There's a pretty decent model in Alberta with the approach to coal where they've set up coal phase-out dates. They said they're going to shut down the coal plants and come up with an agreement with the companies involved to manage that economically for them, but they're also providing support to the communities that mine coal and the workers there to make sure they don't bear a disproportionate impact of this policy decision.
Canada's also part of a global effort to work on transition for coal workers, which is also a good thing. Certainly from the Greenpeace perspective we're saying we shouldn't have new fossil fuel megaprojects. That might not be every single project, every stop, but certainly on these massive projects we need that money desperately for the alternative. We need to avoid what the International Energy Agency calls “carbon lock-in”, where you build big, new things and then you want to run it to the end of its life, and that's often 40 to 50 years. If you read the IPCC report, you see we have to be at net-zero emissions globally by 2050. Building something now that's going to come online in 2025 and operate for 50 years doesn't make sense. You're creating a stranded asset. You're building a white elephant.
The IPCC was very clear. We have the technology. We have the economic means. We just have to get the policy in place to make that rapid transition. They have some good suggestions in their reports. I can also share some other academic research with the committee. We're seeing this at the smallest scale in Alberta. Look at how that works, make sure it's working for the communities, assess that, and then expand that model outwards to other fossil fuel sectors to make sure that communities and workers are protected as we do a planned, rapid transition off of fossil fuels and on to green energy.