Climate Change - Mitigate Or Adapt?

Climate Change - Mitigate or Adapt?

Introduction

I want to acknowledge that I am a common Canadian taxpayer, and my posts and blogs are based on what I can gather to help me understand the issues and the decisions made by politicians. Instead of debunking and criticizing I try to offer a balanced approach and make my decisions, conclusions and suggestions based on fact checking and information/data analysis. I am not a political card carrying member of any party and purposely do not financially support any level of government so that I try to remain neutral as much as possible. Having said that I do align and support any party that aligns with my values and beliefs. As a result, I have created what I call “A Canadian Taxpayer Perspective.”

What has prompted this blog is that I feel we spend too much money and time on mitigation versus adaptation. To define this for the readers I term mitigation as emissions reduction and adaption as policies that address planning and infrastructure needs to adapt to climate change issues. I do agree that climate change is happening, and that the industrial revolution has accelerated that change. However, I feel we have overreacted, at the expense of the taxpayer, on implementing policies to address these changes through mitigation. To verify my belief, I have delved into significant research to see if my beliefs are supported.

I have followed and researched our provincial and federal policies related to climate change for the last nine years. It all started when I had to fight the Ontario Liberal Government in my role as Mayor at the time. It was related to a proposed project to install large Industrial Wind Turbines (IWT’s) into our rural community in North Frontenac. It prompted me to study these projects in relation to benefits versus non benefits and in the end, I decided there were no substantial benefits to our pristine rural community other than income for the municipality “if” we supported the project. This money was being proposed to try and offset the general public’s resistance in our rural areas, in other words a bribe in my opinion. The impacts to our cottage and tourist industry would have had a significant detrimental effect. The controversy pitted rural communities against urban communities and rural residents against each other, an issue that is still in play today in many communities. Recent battery storage proposals to support wind and solar are now becoming the issue of the day in this regard.

Research

Based on my beliefs and research over time I found that Dr Matthew Wielicki to be the best source of fact-based science data in relation to the climate change discussion.

Matthew Wielicki is a geologist and outspoken critic of what he views as alarmist climate change narratives. He acknowledges that climate change is real and that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, contribute to global warming. However, he emphasizes that the Earth's climate has always changed due to natural factors, such as volcanic activity, solar cycles, and ocean currents. He often argues that the current rate of warming is not as unprecedented as many scientists claim, pointing to historical climate fluctuations like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age as evidence that the planet's climate is naturally dynamic.

He also questions the effectiveness of extreme climate policies, such as carbon taxes and rapid transitions away from fossil fuels. He contends that these measures can cause economic hardship, particularly for lower-income populations, without significantly affecting global temperatures—especially when major polluters like China, Russia, USA and India continue to increase emissions. Instead of focusing solely on reducing carbon output, he advocates for more balanced approaches that prioritize adaptation, innovation, and resilient infrastructure to deal with the impacts of climate change. Ultimately, he believes that open debate and a wider range of scientific perspectives are necessary to create effective and realistic climate strategies.

Matthew Wielicki takes a strong critical stance against what he sees as fear-based climate change narratives and the economic consequences of current climate policies. His views contrast sharply with Canada's climate policies, which focus on reducing carbon emissions through measures like the carbon tax, renewable energy incentives, and emission reduction targets.

In summary:

Carbon Tax: Canada’s carbon tax aims to push consumers and businesses to reduce carbon emissions by making fossil fuels more expensive. Wielicki argues that such policies disproportionately affect average citizens without significantly impacting global emissions, as Canada contributes less than 2% to global carbon output.

Adaptation vs. Mitigation: Wielicki emphasizes adaptation to climate change—acknowledging its existence but focusing on preparing for extreme weather, rising sea levels, and changing ecosystems. Canada, on the other hand, leans more heavily on mitigation strategies like reducing emissions and transitioning to renewable energy, though there have been increasing discussions about adaptation.

