"The final Canada-Alberta MOU implementation agreement will put Canada’s target of net zero by 2050 well out of reach," Rick Smith, president of the Canadian Climate Institute, said in a written statement.

The Pembina Institute said its modelling showed the carbon pricing schedule included in the implementation agreement would result in an additional 230 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over the next 15 years.

The federal government had no modelling of its own to offer on Friday.

The policy left behind by Justin Trudeau's government was stronger on paper. But Carney might argue his policy is stronger in practice — not least because it was achieved via political consensus with a conservative Alberta premier.

...

In defiance of the federal benchmark, Smith's government had frozen the province's industrial price at $95 per tonne last year. (Meanwhile, Saskatchewan has stopped collecting an industrial carbon price altogether.) And because of inefficiencies in Alberta's pricing system, the effective price was much lower.

[–] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why are you conflicted? Im seeing huge reductions to industrial carbon price because the feds refused to reign in provinces that violate federal law and then reward them for violating those laws. Now we have even weaker climate policy.

The lesson is obvious to provinces: dont follow federal laws you dont agree with. I guess thats why heslthcare privatization has been allowed to progress so far across the country.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think it's perfectly understandable to at least attempt to rein in an increasingly rogue province by making a mutually acceptable deal. I don't believe it will help, or at least not much, but I can understand the attempt.

The lesson is obvious to provinces: dont follow federal laws you dont agree with.

That said, I can't really disagree with this point.

Ultimately, the proposed pipeline still seems to be contingent on finding a private entity that thinks it's a good investment, and I'm not at all convinced that that will ever happen. We'll see.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

Not sure why any oil company would even want to make a big investment in Alberta while the UCP is in power. The Smith Government is willing to flaunt federal laws, First Nations treaties, the Constitution and their own laws as they feel like. I'd think competent CEOs would see that as a ripe environment for getting bound up in lawsuits and court cases, not for capital investment.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It looks like they're dramatically reducing the carbon price, delaying increases to the cost, and reducing the goals for carbon capture.

It looks like a win for the greenhouse gas producers, and yet another fuck you to our kids.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The counterpoint (and it's a deeply shitty, cynical counterpoint) is that the original targets weren't realistic to begin with, and would have been missed, just like every other climate target ever.

Is this better? History suggests it probably isn't. Is it worse? Maybe, but the depressing truth is it might just be a lateral move.

And that's the strongest "defense" I'm able to muster, which is pretty depressing.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

You're right that it's a deeply shitty and cynical counterpoint. In terms of realpolitik, you probably aren't wrong.

Trudeau talked a great game but repeatedly fumbled the implementation. Maybe if his government has done a better job with the branding and politicisation of the various carbon taxes we'd be in a better spot. But we aren't.

At best we can say this steals some of the thunder from the separatists.

yay national unity