What a lying Quisling!
"We want the low-carbon economy ... To get there, we need to make smart strategic investments in clean growth and new infrastructure, but we must also continue to generate wealth from our abundant natural resources to fund this transition to a low-carbon economy." (emphasis added)
That would make sense only if that wealth were given exclusively to:
a. those whose lands were desecrated, and;
b. those who are actually developing "clean growth and new infrastructure."
And even then, it still wouldn't make sense, because:
a. the lands would still be desecrated, and;
b. atmospheric carbon would be "through the roof."
Sucks to be you, next generations...