Economic Concerns: Wielicki believes climate policies often enrich large corporations and special interest groups while placing financial strain on individuals. Canada’s approach, however, argues that carbon pricing and green energy investments will drive innovation, create jobs, and ultimately strengthen the economy. Critics, like Wielicki, counter that these benefits are slow to materialize and not felt by the average Canadian.

Renewable Energy: Wielicki is skeptical of industrial-scale wind and solar projects, aligning with my own preference for more localized, community-based renewable efforts. Canada’s policies have leaned towards both large-scale renewable projects and small-scale community grants, but there’s ongoing debate about their effectiveness and impact.

Ultimately, Wielicki’s arguments resonate with those who feel climate policies hurt working people, again my view, without delivering meaningful environmental benefits. Canada’s policies, meanwhile, work from the premise that urgent action is needed to prevent worse long-term damage.

In his "Irrational Fear" newsletter, Dr. Wielicki discusses how climate policies and industries have created a self-serving network that profits from fear-driven narratives. If you want to learn more, I suggest you research him and his subtract editions.

YouTube

Carbon Tax

The Canadian carbon tax is a government policy designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by putting a price on carbon pollution. It is part of Canada's broader strategy to combat climate change and meet its emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement. The tax incentivizes businesses, industries, and individuals to adopt cleaner energy practices by making fossil fuels and other high-emission activities more expensive.

Key Features of the Canadian Carbon Tax:

1. Scope:
• The tax applies to fuels that release greenhouse gases, such as gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and coal.
• It covers individuals, businesses, and industries.
2. Carbon Price:
• The tax started in 2019 at $20 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent emissions.
• It increases annually, reaching $65 per tonne in 2023 and is planned to rise to $170 per tonne by 2030.
3. Rebates (Climate Action Incentive Payments):
• To offset the cost for households, most of the revenue collected from the tax is returned to Canadians as rebates.
• The rebate is typically higher for rural and small-town residents, who may face higher energy costs.
4. Provincial and Territorial Systems:
• Provinces and territories have the option to implement their own carbon pricing systems if they meet or exceed the federal standard.
• In provinces without an equivalent system, the federal backstop program applies (e.g., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario).
5. Exemptions and Special Provisions:
• Certain industries, such as agriculture, may receive partial exemptions to maintain competitiveness.
• The tax does not apply to fuels exported out of Canada.

Purpose:

1. Encourage businesses and individuals to adopt energy-efficient technologies and renewable energy.
2. Drive innovation in low-carbon solutions and create a market for clean energy.

The carbon tax is a central part of Canada's effort to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

Early evidence suggests that the Canadian carbon tax is working as intended to reduce emissions and incentivize cleaner energy use. However, its full impact will depend on sustained increases in the carbon price, complementary policies, and ensuring that heavy emitters (like oil and gas) align with national reduction goals. Long-term monitoring and adjustments will be essential to ensure it meets its targets by 2030 and 2050. But from a global perspective it is minuscule.

Despite reductions in emissions, Canada continues to face significant climate challenges, which are tied to historical and global emissions:

• Rising Temperatures: Canada is warming at nearly twice the global average (as reported by Environment Canada). Even with reduced emissions, this trend reflects decades of past pollution.
• Extreme Weather: Events like wildfires in British Columbia, floods in Quebec, and heatwaves in the Prairies have become more frequent and intense in recent years.
• Melting Permafrost and Arctic Ice: Northern regions are experiencing rapid thawing, contributing to rising sea levels and ecological disruptions.

These effects show that while carbon pricing can help mitigate future risks, it cannot immediately reverse current climate impacts.

