Reducing the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions enough to prevent a potentially disastrous level of climate change is a huge challenge. National governments worldwide have unanimously accepted the need to limit average global warming to 2°C (relative to pre-industrial temperatures), based on a large and longstanding body of science. G8 governments (including Canada’s) have accepted that developed countries’ contribution should be to reduce their combined emissions by at least 80 per cent below recent levels by 2050. This requires nothing less than a complete transformation of our energy system to one in which most energy is emissions-free, and used much more efficiently than now. Starting the transformation is urgent because it will take decades. It will only happen if governments move quickly to implement policies strong enough to shift the bulk of energy investments from high- emitting fossil fuel-based energy to zero-emission options. There isn’t time for governments to wait for full international agreement on who will do exactly what, because such an agreement is not currently in sight. Pointing fingers and waiting for others to move is simply a recipe for uncontrolled and costly4 global warming. What the world currently needs most is for jurisdictions with the greatest resources and energy expertise to start making the necessary changes, which will encourage others to follow. Alberta is under a spotlight when it comes to climate change because its GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are extraordinarily high. If Alberta were a country, it would have the joint- highest per capita GHG emissions in the world (along with Qatar).5 Even on an absolute basis, it would be the world’s 30th top emitter despite having a population of less than four million (Canada as a whole is 8th in absolute terms and 10th per capita).6 The main sources of Alberta’s emissions, and of their recent growth, are shown in Table 1. There is, of course, an obvious geographical and economic reason for Alberta’s unusually high GHG emissions: the province sits atop vast fossil fuel resources which bring significant economic benefits. If the province used those resources only for its own needs, its emissions would be high, but they are about 40 per cent higher still7 as a result of producing large volumes of fossil energy for export — particularly from the oilsands. This creates an extra and important constituency that cares about what the province is doing about GHGs, and whose displeasure could be a problem: the jurisdictions that buy Alberta’s energy. What Alberta does about its GHG emissions matters a lot to Canada because the province’s emissions are a third of Canada’s total and heading sharply upwards. What Alberta does or does not do could therefore be critical to whether Canada meets its international commitments and responsibilities. In theory Canada can meet its commitments regardless of Alberta policy, because the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate harmful emissions, as well as extensive taxation and spending powers. But in practice the Alberta government has resisted federal regulation of emissions. Instead it has adopted its own GHG targets and created an expectation that it will take the necessary actions to meet them.