There’s a trick managers are taught to help them goad lazy employees into getting work done: praising them for doing what’s expected of them. You showed up to work on time, wearing clothing? Good job.

Apply this logic to the arena of climate change policy in Canada, and you’re obliged to celebrate the Alberta government’s new climate strategy. So thanks, Alberta — something is always better than nothing, which is what you were mostly doing up to now.

Alberta’s approach to climate change is that of a laggard trying to do the minimum. It’s not an aggressive plan to improve the situation, as required under the Paris accord, or to truly shift the world’s views on the oilsands’ carbon impact.

If you read the report of the Alberta government’s Climate Change Advisory Panel, you’ll see a lot of talk about cumulative reductions over long periods for specific sectors, carbon reductions per barrel of oil, improved methodologies for pricing carbon over today’s complicated, ineffective ones — great reductions from what would have happened without these actions. Lots of fancy phrases written by very smart people who know how to dress up a government report that doesn’t actually say anything.

What you won’t read is anything about Alberta reducing total emissions for 2030 compared to 1990 or 2005. Because that isn’t the plan.

Any reductions the government of Premier Rachel Notley expects to come through this plan would be offset by increased emissions. Everybody is supposed to be happy about that, since matters would have been worse without the plan. But the plan is still to allow emissions to drift upwards by almost 20 per cent over 2005 levels, more than 50 per cent over 1990 levels, by 2030. This, the report’s authors tell us, makes Alberta “a leader in action on climate change”.

The fact that we’re celebrating an uncertain plan that will see emissions increase should disappoint us all. But that’s politics. The fact that we’re celebrating an uncertain plan that will see emissions increase should disappoint us all. But that’s politics.

The plan has four main pillars. Carbon pricing is being implemented at what is being called a world-leading level of $30 per tonne of CO2. The International Energy Agency has said that aggressive carbon pricing is necessary to drive the shift to a low-carbon economy. It also said that fossil fuel subsidies must end.

It’s strange, then, that almost half of the estimated $6 billion the province will raise by the time carbon pricing is fully phased-in by 2018 could be used to subsidize large emitters so that they remain ‘competitive’. Only 3 per cent of the revenue will be used for energy efficiency projects; most of the rest will go to general revenue, though the government has suggested that money could go towards infrastructure and transit.

Granted, there are signs of progress here. Alberta is to phase out coal by 2030. That’s much better than building new coal plants, like the one the province just added in 2011. There’s an oil industry spin on this, too: There will be clear incentives to use natural gas cogeneration facilities to produce steam and electricity at oilsands plants to help shut down coal-fired generators. The electricity from a cogeneration facility has about 25 per cent of the carbon emissions of coal, so that’s progress.

Then there’s the cap on oilsands emissions. The oilsands sector represents 25 per cent of the province’s overall emissions — around 75 megatonnes per year (MT/yr). There will be a cap of 100 MT/yr in the future, with special provisions for upgrading and cogeneration. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers sees that as a big concession, since there was no limit before — but if you’re watching from outside Canada, you’re not going to be terribly impressed with any plan involving that kind of growth in high-carbon fossil fuels as a base case.

Finally, there’s the methane problem. Alberta has standards on methane emissions, but they’re voluntary and it isn’t at all clear what the true emissions numbers are. A study done last year by the Pembina Institute had to use U.S. estimates for facility emissions because there was virtually no Canadian data. And this year, the U.S. issued new, larger numbers for methane emissions since recent studies had shown the EPA had been grossly underestimating them for years.

Alberta has targeted a 45 per cent reduction in methane emissions, but that was a plan based on a number that likely was estimated on shaky U.S. numbers.

So yes, Alberta’s putting a price on carbon, though we’ll have to see if this implementation changes emitter behaviour. It’s good that coal plants are being shut down — bad that Alberta just had some new ones built. It’s good that there’s a cap on oilsands emissions — bad that it’s well above today’s level. It’s good that the province is mandating methane reductions; it’s a shame that it doesn’t actually know what those emissions are today.

The fact that we’re celebrating an uncertain plan that will see emissions increase should disappoint us all. But that’s politics. Premier Notley is probably doing the best she can, given the conditions she has to work with.

So … good job Alberta. Thanks for trying, at least.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.