Net Zero goal is a fundamental flaw in the Ottawa-Alberta MOU

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Elmira Aliakbari

The challenge of GHG emissions in 2050 is not in the industrial world but rather in the developing world, where there is still significant basic energy consumption using timber and biomass.

The new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the federal and Alberta governments lays the groundwork for substantial energy projects and infrastructure development over the next two-and-a-half decades. It is by all accounts a step forward, though, there’s debate about how large and meaningful that step actually is. There is, however, a fundamental flaw in the foundation of the agreement: it’s commitment to net zero in Canada by 2050.

The first point of agreement in the MOU on the first page of text states: “Canada and Alberta remain committed to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” In practice, it’s incredibly difficult to offset emissions with tree planting or other projects that reduce “net” emissions, so the effect of committing to “net zero” by 2050 means that both governments agree that Canada should produce very close to zero actual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Consider the massive changes in energy production, home heating, transportation and agriculture that would be needed to achieve this goal.

So, what’s wrong with Canada’s net zero 2050 and the larger United Nations’ global goal for the same?

Let’s first understand the global context of GHG reductions based on a recent study by internationally-recognized scholar Vaclav Smil. Two key insights from the study. First, despite trillions being spent plus international agreements and regulatory measures starting back in 1997 with the original Kyoto agreement, global fossil fuel consumption between then and 2023 increased by 55 per cent.

Second, fossil fuels as a share of total global energy declined from 86 per cent in 1997 to 82 per cent in 2022, again, despite trillions of dollars in spending plus regulatory requirements to force a transition away from fossil fuels to zero emission energies. The idea that globally we can achieve zero emissions over the next two-and-a-half decades is pure fantasy. Even if there is an historic technological breakthrough, it will take decades to actually transition to a new energy source(s).

Let’s now understand the Canada-specific context. A recent study examined all the measures introduced over the last decade as part of the national plan to reduce emissions to achieve net zero by 2050. The study concluded that significant economic costs would be imposed on Canadians by these measures: inflation-adjusted GDP would be 7 per cent lower, income per worker would be more than $8,000 lower and approximately 250,000 jobs would be lost. Moreover, these costs would not get Canada to net zero. The study concluded that only 70 per cent of the net zero emissions goal would be achieved despite these significant costs, which means even greater costs would be imposed on Canadians to fully achieve net zero.

It’s important to return to a global picture to fully understand why net zero makes no sense for Canada within a worldwide context. Using projections from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its latest World Energy Outlook, the current expectation is that in 2050, advanced countries including Canada and the other G7 countries will represent less than 25 per cent of global emissions. The developing world, which includes China, India, the entirety of Africa and much of South America, is estimated to represent at least 70 per cent of global emissions in 2050.

Simply put, the challenge of GHG emissions in 2050 is not in the industrial world but rather in the developing world, where there is still significant basic energy consumption using timber and biomass. A globally-coordinated effort, which is really what the U.N. should be doing rather than fantasizing about net zero, would see industrial countries like Canada that are capable of increasing their energy production exporting more to these developing countries so that high-emitting energy sources are replaced by lower-emitting energy sources. This would actually reduce global GHGs while simultaneously stimulating economic growth.

Consider a recent study that calculated the implications of doubling natural gas production in Canada and exporting it to China to replace coal-fired power. The conclusion was that there would be a massive reduction in global GHGs equivalent to almost 90 per cent of Canada’s total annual emissions. In these types of substitution arrangements, the GHGs would increase in energy-producing countries like Canada but global GHGs would be reduced, which is the ultimate goal of not only the U.N. but also the Carney and Smith governments as per the MOU.

Finally, the agreement ignores a basic law of economics. The first lesson in the very first class of any economics program is that resources are limited. At any given point in time, we only have so much labour, raw materials, time, etc. In other words, when we choose to do one project, the real cost is foregoing the other projects that could have been undertaken. Economics is mostly about trying to understand how to maximize the use of limited resources.

The MOU requires massive, literally hundreds of billions of dollars to be used to create nuclear power, other zero-emitting power sources and transmission systems all in the name of being able to produce low or even zero-emitting oil and gas while also moving to towards net zero.

These resources cannot be used for other purposes and it’s impossible to imagine what alternative companies or industries would have been invested in. What we do know is that workers, entrepreneurs, businessowners and investors are not making these decisions. Rather, politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa and Edmonton are making these decisions but they won’t pay any price if they’re wrong. Canadians pay the price. Just consider the financial fiasco unfolding now with Ottawa, Ontario and Quebec’s subsidies (i.e. corporate welfare) for electric vehicle batteries.

