Will net-zero be the silver bullet that slays the monster that is climate change vs. the energy industry?

This article is part of CBC News'Minority Reportnewsletter, which is your weekly tip-sheet to help you navigate the parliamentary waters of a minority government.Sign up hereand it will be delivered directly to your inbox every Sunday.

Exactly a week ago, the CEO of Teck Resources, Don Lindsay, spelled it out.

In a letter to Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, Lindsay announced his company was pulling the plug on its proposed oilsands mega-mine in Northern Alberta because, in part, governments can't get their act together.

Of course, I'm paraphrasing, here's what Lindsay actually said:

"The promise of Canada's potential will not be realized until governments can reach an agreement around how climate policy considerations will be addressed in the context of future responsible energy sector development," he wrote.

"Without clarity on this critical question, the situation that has faced Frontier will be faced by future projects and it will be very difficult to attract future investment, either domestic or foreign."

The letter got me thinking. Granted, it's not like this is the whole reason Frontier walked away. There was also the issue of economic viability given the current price of oil, but let's save that for another day.

Lindsay's letter was unique in its level of detail and frankness. It informed a lot of my questioning of ministers on this file in the days that followed. I genuinely wanted to know; will governments in this country reach the kind of agreement Lindsay describes? More to the point; does the political will exist across levels of government to do so?

Watch Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan discuss Teck's decision to back away from itsoilsands mine proposal:

O'Regan on Teck mine withdrawal

5 years ago

Duration 8:03

Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan discusses Teck's decision to withdraw its application for a new oilsands mine.

If politics were only about doing what's best for the country and its citizens the answer would be a simple yes. But part of politics, a big part, is also about winning. There's a reason Liberals say Conservatives that question the carbon tax are climate change deniers just as there's a reason Conservatives say Liberalsthat support a carbon tax are attacking hockey moms and dads: it scores each side political points and presents voters with a starker choice at the ballot box.

The political debate will probably one day move on, or at least be less polarized, but how? Is there something that will offer the clarity Lindsay talks about, something that will allow governments to reconcile the pursuit of fighting climate change with pursuing resource development?

I have two words to answer that question: Net. Zero.

Net-zero emissions basically means that any greenhouse gases emitted by a company or project, would be offset by actions that take carbon out of the atmosphere, such as planting trees. A.k.a. the silver bullet.

Well, not really. I have no idea if it's going to be the silver bullet that solves all of the government's problems and I have no idea what it will end up meaning for this country.

But I do know the federal government is sold on the idea. An interview this week with Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan crystallized that for me.

O'Regan insisted his government doesn't want to close down the oil patch.

"We have a deep and abiding sense of how important this industry is to the national economy," he told me.

"And we also have an understanding of how the investment climate around the world is changing. How do you bring those two together? We are committed to net-zero."

There it is folks. The Liberalssee their campaign pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 as a ticket out of the current political impasse.

The pledge echoes what we're hearing from the corporate world too; in fact, Teck Resources is itself one of the companies pledging to be net-zero by 2050. Alberta's government is also willing to talk about the prospect.

But first, according to sources close to Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, they want some more details.

Those details aren't just hard to find right now; they don't exist. O'Regan says the deets are coming soon, but didn't have any specifics on what soon means.

Watch the U.K.'s envoy to COP26 explain his country's plans to get to net-zero:

The U.K.'s net-zero pledge

5 years ago

Duration 7:35

The United Kingdom's envoy to COP26 John Murton discusses his country's pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

So what could net-zero mean? Time for a look across the pond.

The U.K. legislated net-zero in June of 2019. In that country, it will likely mean petrol and diesel vehicles are phased out by 2035, consumption of beef, lamb and dairy has to be cut by twenty percent by 2050 and no houses built after 2025 will be connected to the gas grid.

Beyond the fact that I have no idea how I can continue to exist as a Greek with no lamb or cheese, this at least provides some insight into what the newest slogan in the government catchphrase drinking game (NET-ZERO - drink!) will be.

Whether it ends up being a silver bullet that reconciles tensions between the environment and the economy is a whole other ball game; one that depends on governments' willingness to play together.

Subscribe to the full newsletter

This is just one part of the Minority Report newsletter. In this week's issue, ric Grenier looks at how the Conservatives' climate policy may have affected their support in the last election and the Power Panel gives its take on the week ahead. You can read all of that byclicking here, orsign up for the newsletter hereand it will be delivered directly to your inbox every Sunday.