“Axe the Tax!” has become a rallying cry in Canadian politics, and while the slogan is a potent partisan tool for federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, it does not constitute a comprehensive climate-change platform or functional environmental policy. As the Conservatives prepare to take on the responsibility of governing, they must articulate a climate strategy—and it should be one that balances economic growth with practical environmental measures.
Canada cannot afford to continue along the Justin Trudeau government’s path, prioritizing unrealistic, ideologically driven net-zero targets. The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act binds the country to drive down greenhouse gas emissions, requiring an overhaul of the economy’s energy system, including the role of fossil fuels. Hydrocarbons currently supply 73 percent of Canada’s energy needs, underpinning essential services like heating, transportation and manufacturing. Eliminating these barely 25 years from now is not just ambitious—it is effectively impossible.
The costs of these policies are already apparent. Carbon taxes and emissions regulations have driven up energy prices and housing costs, exacerbating Canada’s affordability crisis. According to the Fraser Institute, the federal government’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan could add $55,000 to the average cost of a new home. This comes as federal spending on climate measures reaches $20 billion annually, with the broader economic cost of net-zero estimated at $60 billion per year. These sacrifices are pointless; Canada contributes only 1.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions and international progress remains elusive as developing nations, especially China and India, continue to increase their fossil fuel use.
Canadians are increasingly aware of the resulting financial and social burdens. Young people, seniors and working families feel the squeeze as energy and housing become less affordable. Adding to the frustration is Canada’s consistent failure to meet its international climate commitments. Unrealistic targets breed cynicism, especially when paired with negligible global impact.
A newly elected Poilievre government might be tempted to take a reactionary approach that cancelled all climate measures. But this would be neither politically viable nor responsible. While such a U-turn would appeal to some, it would alienate moderates and reinforce perceptions that the Conservatives lack credible solutions.
Instead, Canada should follow a pragmatic middle path, one inspired by the Copenhagen Consensus—a cost-benefit-driven approach that prioritizes technological innovation and adaptation over punitive measures.
A reimagined Canadian climate policy would shift away from utopian targets and timelines. The net-zero goal, according to scientists aligned with the Copenhagen Consensus model, should be postponed to 2070 or even 2100, recognizing the long timelines required for energy transitions. Rather than subordinating everything to emissions reduction, the Conservatives should pursue a combined policy that aims to optimize economic growth, energy security, environmental quality and social cohesion.
Technological realism is key. Governments should abandon attempts to “pick winners” through subsidies or mandates, focusing instead on funding basic research and development. This aligns with the Copenhagen Consensus’ findings that investments in science yield far greater benefits than imposing carbon taxes or accelerating transitions prematurely. Developing and commercializing new technologies at an organic pace is the most effective path toward meaningful emissions reductions.
Equally important is the emphasis on adaptation and resilience. Climate policies should focus on protecting communities and infrastructure from immediate risks like flooding and extreme weather. Adaptation measures such as land-use regulations that discourage construction in flood-prone areas deliver tangible benefits regardless of whether climate projections materialize. Building resilience enhances Canada’s ability to withstand not only long-term climate changes but also short-term variability.
A common-sense climate policy would also recognize Canada’s vast oil and natural gas reserves as assets rather than liabilities. Current regulations like the 2035 Clean Electricity mandate and the recently announced “cap” on oil and gas emissions (actually, a draconian 35-percent reduction) undermine Canada’s energy security and economic stability. Revising or repealing these measures would ensure that the country’s resources contribute to both domestic needs and export markets.
Reforms are urgently needed at the regulatory level to streamline environmental assessments and reduce delays in major projects, housing construction and capital investment, including the following:
1.) Federal environmental reviews currently take years, sometimes over a decade, deterring investment and eroding public confidence. Simplifying these processes while maintaining rigorous environmental standards would promote job creation and economic growth.
2.) To address Canada’s housing crisis, federal climate-driven building mandates that inflate construction costs must be reconsidered. Housing policy should remain the responsibility of provincial and municipal governments, where solutions can be tailored to local needs.
3.) Harmonizing Canada’s regulatory frameworks with those of the United States would facilitate cross-border trade and reduce compliance costs for industries. This is particularly important as the incoming Trump Administration moves to deregulate business and ditch measures like EV mandates. While Canada should not blindly follow its neighbour’s lead, close alignment on key standards is the pragmatic choice.
Finally, fostering federal-provincial harmony is essential. The Trudeau era has been marked by discord, with provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan bearing disproportionate burdens from federal policies. A collaborative approach that respects regional differences would not only improve governance but rebuild trust in the federation.
This proposed path is not a denial of climate change—it is a rejection of ideological extremism. By prioritizing innovation, resilience and economic stability, Canada can achieve measurable progress while remaining competitive on the global stage. The time for compromise and common sense is now.
The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.
Robert Lyman is a retired energy economist who served for 25 years as a policy advisor and manager on energy, environment and transportation policy in the Government of Canada.