Long-Term Benefits of Emission Reductions

Policies like the carbon tax are investments in a long-term solution. Here’s why:

• Slowing Warming: Reducing emissions now slows the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere, which helps stabilize global temperatures over decades.
• Avoiding Catastrophic Climate Scenarios: If the world—including Canada—meets its targets (e.g., net-zero by 2050), we can limit global warming to 1.5–2°C, avoiding the worst-case climate outcomes.
• Localized Improvements: Reduced emissions contribute to better air quality, fewer heat-related deaths, and less environmental stress, even if global impacts take time to materialize.

Complementary Adaptation Measures

Reducing emissions is only one part of addressing climate change. Canada is also investing in adaptation strategies to cope with ongoing climate impacts:

• Building resilient infrastructure to withstand floods and storms.
• Developing early-warning systems for wildfires and extreme weather.
• Protecting ecosystems and biodiversity to preserve natural climate buffers.

Cost to the Taxpayer

• Supporters argue the Carbon Tax is an effective way to reduce emissions while returning funds to taxpayers.
• Critics claim it increases costs for businesses and consumers, particularly in provinces dependent on fossil fuels.

Costs Are Passed to Consumers

• Fuel Prices: The carbon tax directly increases the price of fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and natural gas, which are widely used by industries and households. For example:
• In provinces where the federal carbon tax applies, gasoline prices increase by about 2.2 cents per litre for every $10 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent.
• As of 2023 (at $65 per tonne), this translates to an added cost of about 14.3 cents per litre of gasoline.
• Energy Costs: Utilities using natural gas, coal, or other fossil fuels to generate electricity may pass on higher costs to consumers in their monthly bills.
• Goods and Services: Industries that rely heavily on energy (e.g., manufacturing, agriculture, transportation) often raise prices to offset the increased cost of production.

Impact on Commodity Prices

• Transportation: Higher fuel costs lead to increased prices for transporting goods, which can raise the cost of food, retail items, and other commodities.
• Heating and Electricity: Homes that rely on natural gas for heating often see higher energy bills, especially in colder regions.
• Agricultural Products: Farmers face increased costs for fuel, fertilizers, and other carbon-intensive inputs, which may result in higher prices for food products.

Government Rebates to Offset Costs

To alleviate the burden of higher costs, the federal government provides Climate Action Incentive Payments (CAIP) to most households in provinces where the federal carbon tax applies. Key points:

• Rebate Structure: The rebate is designed to return most of the revenue from the carbon tax directly to households. It is distributed quarterly and varies by province and family size.
• Who Benefits Most: In many cases, low- and middle-income households receive rebates that exceed the additional costs they incur due to the carbon tax, effectively shielding them from financial harm.

In these times of affordability issues this is a major cost to me as a taxpayer. Others who live check to check just cannot afford increasing costs on a daily basis. And for what, a lofty target that, to me, is a target, that even if is reached, will have negligible results from a global perspective but our politicians will feel good?

While the immediate public benefits of the carbon tax may seem less tangible, they include cleaner air, health improvements, and rebates that offset higher costs for most households. The economic impact is not inherently negative; instead, it represents a shift toward a low-carbon economy that could offer long-term growth opportunities.

However, public perception, mine included, of fairness and effectiveness is critical. For the carbon tax to be widely accepted, it must:

1. Deliver visible benefits to individuals and communities.
2. Support vulnerable sectors and regions during the transition.
3. Be accompanied by international efforts to ensure global emissions reductions.

The policy success depends on careful implementation, complementary measures, and global cooperation. But dismissing it as purely a burden overlooks its potential to drive systemic change and prevent much larger costs down the line. Knowing that global participation is not there ensures I do not support the carbon tax in any way whatsoever. The shift to wind and solar is a huge mistake and we should be focussed nuclear solutions instead. While putting this blog together I must Acknowledge the new Liberal party leader, Mark Carney understands this and has vowed to end the carbon tax. This is something that should have happened a long time ago, but Prime Minister Trudeau would not listen. Mark Carney wants to tax corporations instead which will still pass on the tax increase to the taxpayer. In my mind this is also a flawed strategy.