Understanding the fundamentally flawed commitment to Canadian net zero rather than understanding a larger global context of GHG emissions lays at the heart of the recent MOU and unfortunately for Canadians will continue to guide flawed and expensive policies. Until we get the net zero policies right, we’re going to continue to spend enormous resources on projects with limited returns, costing all Canadians.

Up Next

Manitoba Is Doubling Down On A Failed Drug Policy

Don't Miss

Eco-radical Canadian Cabinet minister resigns after oil deal approved

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Canada Still Serves Up Food Dyes The FDA Has Banned

Addictions / 42 mins ago

Manitoba Is Doubling Down On A Failed Drug Policy

Alberta / 56 mins ago

Net Zero goal is a fundamental flaw in the Ottawa-Alberta MOU

Alberta

Alberta can’t fix its deficits with oil money: Lennie Kaplan

Published on November 28, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Lennie Kaplan

Alberta is banking on oil to erase rising deficits, but the province’s budget can’t hold without major fiscal changes

Alberta is heading for a fiscal cliff, and no amount of oil revenue will save it this time.

The province is facing ballooning deficits, rising debt and an addiction to resource revenues that rise and fall with global markets. As Budget 2026 consultations begin, the government is gambling on oil prices to balance the books again. That gamble is failing. Alberta is already staring down multibillion-dollar shortfalls.

I estimate the province will run deficits of $7.7 billion in 2025-26, $8.8 billion in 2026-27 and $7.5 billion in 2027-28. If nothing changes, debt will climb from $85.2 billion to $112.3 billion in just three years. That is an increase of more than $27 billion, and it is entirely avoidable.

These numbers come from my latest fiscal analysis, completed at the end of October. I used conservative assumptions: oil prices at US$62 to US$67 per barrel over the next three years. Expenses are expected to keep growing faster than inflation and population. I also requested Alberta’s five-year internal fiscal projections through access to information but Treasury Board and Finance refused to release them. Those forecasts exist, but Albertans have not been allowed to see them.

Alberta has been running structural deficits for years, even during boom times. That is because it spends more than it brings in, counting on oil royalties to fill the gap. No other province leans this hard on non-renewable resource revenue. It is volatile. It is risky. And it is getting worse.

That is what makes Premier Danielle Smith’s recent Financial Post column so striking. She effectively admitted that any path to a balanced budget depends on doubling Alberta’s oil production by 2035. That is not a plan. It is a fantasy. It relies on global markets, pipeline expansions and long-term forecasts that rarely hold. It puts taxpayers on the hook for a commodity cycle the province does not control.

I have long supported Alberta’s oil and gas industry. But I will call out any government that leans on inflated projections to justify bad fiscal choices.

Just three years ago, Alberta needed oil at US$70 to balance the budget. Now it needs US$74 in 2025-26, US$76.35 in 2026-27 and US$77.50 in 2027-28. That bar keeps rising. A single US$1 drop in the oil price will soon cost Alberta $750 million a year. By the end of the decade, that figure could reach $1 billion. That is not a cushion. It is a cliff edge.

Even if the government had pulled in $13 billion per year in oil revenue over the last four years, it still would have run deficits. The real problem is spending. Since 2021, operating spending, excluding COVID-19 relief, has jumped by $15.5 billion, or 31 per cent. That is nearly eight per cent per year. For comparison, during the last four years under premiers Ed Stelmach and Alison Redford, spending went up 6.9 per cent annually.

This is not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem, papered over with oil booms. Pretending Alberta can keep expanding health care, education and social services on the back of unpredictable oil money is reckless. Do we really want our schools and hospitals held hostage to oil prices and OPEC?

The solution was laid out decades ago. Oil royalties should be saved off the top, not dumped into general revenue. That is what Premier Peter Lougheed understood when he created the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund in 1976. It is what Premier Ralph Klein did when he cut spending and paid down debt in the 1990s. Alberta used to treat oil as a bonus. Now it treats it as a crutch.

With debt climbing and deficits baked in, Alberta is out of time. I have previously laid out detailed solutions. But here is where the government should start.

First, transparency. Albertans deserve a full three-year fiscal update by the end of November. That includes real numbers on revenue, expenses, debt and deficits. The government must also reinstate the legal requirement for a mid-year economic and fiscal report. No more hiding the ball.

Second, a real plan. Not projections based on hope, but a balanced three-year budget that can survive oil prices dropping below forecast. That plan should be part of Budget 2026 consultations.

Third, long-term discipline. Alberta needs a fiscal sustainability framework, backed by a public long-term report released before year-end.

Because if this government will not take responsibility, the next oil shock will.

