Because climate change purportedly poses an existential threat to humanity, Greens clearly feel their policies, no matter how expensive and severe, are justifiable. Anyone who voices skepticism is not only wrong but evil and must be demeaned, de-platformed and punished. True believers and rent-seekers alike demand that free expression and debate be crushed for fear the public might realize “the science” is not settled, emissions targets are unachievable and geopolitical rivals and commercial competitors are laughing all the way to the bank.
Suppressing dissent is not a new phenomenon. Eighty years ago, in The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich von Hayek wrote that “Totalitarian systems seize and hold onto power through conformity, control of information and scapegoated enemies.” COVID lockdowns and imposition of the Emergencies Act are discouraging signs of just how much loss of freedom the public will tolerate.
But, orchestrated fervour aside, youthful enthusiasm for the green movement is in marked decline, as evidenced by small and scattered demonstrations. Privileged students and professional agitators who despise Western society and capitalism have gravitated to the Gaza conflict — witness Greta Thunberg, whose hateful anti-Israel rhetoric reflects the latest cri de cœur. They might return, unless a new fad emerges. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Trudeau’s government, which shares a youthful penchant for virtue-signalling over effective action, has tried to block the distribution of liquified natural gas to Asia and Europe, which would reduce net global emissions by substituting LNG for coal and wood pellets.
Advertisement 4
STORY CONTINUES BELOW
Article content
In a continent-wide greenlash, Europeans are voting against climate zealotry that hikes taxes, inflates the prices of electricity, fuel and food and destroys jobs. The U.S. presidential and congressional elections in November could complete Canada’s isolation in self-destructive carbon obsession.
Justin Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault, the doomsayer duo of climate catastrophism, are either oblivious or wilfully blind to inconvenient facts. Energy expert Vaclav Smil and the Fraser Institute’s Elmira Aliakbari arguedon these pages recently that getting to net zero by 2050 is extremely unlikely, as Smil explains in detail in a recent paper published by Fraser. Global fossil fuel consumption increased 55 per cent from 1997 to 2023 and the share of fossil fuels in total energy consumption declined only marginally, from 86 per cent in 1997 to 82 per cent in 2022. Norwegian risk management company DNV estimates fossil fuels will fall from 80 per cent of total energy to 48 per cent by 2050, far short of zero. Global emissions are still rising, net zero involves potentially insurmountable technological obstacles and its cost would be colossal — over $400 trillion, or 20 per cent of affluent countries’ GDP — an obvious political nonstarter.
Advertisement 5
STORY CONTINUES BELOW
Article content
The U.S. has decreased its emissions because of a transition from coal to natural gas, while deindustrialization contributed to Europe’s reductions. Canada won’t permit increased reliance on gas, while going down the European rabbit hole would exacerbate our productivity crisis and insipid growth in GDP per capita. Even radical environmentalists understand advocating de-growth is not a political winner, although it is integral to their opposition to human flourishing, which they condemn as rampant consumerism.
RECOMMENDED FROM EDITORIAL
The Liberals are pushing an exorbitant but unachievable net-zero goal that would not affect global warming even if they achieved it. Many of our peer countries are abandoning their unattainable targets, while most of the world never adopted them in the first place. Herb Stein, economic adviser to presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, famously stated the obvious, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Eventually.
Financial Post
Joe Oliver was minister of natural resources and finance in the Harper government.
