That’s fine, I’m just sharing a link to the actual interview on the website we both write for. But I’m sure we’ll hash this whole thing out soon…

read the interview for specific examples!

Full interview here www.nationalobserver.com/2025/12/03/n...

The MoU was not required for the federal government to alter the benchmarks on its OBPS. It was not required for the implementation of the Clean Electricity Regulations. It is a canard to say there was a serious quid pro quo for federal support for another bitumen pipeline.

In the real world of emissions you don’t get to cherry pick, you have to look at them together and there is zero way to look at this and not see a severe weakening of policies - to say nothing of how now other provinces will demand their own carve outs (like with Trudeau and consumer carbon pricing)

The only thing the government claims is improved is industrial carbon pricing — but there’s no evidence of that. Alberta’s pov is $130 is the headline price ($170 it was it was scheduled to rise to) so how is that stronger? Even then, to offset the CER cuts would require a price of $400 per tonne

I think you should take a closer look… the MOU spells out a weakening of climate policies across the board — including on policies the SCC has already given the feds authority over.

We’ve already gone through the pipeline for climate bargain with TMX. They got a pipeline and fought the policies they agreed to.

Lucy is ready to pull the football away from carney brown all over again if he’s negotiating in good faith. If it’s bad faith, it fans the separatist flames further.

If carney doesn’t believe a pipeline will happen, than he is forcing BC and FNs to fight something that didn’t need to happen in the first place.

If investors don’t bite, Alberta will demand more federal subsidy to make it happen. If feds refuse, do you believe Alberta would let it go?

Alberta will complain the very second it’s politically convenient. This MOU sets the stage for the province to snap back with vengeance whenever it chooses.

If Carney’s strategy is negotiate in bad faith to play Alberta for suckers — as is being suggested by some— that blows back. It’s bad politics

Concluding, @chrishatch.bsky.social: "Let's keep in mind that this is a life or death question now for millions of people around the world, and that this isn't something to be measured in grams of carbon or barrels, but lives and livelihoods."

@chrishatch.bsky.social: "Carney has loosed the monsters across the land with this one; we're going to be arguing about pipelines and expanding fossil fuel production for years. And it was unnecessary."

Just to be clear, this isn't just me riffing on the article from @natashabulowski.bsky.social. 'Dabrusin is unable/unwilling to do anything substantial' is the takeaway for many in the climate community I've interviewed recently.

At a certain point you could assume that's why she has the gig.

Obviously a new oil pipeline increases emissions. Its ridiculous she can't say. But this really highlights how ineffective she is in her role. An effective minister would try to answer in a way that builds leverage for something else.

At a time when the financial sector was under pressure to align with climate action, he correctly identified climate change posed a risk to investments & the energy transition posed a generational opportunity to profit. That is not the same as protecting people, communities and ecosystems from harm.

The piece gets into this in more detail, but the basic point here is that he was believed to be someone speaking the language of finance to get climate action from the financial world. But when you look back, what you actually see is someone with a fine tuned sense for financial risk and opportunity

Long term risk to fossil fuels he's aware of, and so is using the power of government to rebuild a market for them. He's shredding climate policies, throwing support behind oil and gas, and the main reason the climate community feels betrayed is because they fundamentally misread who he is.

People are debating whether he's playing smart political chess, or capitulating to the fossil fuel sector, but the other option here is that this is just what he wants to do and is using the political moment we're in to ram his vision through any opposition to it.