In the weeks since Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced their agreement on energy, pundits have been filling social feeds and podcast episodes with their takes. But their views are often polarized. The memorandum of understanding that could pave the way to a new export pipeline for oil is either a much-needed step toward unlocking Canada’s resources, or it’s a big step backward for the climate. Still, there are a lot of nuances in this debate that can get lost in soundbites. Ottawa’s clean electricity regulations , for instance, are meant to limit emissions from the power grid. The MOU would scrap these regulations in Alberta – as long as both levels of government agree to a new regime of industrial carbon pricing . Supporters of the deal say this is a more durable, manageable approach than the status quo, but critics accuse the government of caving to industry. This week’s edition of the Fuelled video series seeks to unpack this debate – and explore some of the nuances – with the help of three Canadians who have been thinking a lot about the MOU in very different ways. Richard Masson is an executive fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, and a former chair of the World Petroleum Congress. Adam Scott is a climate policy expert at the non-profit Shift, and an advocate with more than 20 years of experience working with governments at every level. Michael Bernstein is the chief executive of Clean Prosperity, which pushes for pragmatic solutions to build the low-carbon economy. — Western Bureau Chief Reid Southwick • Email: RSouthwick@postmedia.com Why the MEG Energy fight is familiar — and yet highly unusualHow Canada's HQ exodus affects the economy and our quality of life Watch more Fuelled videos for the latest on Canada’s energy sector.