Adapting to Reality: Rethinking Canada's Climate Change Strategy

Canada’s current policies lean heavily on reducing carbon emissions through carbon taxes, renewable energy investments, and corporate regulations. The intention is noble, but the execution often leaves average Canadians bearing the financial burden. While carbon pricing aims to drive down fossil fuel use, it also increases costs for families and small businesses, many of whom have limited alternatives, especially under the USA current tariff war. This has been pointed out many times to our current Federal Government and was a key factor in removing the governing provincial Liberal Party in Ontario under Kathleen Wynne. Wind, solar and battery storage are noble, but these policies and projects show that wind and sun is unpredictable and unreliable and drive up the cost of electricity and we sell it at a loss. This has been well documented by Tom Hess.

As per Tom’s LinkedIn profile, he has Extensive Independent System Operator (ISO) experience gained through working 31 years for Ontario Hydro and its successor company, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), located in Ontario.

Direct experience in hands-on and remote operation of transmission, distribution and hydroelectric generating equipment, control room operations, river & water management, outage scheduling, daily production planning, grid frequency response analysis, factory testing and implementation of Ontario's market systems.

Contracting expertise in North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) audit work, producing operations training packages, delivering operations training, advising on automatic generation control (AGC), advising on energy management systems (EMS), providing detailed operations documentation, and development of grid restoration plans.

Now participating in promoting nuclear energy as the logical future energy choice due to its massive, reliable, and safe clean energy capabilities.

Specialties: NERC reliability auditing, power system operations, operator and power system dynamics training, development of operations documentation, power system restoration plans, operations tools, computer-based monitoring applications and displays, electricity market development and operation.

In this chart, provided by Tom you can see the clear unreliability of wind versus a much more reliable green energy option being nuclear.

 

What if we shifted the focus to adaptation?

Historically, the Earth’s climate has always evolved—warming and cooling long before industrialization. However, what sets today’s climate change apart is the unprecedented speed and scale at which it's occurring. According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the current rate of warming is about 10 times faster than the average warming after the last ice age. Carbon isotope analysis clearly links the surge in atmospheric CO2 to human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.

Even the famous "hockey stick" graph, championed by climate scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann, shows relatively stable temperatures for 1,000 years, followed by a sharp rise in the 20th century—aligning with industrial emissions. Natural cycles alone cannot explain this rapid warming; climate models only match observed trends when human factors are included.

Climate change is an undeniable reality, accelerated by human activities. While global efforts, such as the Paris Agreement, aim to limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C—preferably to 1.5°C—above pre-industrial levels, Canada has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050

UNFCCC

connect2canada.com

Government of Canada

However, Canada's contribution to global emissions is approximately 1.5%.

Climate Action Tracker

Even if Canada meets its ambitious targets, the direct impact on global temperature rise would be minimal without concurrent significant actions from major emitters.

Recent developments, such as the U.S. canceling green energy programs and imposing tariffs on Canadian energy exports The Guardian, pose additional challenges. These actions could hinder cross-border collaboration on renewable energy projects, disrupt supply chains, and create economic uncertainties for Canadian industries reliant on U.S. partnerships.

Since the Liberal Party assumed power in 2015, the Canadian government has committed substantial funds to combat climate change. Between 2015 and 2019, approximately $60 billion was invested in climate action and clean growth initiatives. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, an additional $53.6 billion was allocated towards green recovery efforts.

pm.gc.ca

Despite these commitments, there has been a notable gap between pledged and actual spending. As of 2024, analyses indicate that the federal government is at least $14 billion behind in disbursing the climate funding it had committed. This shortfall represents a 30% discrepancy between promised investments and actual expenditures.

corporateknights.com

In terms of adaptation, the federal government has detailed over 70 climate change adaptation actions, totaling investments of $6.6 billion since 2015. Notably, $2.1 billion of this amount has been allocated since the fall of 2022 to implement the National Adaptation Strategy.

