“At a low-key news conference in Calgary, Environment Minister Jim Prentice said Canada’s new goal is to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent below its 2005 levels by 2020. He said this puts Canada’s target in step with what is planned in the U.S.”

In April 2007, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government had promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 2006 levels (GHG plan from 2007²). While this sounds admirable at first glance, it’s actually quite weak. It puts Canada far short of the amount we agreed to in our original Kyoto commitment (6% below 1990 levels by 2012). An IPS article³ from 26 April 2007 noted that “…Canada’s emissions have shot up 30 to 35 percent since 1990…”

While continuing to trounce Kyoto, the Conservatives also pull a fast one in terms of our Copenhagen commitment. The aforementioned Vancouver Sun article states that Canada’s emissions in 2005 were actually higher than in 2006. So the Conservatives have decreased the commitment both by percentage and in total.

The Toronto Star⁴ (01 February 2010) wrote

“Prentice told an audience at the University of Calgary Monday that business needs to work closely with the provincial and federal governments to ensure a greener exploitation of the sandy bitumen stores in northern Alberta and achieve the goal of making the country a clean energy superpower.”

Jim Prentice is beginning to sound like he’s co-opting NDP messaging about “green-collar” jobs. The NDP and other parties have certainly pushed the notion of creating jobs by boosting new green industries in the face of looming environmental disaster. How else can you read Prentice’s desire to make the country “a clean energy superpower”? The problem is this attitude is not one that the Conservatives actually hold. In fact, it’s the opposite of Harper’s opinion: “…the ‘battle of Kyoto’ — our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord…”. To date, the Conservatives’ inaction, stalling, and failure when it comes to environmental concerns testify to the fact that they don’t truly hold the position Prentice suggested.

Prentice mixes two ideas in the same statement, on the one hand he simply says greener in reference to the tar sands (which doesn’t mean much considering the weak GHG emissions targets). On the other he’s talking about clean energy, which the tar sands are not.

The Star article also quotes Prentice repeating the standard Conservative don’t-lead & do-nothing, defeatist approach saying

“It’s absolutely counterproductive and utterly pointless for Canada and Canadian businesses to strike out on their own, to set and to pursue targets that will ultimately create barriers to trade and put us at a competitive disadvantage…”

But he doesn’t justify why it’s counterproductive or pointless. While implying it, he doesn’t justify why rational targets like Kyoto would create barriers. He didn’t justify why Canadian policy should follow the United States. Even if we assume all of his statements are true, he still needs to justify why some barriers on trade are more important than environmental conservation and the future well-being of our species.

Prentice seems to mock his own government when he says

“Absent this kind of Canadian leadership, we will be cast as a global poster child for environmentally unsound resource development. Canadians expect and deserve more than that…”

Because of the Conservatives’ inaction and lack of leadership on the environment, we’ve already been cast as the global poster child for environmentally unsound resource development.

Let’s return to the Vancouver Sun article for one more quote; Prentice said of the latest Conservative plan:

“The unfulfilled promise of Kyoto we leave behind us. This is an approach that will work. It will only work if everyone who emits carbon puts forward their reduction obligations and does so in the way Canada has today…”

Kyoto is unfulfilled because the Conservatives trashed it. Let’s hope the rest of the world doesn’t approach its obligations the way the Conservatives’ version of Canada has.

Update 01 Feb 2010 8pm: The Globe and Mail⁵ is reporting that Jim Prentice attacked Québec’s progressive, modern environmental policy. Québec is a leader, forging ahead with moderately aggressive new environmental conservation action, which also happens to be in-line with policies many US states are considering, Prentice calls it “absolutely counter-productive and utterly pointless” continuing by describing the move as “folly.” Strange position for an environment minister to take.

There is a clear example of the alternative that could have been, had the Conservatives taken prompt action. In this alternative, Canada could have been taking advantage of an opportunity to develop new green industries, and thus jobs.

Harper who talks an awful lot about his concern for the economy turned a blind eye toward an opportunity that could have repositioned Canadian industry for a more prosperous, sustainable future. The Toronto Star¹ (12 December 2009) reports on a real example of the alternative in a piece about Jack Layton’s (NDP) efforts to bring wind power to Canada after his trip to Copenhagen 13 years ago.

“Toronto had to cut a $1 million cheque to ship the wind turbines from the Netherlands. “I said why aren’t we building these things here?” Layton said.

Almost a decade later, a former Nissan auto plant in Bromont, Que., is doing just that. But now that all countries like China and the U.S. are sinking massive investment into building clean energy technology, harnessing the wind and the sun and the water, it may be too late for Canada to keep pace.”

The point is Layton, like plenty of other people, recognized long ago that there is a lot of opportunity to create new industries supporting the necessary changes countries around the world must make to our way of living in order to sustain a climate in which we flourish (both environmentally and economically). The Conservatives’ fearful tunnel vision, leading them to deny the urgency and necessity of reforms in our environment policy, blind them to real economic opportunities.

The Guardian UK¹ (30 November 2009) said 

“The tar barons have held the nation to ransom. This thuggish petro-state is today the greatest obstacle to a deal in Copenhagen” and “…Canada is slipping down the development ladder, retreating from a complex, diverse economy towards dependence on a single primary resource, which happens to be the dirtiest commodity known to man. The price of this transition is the brutalisation of the country, and a government campaign against multilateralism as savage as any waged by George Bush.

Until now I believed that the nation that has done most to sabotage a new climate change agreement was the United States. I was wrong. The real villain is Canada. Unless we can stop it, the harm done by Canada in December 2009 will outweigh a century of good works.”

