The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report earlier this year that revised the projections for future climate scenarios. This update eliminates the need for steep cuts in emissions by 2030 that were previously demanded by some analysts, as reported by Trellis. Steve Koonin, a professor, former Chief Scientist at BP, and former US Undersecretary for Science, explained in a recent speech that the climate models previously used had overestimated the projected rise in global temperatures. This revised model is the reason the IPCC has lowered its assessments. The New York Times similarly reported a shift in public opinion with the headline Democrats Do Not Have To Campaign On Climate Change Anymore, describing a corresponding change in climate alarmist messaging. Just before Christmas 2025, the European Commission ended the planned ban on internal combustion engine vehicles that was due to take effect in 2035. This reversal followed earlier adjustments to the 2020 European Green Deal that had already lowered prior expectations for environmental targets. This change has been described by French MEP Eric Andrieu as “the dismantling of the Green Deal.” The stated objectives of these reforms are to strengthen the EU’s competitiveness and address concerns that are far more urgent than the 2035 deadline. The new directive exempts 92% of companies from mandatory environmental and social impact reporting and reduces the obligation on all but the largest firms to prevent and remedy adverse social and environmental effects of their operations. Parallel adjustments have been made to the Common Agricultural Policy and to deforestation-related measures, with many of the agricultural reforms responding to widespread farmer protests. Emissions caps will be reduced, free emissions allocations will be introduced between 2031 and 2038, and individual member states have lowered the VAT rates on gasoline. The Climate Action Tracker now ranks the EU’s green ambition as “insufficient.”Under the current Trump administration, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) repealed the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding in February 2026. This repeal ended federal regulation of automobile greenhouse gas emissions and marked a fundamental shift in the agency’s role rather than a mere adjustment of a few rules. The administration has simultaneously expanded federal lands available for energy resource exploration by private companies, weakened methane regulations, streamlined environmental review and permitting processes (thereby easing the construction of pipelines, facilities, refineries, data centres, and similar projects), and further significantly downscaled and redirected the EPA. Of particular interest to Alberta, the EU’s emission-reduction targets have been relaxed in the short term. As a result, demand for and pricing of decarbonized oil should fall, rendering decarbonized oil unattractive to produce, thereby reducing investment. These developments may prompt adjustments to the life-cycle carbon-intensity metric in an effort to further mitigate the decline. They also raise the possibility that the entire structure of EU regulations could be abandoned or substantially altered. Ten EU member states oppose regulations requiring decarbonized oil, and this includes larger economies such as Italy and Poland. Although the EU continues to verbally promote restrictive policies, the “Little Dutch Boy” metaphor applies: the Commission appears to have pulled its finger out of the green dyke. The central point is not the extent of the changes but the indication that the European Commission has opened the door to questioning the viability of the European Green Deal..Furthermore, the US has expanded its energy production capacity to become the world’s largest oil exporter. In parallel, it is increasingly moving away from green initiatives and policies. This shift is not short-term. The US oil market is considerably larger than the EU’s, and decarbonization is no longer a consideration. Instead, the US position is a deliberate counterpunch aimed at the demand for decarbonized oil. Abundant low-cost energy is essential for a flourishing economy.All of these developments have substantial implications for the proposed oil pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast. First, every indigenous nation along the proposed route will demand a share of the proceeds. Prime Minister Carney has stated that BC can impose a toll on the oil flowing through the pipeline; the oil carried by that pipeline must be low-emission oil. This agreement includes a major carbon-capture facility and entails carbon pricing and government financing. The resulting economics would render Alberta oil among the world’s most expensive. Furthermore, the Roberts Bank terminal already suffers from traffic congestion, which limits the number of oil tankers that can access the port, and the seabed is too shallow to accommodate the largest fully loaded oil tankers. Both constraints will materially reduce the volume of oil that could be shipped.The assumption that the EU and other nations will pay a premium for Alberta decarbonized oil is therefore questionable, particularly given the EU’s need to be competitive with the US and Chinese economies. The US expansion of conventional oil exports further undermines the pipeline’s viability, rendering the entire project a high-risk gamble. This agreement locks in Prime Minister Carney’s late twentieth-century worldview at the expense of practical considerations in an increasingly competitive global energy landscape — an outcome that may explain why many oil companies have declined to participate. Former UN technical expert Mark Keenan has drawn attention to serious concerns regarding financial institutions involved in these “Green Deals” arrangements. Many observers also question whether the project will ever reach completion. Even if some aspect of the pipeline were ultimately built, the profits for Alberta would be substantially reduced. One may further ask whether increased port access for oil was ever Ottawa’s primary objective or whether the true objective was to bring Alberta into closer alignment with Ottawa. Do Albertans want Ottawa controlling our resources?The EU appears to be learning that the radical “anti-people” green agenda must be refocused on human needs if it is to remain competitive in the global business environment. The US has already moved in that direction. Canada can continue along the Prime Minister’s preferred net-zero pathway with blinders on, or it can take two straightforward steps: first, serve as a prudent steward of the magnificent legacy it inherited; and second, with a clear emphasis on people-centred solutions, allocate adequate funding for research to identify new technological approaches to environmental challenges.Dr. A. W. Barber is the former Director of Asian Studies at the University of Calgary. He is internationally active and has wide-ranging interests.