canada.ca

Assessing the return on investment for these expenditures is complex. While mitigation efforts aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit future climate change impacts, adaptation measures focus on preparing for and minimizing the effects of a changing climate. Both strategies are essential; however, their effectiveness can vary based on implementation and external factors. For instance, a report by the Canadian Climate Institute suggests that combining proactive adaptation measures with global emissions reductions could reduce Canada's total real GDP losses by 75%.

climateinstitute.ca

The debate over allocating funds between mitigation and adaptation is ongoing. Some argue that more resources should be directed towards adaptation to address immediate climate impacts, while others emphasize the importance of mitigation to prevent future damages. A balanced approach, investing in both mitigation and adaptation, is often recommended to effectively address both current and future climate challenges.

ifaw.org

In conclusion, while Canada has made significant financial commitments to combat climate change, challenges remain in fully disbursing these funds and measuring their impacts. A comprehensive strategy that balances both mitigation and adaptation efforts is crucial for maximizing the effectiveness of these investments.

My Conclusions

I must admit that I thought I knew much about climate change initiatives and their impact on my values and my wallet. Researching this issue for my blog provided a more in depth understanding and I hope this blog is shared to others like me across this great country.

While reducing emissions remains crucial, we must focus more to prepare for the inevitable impacts of climate change: more frequent extreme weather events, shifting agricultural zones, and rising sea levels.

The Federal Liberal Government leadership hopefuls have finally acknowledged some of these arguments as well, as seen in the dramatic shifts in policies that are now aligned somewhat with the Conservative policies over the last couple of years. The Federal Conservative Party has been trying to axe the carbon tax for some time now, and the current Liberal leadership has aligned with those to some degree. But, in my opinion that shift still wants to tax corporations instead of individuals like you and me. This corporation tax will still pass on the costs of the tax to us as individuals and in times of affordability issues this is yet again a flawed policy by shifting the tax not removing it. Adapting will provide an opportunity to enhance our infrastructure and spurn the economy.

Going total EV cars by 2035 is a dumb idea and an impossible goal to achieve knowing that the impact on global emissions is negligible. Removing oil is a forward-thinking policy that should proceed slowly so we can adapt.

Some suggestions:

• Incentivize environmental innovation: Offer tangible rewards for companies adopting eco-friendly practices versus taxing them into submission.
• Invest in local, community-based renewable projects: Support neighborhood solar and wind installations to decentralize energy production and keep the focus on small modular reactors (SMR’s) versus industrial wind and solar.
• Strengthen climate adaptation strategies: Fund infrastructure upgrades to protect against flooding, droughts, and extreme weather.
• Revise land use policies: to focus on avoiding building in flood plains, drainage and wildfire prone areas
• Improve communication: provide us taxpayers with meaningful information on targets, achievements and return on investment. In addition, listen to the common taxpayer versus the wealthy, influencers, and activists.

Climate policy should empower individuals and communities, fostering resilience and sustainability. Any political party that insists on fighting the climate under current policies versus adapting to the climate and embraces taxing individuals or corporations in this regard will dissuade some of the centralists voters. Our federal and provincial policies need to focus on adapting practices and work with them in collaboration and reward for progress. Punitive measures only create animosity and resistance, Collaboration ensures teamwork and progression.

What are your thoughts? How can Canada navigate these challenges to develop a more balanced and effective climate strategy?

#ClimateChange #Adaptation #SustainableSolutions #CanadaPolicy #Environment #GreenFuture #cdnpoli #onpoli #ClimateAction #NetZero #CarbonTax #GreenEnergy #IPCC #CleanTech #FederalPolitics #ProvincialPolitics #Sustainability #Infrastructure #Innovation #Collaboration #CanadianPolitics #CBC #CTV #cdnpoli #GlobalNews #PierrePoilievre #MarkCarney #JagmeetSingh #CanadaPolitics #LeadershipMatters #FiscalResponsibility