“We cannot solely rely on abundant gas to solve the climate change problem. The climate change problem requires a climate change solution. Abundant gas could be great for any number of things, but it is not going to solve the climate change problem.”read more
- Ph.D., Economics, University of Guelph (2010).
- M.A., Economics, University of Guelph (2005).
- B.A., Economics, University of British Columbia (2003).
Joel Wood is the Fraser Institute's Senior Research Economist in the Centre for Environmental Studies and Centre for Risk and Regulation. A similar position was previously held by climate change skeptic Kenneth Green who now works with the American Enterprise Institute.
Wood completed his Ph.D. in Economics under the direction of Fraser Institute fellow and climate change skeptic Ross McKitrick.
Stance on Climate Change
“Setting aside the questionable validity of the evidence suggesting a human contribution to climate change, both [Liberal and Conservative] plans would have only negligible impact on global greenhouse gas emissions.” 
“At a certain point, the benefits from reduced pollution no longer outweigh the costs of achieving them, which is why it rarely makes sense to aim for zero pollution.” 
March 9, 2011
Wood opposed Canada's federal Renewable Fuels Regulations which would mandate the minimum amount of renewable fuel content in gasoline.
Wood claimed the regulations “will result in large costs to the petroleum industry and
consumers, while providing very little verifiable benefit to society.” 
This article was among a number by Wood that were critiqued by DeepClimate. In this case, Wood cites an outdated number Canada's 2020 GHG reduction target.
January 31, 2012
The study, which looked at the concentrations of five major pollutants, concluded that “Canadians currently experience significantly better air quality than at any other time since monitoring of air quality commenced in the 1970s and that air quality continues to improve.”
Wood's report accuses the Canadian Medical Association of trying to scare the public, and says that “the Canadian Medical Association’s report overestimates the future costs of air pollution in Canada.”
However, Environment Canada records and data compiled by the National Roundtable on Energy and the Environment (NRTEE) tell a different story on some of the assertions made by the Fraser Institute study, particularly the study's claim that ground-level ozone is decreasing (see PDF). 
The David Suzuki Foundation took a critical look at the Fraser Institute report and found that it ignores the rising emissions from certain sectors. The Foundation explains that there is no “safe” threshold level for exposure to key pollutants. 
According to his resume (PDF), Wood has three “working papers” in economics that appear to be related to his Ph.D. thesis.
Wood has published a number of articles and policy studies with the Fraser Institute.
CV at the University of Guelph (PDF). Accessed April, 2012.
Joel Wood. “Liberals and Conservatives offer job killing climate policies,” The Fraser Institute, April 28, 2011.
Joel Wood. “Canadian Environmental Indicators—Air Quality” (Policy Study), The Fraser Institute, January, 2012.
Joel Wood. “Canada’s federal Renewable Fuels Regulations: An example of poor decision making,” Fraser Forum, March/April 2011.
“Environment Canada and NRTEE versus the Fraser Institute: An issue of quality,” DeepClimate, February 10, 2012.
Evan Duggan. “Fraser Institute gives passing grade to Canada's air pollution policies,” Vancouver Sun, January 31, 2012.
Lisa Gue. “Action still needed on air quality (Gasp! Fraser Institute has it wrong)”, David Suzuki Foundation, February 1, 2012.
“Joel Wood,” Profile at the Fraser Institute. Accessed April, 2012.