Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

Exploration and development camp at the Frontier Project. While thoughtful in places, Teck's letter is also frustratingly vague in explaining what might have avoided this outcome.

Handout Teck Resources

The letter that accompanies Teck Resources Ltd.’s withdrawal of its application for the Frontier oil sands mine is a Rorschach test.

To those who already believe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is an enemy of Alberta’s economy, its citing of political uncertainty is proof that the federal government – through its equivocation about whether to approve the project, its handling of the rail blockade crisis related to a different energy-sector development, or countless other Liberal sins – just cost the province thousands of jobs and billions of dollars.

To those already convinced that Jason Kenney is a dinosaur who stands in the way of transitioning from a carbon-intensive economy, the letter’s call for governments to better reconcile resource development with climate change is evidence the Alberta Premier is his province’s worst enemy.

Story continues below advertisement

To those certain the project was economically doomed regardless of political approval, the letter’s timing – days before it may have finally received the green light from Mr. Trudeau’s cabinet – just proves that Teck was looking for an out.

For leaving all that room for interpretation, Teck itself deserves some blame. While thoughtful in places, its letter is also frustratingly vague in explaining what might have avoided this outcome.

Among other unanswered questions: If Teck supports measures such as carbon pricing and legislated caps for oil sands emissions (the latter of which Alberta’s Environment Minister promised just days ago), then what further policies are missing from the governmental “framework” to reassure investors that “the cleanest possible products” are being developed?

But a lot of the responsibility, for fallout likely to exacerbate the polarization the letter laments, rests with those who recently raised this previously obscure decision facing Mr. Trudeau’s Liberals to the level of a defining national moment.

It can’t be said often enough: Hardly anybody was talking about the Liberals’ looming decision on whether to approve the Frontier mine a few months ago, even in Alberta. It wasn’t a big topic last summer when the project received a rather tentative approval recommendation from a federal-provincial panel, nor in the fall election campaign.

The decision merited some scrutiny, since it was a valid question whether the project’s theoretical annual addition of roughly four megatonnes of carbon emissions could be compatible with Ottawa’s emissions reduction goals. But as a long-term play – Teck’s chief executive officer effectively acknowledged last month that it was only going to come to fruition if economic circumstances became much more favourable to new oil sands projects – it didn’t deserve to suddenly become the country’s single most prominent climate change file.

In retrospect, the Liberals could have prevented the issue from spiralling out of control by quickly accepting or rejecting the proposal quickly after their re-election. Instead, they left just enough room for those who know how to play to the most visceral anxieties around the future of fossil fuels.

Story continues below advertisement

Nobody did more to elevate the issue than Mr. Kenney, who suddenly began very publicly lobbying Ottawa for approval as a way to keep Albertans rallied behind him. In the process, he helped environmental groups convince their followers that the project would be a definitive test of whether the Liberals had the stomach to withstand pressure from the oil sector and its political allies. It all made for an irresistible media narrative, with a fresh tension point by which to frame the new minority government.

So where did a couple of months with the Frontier mine as the be-all and end-all of Canadian climate and energy policy leave us?

A project that probably wouldn’t have happened even if approved, and would have added about a half a percentage point to Canada’s current emissions total, now certainly won’t happen. Meanwhile, Albertans are angrier than before; environmentalists are more easily accused of stomping on economic opportunity. And less attention has been paid, in government and by the public, to other climate and energy policy matters of greater foreseeable consequence.

Amid all the reactions by those who spent the past couple of months being riled up, there is the odd optimist who sees in Teck’s letter a potential turning point.

Here is a Canadian mining company – unpleasantly surprised to suddenly find itself at the “nexus” of fractious climate and energy politics, and hastily removing itself – telling everyone to take a deep breath if they want to avoid scaring away other investments. Perhaps politicians, environmentalists and industry advocates will now heed the letter’s advice to “shift to a larger and more positive discussion about the path forward.”

But so far, as a result of the preceding hype, the withdrawal of the project is just pushing us even further from that fresh path.

Story continues below advertisement

A slightly more modest hope is that, after this episode, all concerned won’t leap upon the next available opportunity to boil the complexities of decarbonizing the economy into an overdramatized battle of allegiances that reinforces pre-existing biases. We can’t afford to keep doing this to ourselves.

Your time is valuable. Have the Top Business Headlines newsletter conveniently delivered to your inbox in the morning or evening. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies