Greenpeace activists sink replicas of iconic buildings in Cancun, Mexico, during UN talks on climate change on Dec. 8, 2010.JUAN BARRETO/AFP / Getty Images
Shawn McCarthy's report on new greenhouse gas regulations in the United States and the implications for Canada point squarely and accurately to the risks for the Harper administration. The Canadian government will now need to put some meat on the bones of a "we'll do what they do" principle, if these new rules really do survive the inevitable political wrangle in Washington.
After more than a decade of probing public opinion in this area, I'm certain there are not only risks but opportunities for Canadian political leaders to take advantage of the new, post-Copenhagen circumstances and promote ideas that blend Canada's economic interests and our sense of environmental responsibility.
To focus for the moment on the two largest parties, both have struggled to position their ideas on greenhouse gas emissions as something better than a binary, black or white, jobs or planet choice.
Stéphane Dion championed his carbon tax in a way that almost made it feel like a penance we should accept, a debt we owed to the rest of the world for the economic opportunities we enjoy. That approach had virtually no chance of winning great support, even in the very best of economic times. At the end of the day, voters want ideas that will yield more jobs and fewer harmful impacts. They don't see this as a pipe dream, and believe that past experience (for example acid rain and auto emissions) has proven that innovation and entrepreneurship, stimulated by good public policy, can make it happen.
Michael Ignatieff has been careful to a fault to ensure his positioning on this issue alienates few, but now may be a moment where he can (must?) take a risk to create some differentiation and pull. His opportunity lies not in restating Dion's "feel guilty, accept economic pain" argument, but in laying out an economically sound blueprint for integrating energy, trade, economic and environmental goals over the medium to long term.
Stephen Harper has also struggled with this issue, appearing happier to ice the puck than look for a goal. How much of a price he's paid for this is hard to calculate, but many of the voters he needs to attract to win a majority have sensed that he a) cares less than they do about the planet in general and the issue of climate change in particular and b) prefers government that does as little as possible to intervene in markets.
Today, timetables for emissions reduction are off the radar screen as far as most Canadians are concerned. Rather than wring our hands over what we haven't yet done, people would be happy to have a plan for changing what we do going forward.
The size and the scope of our national ambition, and the creative ideas that marry (not trade off) Canada's economic interests and environmental goals is the page waiting to be written by today's political leaders. Whether the U.S. really does move with greater haste on this agenda will affect the urgency of political platforms development here, but whether that should be the case is debatable. The lack of a global treaty and timetable coupled with our relatively robust economic health can be viewed as an opportunity to build advantage for Canada and move the environmental yardsticks, not just avoid a tricky political risk.
Bruce Anderson