Uploaded September 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Most Canadians are happy to be rid of the burdensome cost of the carbon tax, the price of which went from $80/t to zero, upon Mark Carney becoming Prime Minister. But are you aware that the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) central bankers have a "Shadow Price on Carbon" for Net Zero 2050 of ~$800/t ??? How did they come to that conclusion in their models? They chose a wildly exaggerated "climate damage function" which also appears to have serious conflicts of interest. Friends of Science Society has written an Open Letter to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in Canada, in an effort to question the quality of NGFS climate risk assessments - which affect all financial institutions and thus all major corporations - in Canada. This video explainer will walk through some key points of the letter in a plain language way. When the carbon tax was introduced in 2017 by then Minister Catherine McKenna, the cost was only supposed to be "pennies a litre." By 2024, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation had made "axe the tax" a popular cause, as the price of $80/t was crushing people's budgets. Some 300 economists wrote a letter claiming the carbon tax was the best way to reduce emissions, without imposing other regulations - apparently unaware that there are over 400 climate regulations that overlap and stifle business activity. On day one of Prime Minister Carney taking office, he zeroed the carbon tax. But, he did not cancel it. At the upcoming COP-30 climate conference in Brazil, there is talk of establishing a global price on carbon. [ "Conference of the Parties" refers to the ~192 countries that are signatory to the 1992 UNFCCC "Framework Convention on Climate Change"]. So it is deeply concerning that the central banks involved in NGFS are using a flawed research study that is wildly exaggerated, as the basis for their 'climate damage function'. This is a simplified expression of economic damages, theoretically caused by climate inputs. BUT, the outcomes can be positive or negative. In the NGFS climate world, damages are only costly - therefore they established a Shadow Carbon Price of about $800/t for Net Zero 2050. In fact, Ken Gregory, Friends of Science Society's research director, has used the FUND model and found that there is a "negative" cost to carbon dioxide - meaning that carbon dioxide emissions have social benefits for society. Just imagine that you were paying $80/t carbon tax based on the theory that carbon dioxide emissions were causing harm' but in fact, you were actually receiving a benefit of $-13.07/t from carbon dioxide. (The benefit is written mathematically with a minus sign, as "negative $13.07/t," because it is not a cost.) While there are lots of estimates of the Social Costs of Carbon Dioxide out there, very few analysts include the many benefits of warming. In Canada, a slightly warmer winter means we have reduced heating costs. In summer, the "CO2 fertilization" effect of more CO2 makes agricultural crops more abundant. What about extreme weather events? These are not caused by carbon dioxide and there is no trend to more such events. In addition to this good news, the letter to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions also reveals that there are serious conflicts of interest related to the wildly exaggerated paper, chosen by NGFS. Remember the carbon tax was only one destructive part of climate policies...it has only been zeroed, it is not gone. To be free of these burdensome, useless costs, we must "Nix Net Zero" and go back to common sense on climate and energy policies. Come and see how Net Zero policies affect Food Prices and Farming. Get your tickets for our Sept. 25, 2025 event - in-person in Calgary or via live stream: friendsofsciencesociety.telltix.com/events/friendsofsciencesociety/1820233
Most Canadians are happy to be rid of the burdensome cost of the carbon tax, the price of which went from $80/t to zero, upon Mark Carney becoming Prime Minister. But are you aware that the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) central bankers have a "Shadow Price on Carbon" for Net Zero 2050 of ~$800/t ??? How did they come to that conclusion in their models? They chose a wildly exaggerated "climate damage function" which also appears to have serious conflicts of interest. Friends of Science Society has written an Open Letter to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in Canada, in an effort to question the quality of NGFS climate risk assessments - which affect all financial institutions and thus all major corporations - in Canada. This video explainer will walk through some key points of the letter in a plain language way. When the carbon tax was introduced in 2017 by then Minister Catherine McKenna, the cost was only supposed to be "pennies a litre." By 2024, the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation had made "axe the tax" a popular cause, as the price of $80/t was crushing people's budgets. Some 300 economists wrote a letter claiming the carbon tax was the best way to reduce emissions, without imposing other regulations - apparently unaware that there are over 400 climate regulations that overlap and stifle business activity. On day one of Prime Minister Carney taking office, he zeroed the carbon tax. But, he did not cancel it. At the upcoming COP-30 climate conference in Brazil, there is talk of establishing a global price on carbon. [ "Conference of the Parties" refers to the ~192 countries that are signatory to the 1992 UNFCCC "Framework Convention on Climate Change"]. So it is deeply concerning that the central banks involved in NGFS are using a flawed research study that is wildly exaggerated, as the basis for their 'climate damage function'. This is a simplified expression of economic damages, theoretically caused by climate inputs. BUT, the outcomes can be positive or negative. In the NGFS climate world, damages are only costly - therefore they established a Shadow Carbon Price of about $800/t for Net Zero 2050. In fact, Ken Gregory, Friends of Science Society's research director, has used the FUND model and found that there is a "negative" cost to carbon dioxide - meaning that carbon dioxide emissions have social benefits for society. Just imagine that you were paying $80/t carbon tax based on the theory that carbon dioxide emissions were causing harm' but in fact, you were actually receiving a benefit of $-13.07/t from carbon dioxide. (The benefit is written mathematically with a minus sign, as "negative $13.07/t," because it is not a cost.) While there are lots of estimates of the Social Costs of Carbon Dioxide out there, very few analysts include the many benefits of warming. In Canada, a slightly warmer winter means we have reduced heating costs. In summer, the "CO2 fertilization" effect of more CO2 makes agricultural crops more abundant. What about extreme weather events? These are not caused by carbon dioxide and there is no trend to more such events. In addition to this good news, the letter to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions also reveals that there are serious conflicts of interest related to the wildly exaggerated paper, chosen by NGFS. Remember the carbon tax was only one destructive part of climate policies...it has only been zeroed, it is not gone. To be free of these burdensome, useless costs, we must "Nix Net Zero" and go back to common sense on climate and energy policies. Come and see how Net Zero policies affect Food Prices and Farming. Get your tickets for our Sept. 25, 2025 event - in-person in Calgary or via live stream: friendsofsciencesociety.telltix.com/events/friendsofsciencesociety/1820233
