Study
| EST. READ TIME 2 MIN.Nitrous Oxide emissions from Canada make up just 0.07% of global carbon emissions, but Ottawa’s plan to reduce them will cost more than $1.6 billion
Costs and Benefits of Reducing Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Canadian Agriculture
- Canada’s government has launched an initiative to reduce Canadian emissions of nitrous oxide (N20), a greenhouse gas emitted mainly by Canada’s agricultural sector.
- Canada’s total GHG emissions amount to 1.6 percent of global emissions. Canada’s N20 emissions are approximately 4.5 percent of its total, hence, (.016*.045=0.0007) or about seven one-hundredths of one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
- Canada’s nitrous oxide emissions have been declining as a share of global N20 emissions since 1850, dropping from above two percent of the global total to its current level of 1.6 percent. Despite Canada’s small, and diminishing share of global N20 emissions, its proposed nitrous oxide control policies will incur significant government spending. Recently announced government spending initiatives intended to reduce agricultural nitrous oxide emissions are approximately CDN$1.6 billion. This is to complement approximately CDN$283 million per year in spending by the agriculture sector to the same end. These additional costs to the agriculture sector would likely be passed on to consumers.
- These changes would produce nitrous oxide emission reduction equivalent to 50–75 percent of government’s emission reduction target, suggesting additional measures will be required.
- The net impact of the government’s proposed nitrous oxide emission reduction programs will impose costs on Canada’s agriculture sector and its derivative products, but provide no measurable (climate) benefit, violating a fundamental principle of sound public policy.
Share
-
Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Kenneth P. Green is a Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of over 800 essays and articles on public policy,published by think tanks, major newspapers, and technical and trade journals in North America. Mr. Green holds a doctoral degree in environmental science and engineering from UCLA, a master’s degree in molecular genetics from San Diego State University, and a bachelors degree in general biology from UCLA.Mr. Green’s policy analysis has centered on evaluating the pros and cons of government management of environmental, health, and safety risk. More often than not, his research has shown that governments are poor managers of risk, promulgating policies that often do more harm than good both socially and individually, are wasteful of limited regulatory resources, often benefit special interests (in government and industry) at the expense of the general public, and are almost universally violative of individual rights and personal autonomy. Mr. Green has also focused on government’s misuse of probabilistic risk models in the defining and regulating of EHS risks, ranging from air pollution to chemical exposure, to climate change, and most recently, to biological threats such as COVID-19.Mr. Green's longer publications include two supplementary text books on environmental science issues, numerous studies of environment, health, and safety policies and regulations across North America, as well as a broad range of derivative articles and opinion columns. Mr. Green has appeared frequently in major media and has testified before legislative bodies in both the United States and Canada.… Read more Read Less…
Related Topics
Related Articles
Ottawa’s GST break and rebate cheques amount to bad policy
By: Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
Onetime ‘tax rebates’—a bad idea for many reasons
By: Ben Eisen and Jake Fuss
Federal government crushing private-sector child care in Ontario
By: Matthew Lau