Apparently Canada is open for business but closed to criticism, no matter how constructive. This is the clearest conclusion that can be drawn from Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s open letter to Canadians, in which he attacks advocates of responsible oil-sands development as “radicals” and dismisses the concerns of thousands of Canadians who want to have a say in the decision of whether to build Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

The Green Energy Act brought Ontario new investment, jobs and manufacturing — not to mention clean sources of energy. But Ontario is now paying premium prices for that clean electricity, and many Ontarians are wondering if they got a good deal.

Thousands of Americans — many of them high-profile, law-abiding citizens — will be risking arrest over the coming weeks to send a message to their president about importing oil from Canada's oilsands: "Just say no."

While we commend the Government of Canada on finally committing to install an oilsands "smoke alarm," Canadians need to know if the government will heed the call to action when the alarm sounds.

In Canada, rising concern about climate change over the last two decades has coincided with a massive expansion of development in the oil sands. It's not hard to make the case that the development of the oil sands has stunted and disfigured Canada's approach to climate change.

If you're like me, debates about carbon taxes, cap-and-trade systems, carbon neutral requirements and other climate policies excite you. If you're like most people, you're probably more interested in the bigger picture — the one that often gets lost in the policy details.

When it comes to climate policy, the bigger picture is whether or not we can avert a global warming crisis. For Canada and other developed countries, this means overhauling the way we produce and use energy as well as helping developing countries carve a clean path forward. Globally, we have a responsibility to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and we don't have much time to do it.

Just over a year ago, the federal government announced a plan to regulate greenhouse gas pollution from some of the dirtiest sources of energy in Canada — coal power plants. While the rules aren't scheduled to take effect for four years, the government promised to guard against any efforts to rush new plants into service ahead of their start date.

Now, a decision by an Alberta regulator to approve a new coal plant has put the ball squarely in the federal government's court to live up to that commitment. And so far, the signs aren't promising.

Jen Grant explains how Alberta's draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan is missing many of the critical pieces required to protect land, air, water and ecosystems, protecting oilsands developers' interests more than it does the environment.

Ed Whittingham clarifies the Pembina Institute's position on the proposed use of CCS at SaskPower's Boundary Dam coal plant, in response to a letter published by Rob Norris, Saskatchewan's minister responsible for SaskPower.

Canada's technology triangle of Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge is a good fit for the high-tech rail aesthetic and speed of an LRT system.

Ontario's electricity system is undergoing a major transformation. Much of the electricity transmission infrastructure is old and in need of refurbishing, most of the nuclear capacity is nearing the end its lifetime and Ontario has made a laudable commitment to shut down its coal-fired power plants.

It is easy (and overly simplistic) to blame the Green Energy Act for higher electricity prices, as is happening all too often in Ontario. The truth is electricity prices are increasing all across North America, largely due to the simple fact that we are building new power plants and relying less on those built decades ago.

Judging by the turnover rate alone, it's clear that being Stephen Harper's environment minister isn't easy for anyone. But for the newest recruit, Thornhill MP Peter Kent, the assignment might be even tougher than usual. That's because Minister Kent took the job just as new U.S. regulations are shining a spotlight on our government's inaction on climate change.

Which country possesses the world's largest oil reserves, occupies last place in the international Climate Change Performance Index, and complains most loudly about the Kyoto Protocol? Many followers of international affairs may have no difficulty naming Saudi Arabia.

In this op-ed, Matthew Bramley, director of Pembina's climate change program, explains why Canada's stance on climate change bears surprising resemblances to that of the OPEC giant.

Imagine going into a bank to apply for pre-approval for a mortgage. You don't have a steady income, so instead you present 10 cheques. They're one-time-only payments from anonymous sources and they don't amount to much of a down payment.

The bank would tell you to go home, get a steady job and come back when you've got long-term employment. Until then, you're wasting their time.

Matthew Bramley, director of the Pembina Institute's climate change program, explains why the benefits of taking action on climate change outweigh the costs.

Tough on crime. Tough on people smugglers. Tough on prison pensions. The list of things the federal government is getting tough on continues to grow-with a glaring exception. If the intention is to project a "getting tough" image, we need to be consistent and get tough on polluters.

Imagine the City of Vancouver. Now imagine it covered in toxic sludge about two stories deep. That's how much toxic tailings waste you end up with after 40 years of unchecked oilsands production in northern Alberta. And that's what a flock of ducks came up against Monday night when they needed somewhere to land.

We've all seen the photos: northern Alberta's boreal forest marked by open pit mines, polluting smokestacks and growing tailings lakes. It's what oilsands mining looks like. With this big mess comes a big price tag and it looks like Alberta taxpayers might be left on the hook for the lion's share ($10 to $15 billion) of the cleanup bill, according to a report recently released by the Pembina Institute.

We're told not to lose sleep over oilsands reclamation though. After all, oilsands mine operators are required to clean up the land they disturb. Just in case operators don't follow through with that reclamation, the Government of Alberta collects what amounts to a security deposit to cover reclamation costs.

The problem is, it doesn't look as though the Government of Alberta has been collecting enough money to cover the cleanup - not anywhere near enough money.

Ongoing criticism of oilsands development in Alberta is wreaking reputational havoc on our province, culminating in an unfortunate hit to tourism operators with the recent Rethink Alberta campaign. We think a different response could level the criticisms.

We're not alone. U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson challenged industry to "do more to demonstrate how they're meeting the challenges of providing energy security while meeting their obligations of environmental stewardship."

That's not what's happening though. Instead, we're witnessing a self-defeating cycle of ramped up public relations from the Government of Alberta that never truly addresses the substance of the criticisms directed at the province's regulation of the oilsands industry.