While, in the past, Canada garnered goodwill from other countries, Harper and his Conservative party have soiled our reputation through a continued lack of leadership and near total absence of action on environmental issues, particularly Canada’s commitment to Kyoto.

The Montreal Gazette² (6 December 2009) states “There has been a push back against Canada’s lack of action on 12-year-old Kyoto pledges.” While The New Republic‘s³ Jesse Zwick (2 December 2009) notes “…the normally good-natured country now has the dubious distinction of being the only country to ratify Kyoto and then formally renege on its commitments.”

The New York Times⁴ (6 December 2009) says

“The present Conservative government, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and in power since 2006, has, however, disowned that policy, substituting instead a commitment to reduce emissions by 20 percent from 2006 levels by 2020 — a modest target that has been widely panned by Canadian environmentalists.”

The CBC reports⁵ from a few days ago (27 November 2009) about how UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon attending a Commonwealth summit, pushed on Harper to get Canada’s act together. Several lobby groups reportedly called for Canada’s suspension from the Commonwealth

“‘If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada’s membership immediately,’ said Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

It also says that Ban Ki-Moon

“…said an agreement is achievable at next month’s meeting in Copenhagen to try to forge a deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol when that accord expires in 2012. By contrast, Harper and his ministers insist an agreement is not likely.”

That outlook suggests see that Harper’s Conservatives continue to hope they can stall action. Going back to the abovementioned NY Times article, there is a quote from the most recent (in a string of many) Conservative Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, pushing back against any real action with his continued misrepresentation of the situation

“The impact on the overall economy would be dire. Instead, our government, and the United States government, will be aiming… to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible and as far as possible, without killing the economy and making the cure worse than the disease.”

He seems oblivious to several issues. One is that the oil production especially for fuel, is a limited project without a future (dwindling supply and a shift away from petroleum based fuels in terms of social demand). Isn’t it short-sighted to be reorienting our economy be based on production of something with a terminal future?

Second, there is great opportunity in newer sustainable industries, which actually lend a hand toward improving our environment.

Third, even if our economy was likely to be destroyed by sustainable, long-term approaches, there can be no trade-off between the environmental catastrophe ahead and the economy. The economy is only relevant if we have a future. So Prentice’s doublespeak on reducing emissions fast and far serves nobody any good (the Conservatives have consistently proven–evidenced by our own and the world’s press–they have no intention of reducing emissions). But then again, Steven Harper’s perspective on this appears to be the reverse. Bloomberg News⁷ published (7 December 2009) Harper’s commentary during his visit to South Korea. Harper spoke on Toronto hosting the next G20 and how he’d like to see its direction put the economy before the environment:

“Without the wealth that comes from growth, the environmental threats, the developmental challenges and the peace and security issues facing the world will be exponentially more difficult to deal with…”

Finally, there’s this, which bolsters what I’ve just mentioned above. The Toronto Star reports⁶ (4 December 2009) that Jim Prentice is keeping Canada on a “wait-and-see” approach in favour of waiting to see what the US would do. At least Prentice comes out and admits the Conservative government is unwilling to lead or take action. However, what makes this galling is that it comes inline with his announcement that while the Conservatives would scrap their completely irresponsible “plan” for intensity targets, they could revert to it if the US stalls with its program (in other words slowing the Conservatives down further in their efforts to mimic harmonize with the US).

The Globe and Mail has other excerpts from the world press.

Stephen Harper’s version of Canada falls into the don’t-lead and the do-nothing camp. The latest evidence comes from the Conservatives’ stance toward the upcoming Copenhagen conference. The meeting could have been an opportunity to make binding changes following Kyoto, which we all know the Harper Conservatives shamed Canada out of.

13 November 2009, Federal Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, articulated the Conservatives’ position against Canada being a leading voice through leading action on climate change. Prentice said

“If the United States does not make substantial efforts, going forward, there is nothing that Canada can do, on our own… Our own mitigation efforts will be futile as a practical matter. In fact, we should probably at that point simply focus on adaptation.”

I don’t follow this logic. Why does Canada, a sovereign country, have to depend on the United States to make an effort toward reducing its carbon emissions? Prentice argues later that Canada would essentially suffer economically while the US wouldn’t. This is the sort of unimaginative argument children make on a playground. It sounds like “I will if you will.” Yet there are no lack of suggestions and analyses for how green economic growth is both viable and preferable to the status quo. Evidence is available from Pembina Institute reports on the subject.

In the second half of the Prentice quote, it sounds like he’d rather give up and find ways to adapt. It seems rather clear to me that if we don’t smarten up, there won’t be much for us to adapt to.

A day later (14 Nov.) Harper’s aids let the media know that he wouldn’t attend the Copenhagen summit unless other world leaders were there too. A story on Canada.com from the Canwest News Service notes Harper’s opinion that

“If everyone is not included, you set up the possible risk that certain countries will gain economic advantage from being included or not included… If some contribute or some contribute disproportionately, then the economic risk for others become enormous”

Sounds to me like our current PM is more concerned with self-defeating rationalization than setting about demonstrating Canada’s leadership in resolving a global crisis. Based on the consistency of the Conservatives’ lines against real carbon reduction, one would assume that Harper thinks countries not participating will have some sort of economic advantage. He doesn’t even consider economic advantages that will be generated through emerging green industries.

Regardless, in his belief that working toward improving Canada’s act on the environment will put Canada at an economic disadvantage, Harper prefers to stick with the lowest common denominator. He won’t do a thing until everyone else does, which defines a follower. And this from a man at the forefront of a party that has spent most of its time in prior election campaigns claiming the other political parties lacked leadership.