Lennie Kaplan is a former senior manager in the fiscal and economic policy division of Alberta’s Ministry of Treasury Board and Finance, where, among other duties, he examined best practices in fiscal frameworks, program reviews and savings strategies for non-renewable resource revenues. In 2012, he won a Corporate Values Award in TB&F for his work on Alberta’s fiscal framework review. In 2019, Mr. Kaplan served as executive director to the MacKinnon Panel on Alberta’s finances—a government-appointed panel tasked with reviewing Alberta’s spending and recommending reforms.

Alberta

IEA peak-oil reversal gives Alberta long-term leverage

Published on November 28, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Rashid Husain Syed

The peak-oil narrative has collapsed, and the IEA’s U-turn marks a major strategic win for Alberta

After years of confidently predicting that global oil demand was on the verge of collapsing, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has now reversed course—a stunning retreat that shatters the peak-oil narrative and rewrites the outlook for oil-producing regions such as Alberta.

For years, analysts warned that an oil glut was coming. Suddenly, the tide has turned. The Paris-based IEA, the world’s most influential energy forecasting body, is stepping back from its long-held view that peak oil demand is just around the corner.

The IEA reversal is a strategic boost for Alberta and a political complication for Ottawa, which now has to reconcile its climate commitments with a global outlook that no longer supports a rapid decline in fossil fuel use or the doomsday narrative Ottawa has relied on to advance its climate agenda.

Alberta’s economy remains tied to long-term global demand for reliable, conventional energy. The province produces roughly 80 per cent of Canada’s oil and depends on resource revenues to fund a significant share of its provincial budget. The sector also plays a central role in the national economy, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and contributing close to 10 per cent of Canada’s GDP when related industries are included.

That reality stands in sharp contrast to Ottawa. Prime Minister Mark Carney has long championed net-zero timelines, ESG frameworks and tighter climate policy, and has repeatedly signalled that expanding long-term oil production is not part of his economic vision. The new IEA outlook bolsters Alberta’s position far more than it aligns with his government’s preferred direction.

Globally, the shift is even clearer. The IEA’s latest World Energy Outlook, released on Nov. 12, makes the reversal unmistakable. Under existing policies and regulations, global demand for oil and natural gas will continue to rise well past this decade and could keep climbing until 2050. Demand reaches 105 million barrels per day in 2035 and 113 million barrels per day in 2050, up from 100 million barrels per day last year, a direct contradiction of years of claims that the world was on the cusp of phasing out fossil fuels.

A key factor is the slowing pace of electric vehicle adoption, driven by weakening policy support outside China and Europe. The IEA now expects the share of electric vehicles in global car sales to plateau after 2035. In many countries, subsidies are being reduced, purchase incentives are ending and charging-infrastructure goals are slipping. Without coercive policy intervention, electric vehicle adoption will not accelerate fast enough to meaningfully cut oil demand.

The IEA’s own outlook now shows it wasn’t merely off in its forecasts; it repeatedly projected that oil demand was in rapid decline, despite evidence to the contrary. Just last year, IEA executive director Fatih Birol told the Financial Times that we were witnessing “the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era.” The new outlook directly contradicts that claim.

The political landscape also matters. U.S. President Donald Trump’s return to the White House shifted global expectations. The United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement, reversed Biden-era climate measures and embraced an expansion of domestic oil and gas production. As the world’s largest economy and the IEA’s largest contributor, the U.S. carries significant weight, and other countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom, have taken steps to shore up energy security by keeping existing fossil-fuel capacity online while navigating their longer-term transition plans.

The IEA also warns that the world is likely to miss its goal of limiting temperature increases to 1.5 °C over pre-industrial levels. During the Biden years, the IAE maintained that reaching net-zero by mid-century required ending investment in new oil, gas and coal projects. That stance has now faded. Its updated position concedes that demand will not fall quickly enough to meet those targets.

Investment banks are also adjusting. A Bloomberg report citing Goldman Sachs analysts projects global oil demand could rise to 113 million barrels per day by 2040, compared with 103.5 million barrels per day in 2024, Irina Slav wrote for Oilprice.com. Goldman cites slow progress on net-zero policies, infrastructure challenges for wind and solar and weaker electric vehicle adoption.

“We do not assume major breakthroughs in low-carbon technology,” Sachs’ analysts wrote. “Even for peaking road oil demand, we expect a long plateau after 2030.” That implies a stable, not shrinking, market for oil.

OPEC, long insisting that peak demand is nowhere in sight, feels vindicated. “We hope … we have passed the peak in the misguided notion of ‘peak oil’,” the organization said last Wednesday after the outlook’s release.

Oil is set to remain at the centre of global energy demand for years to come, and for Alberta, Canada’s energy capital, the IEA’s course correction offers renewed certainty in a world that had been prematurely writing off its future.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.