Harper failing to lead

I am disappointed, though not surprised.  I keep hoping that PMSH will surprise me by listening to Canadians and taking a different direction on Climate Change, but I guess I am forever to be disappointed by this quickly-getting-really-old Conservative government.  As my wife keeps reminding me, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.”
In an earlier life, Harper called the Kyoto Protocol a “socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth producing nations.”  And he has never wavered from his determination to ensure that Canada does not pull it’s weight in addressing Climate Change, if he even believes in human induced climate change at all.

Harper complained that the Liberals had signed and ratified Kyoto and didn’t have a plan to implement.  As far as criticisms go, this is true.  In fact, I still don’t believe that Stephane Dion has the right approach or the backing to accomplish what must be done.  While I agree with Elizabeth May that Dion would make a better choice for Prime Minister than Stephen Harper, I also agree with her that he is still second choice.  Somewhere behind her.

In 2006, Harper mirrored the Liberal tactic of talking big and thinking small.  He campaigned on getting Canada out of Kyoto and bringing in a “made in Canada plan”, all the while having no idea what that plan would look like.  When Rona Ambrose finally introduced the Conservative Green Plan, the only realy policy it had was regulating pretty much every emission except greenhouse gases.  It was actually good in the things it did, but as a Climate Change policy it was not worth the paper it was written on.

Since being elected, the Conservatives have steadfastly resisted any measure which would actually reduce GHG’s, and even eliminated even those half-hearted, less-than-effective programs that we did have, just because they were Liberal programs.  Bowing to public pressure, the re-instituted a few programs with new names, so they could say, “look at these wonderful things we’ve done for you!”

And now, representing Canadians in front of 53 Commonwealth nations, Canada has pushed for and achieved a watering down of the statement from this conference and eliminated any reference to binding emissions.  Yup, something to be proud of Steve.  Way to go.

Going into the conference, Harper vowed to block any reference to binding reductions.  His logic here appears to be that Kyoto failed because it did not include all countries, and that any agreement post-Kyoto must include all countries or it too will fail.  And he believes that the Commonwealth is not the place to commit to binding targets since not all the countries in the world are at the table.  Further, he insists that in any future agreement on binding reductions, developed AND developing nations must sign on to any future agreement, and that it must include the worlds largest emitters such as the U.S., China, and India.

For the record, I don’t disagree with him about the U.S.   Any agreement without them will be destined to fail.  As the world’s largest emitter (25%), the third largest per capita emitter, and the worlds largest economy, the U.S. must be part of the solution.

And more accurately, Kyoto was weak because it did not include every county, but this was not the reason for failure.  No, Kyoto was a failure because of the lack of leadership, commitment, and action among signatory countries like Canada.

What Harper is neglecting to say is just what would be acceptable to him for commitments from developed and developing nations, even assuming that everyone signs on?

First there must be agreement on the extent of global emission cuts that are required.  Believe it or not, that’s the easy part.  But then there must be agreement on the relative cuts  by each signatory country.  And this is where many countries and many citizens within countries differ in opinion.

Fundamentally, what does Stephen Harper believe?

• Does he believe that Canadians, already using 18 times the energy of the per-capita global average with about 20 times the emissions, are entitled to maintain this ratio?




• Does he believe that Canada, as part of the developed world that became so by burning fossil fuels and creating the existing stock of CO2 in the atmosphere, has no obligation to take on a larger role in addressing the issue?

I believe that Harper will push for his so-called “recognition of each countries economic circumstances” as he likes to put it.  What he means by this is the old rhetoric that Canada is a northern country, vast in area, small population, low population density, highly dependent on personal transportation.  He also means that our economy is based on resource extraction and energy production.  Therefore, he will want to maintain our share of global emissions, reducing only as much as global emissions are reduced.  Of course I’m not counting that Canada has the largest percentage population growth in the G8, and that he will likely want to account for that as well.

I also believe that this will be completely unacceptable to the great majority of nations in the world.

So what then?

What will it take for Stephen Harper to stand up and declare that Canadians will take on this  fight even if others do not? What will it take for Stephen Harper to actually show some leadership?

Stephen Harper may talk a good line about Stephane Dion not being a leader.  But he is certainly not giving us any example of leadership himself.