Let's pause there.
I think you're right that it's ambitious. I would also say it's ambitious but necessary.
I'm no expert, so let me read from the International Energy Agency's net-zero report. They say, “Changes in energy consumption result in a significant decline in fossil fuel tax revenues.” So that's a challenge on the government side, but it works on the production side.
Yet annual per capita income from oil and natural gas in producer economies falls by about 75%, from USD 1,800 in recent years to USD 450 by the 2030s, which could have knock-on societal effects. Structural reforms and new sources of revenue are needed, even though these are unlikely to compensate fully for the drop in oil and gas income. While traditional supply activities decline, the expertise of the oil and natural gas industry fits well with technologies such as hydrogen, CCUS and offshore wind that are needed to tackle emissions in sectors where reductions are likely to be most challenging.
With or without us, demand is going to significantly change. In their analysis, coal demand declines by 90% in 2050, oil demand declines by 75%, and natural gas demand declines by 55%. If I care about jobs—the workers you care about too—I'd care about fairness for the workers in Alberta unquestionably. I really appreciate the advocacy of my colleague, Shannon Stubbs, on this front.
What I worry about is that we look at a short-term perspective, but when we look at the long-term perspective, there is going to be a transition with or without us. If we care about jobs and workers, why wouldn't we want to look at a green energy economy, a green innovation economy, a green economy overall and ask how we can best support workers going forward, not just in the short term, but in the long term?