Time to Reverse Harper’s Climate Failures

Op-ed in Embassy Magazine
by Elizabeth May, August  2011

In no other area of public policy has the contrast of the Harper government with previous governments been as dramatic as on climate.  The sharp nature of Canada’s “about face” in international negotiations is often obscured by other political parties and the media due to the poor record of the Liberal government’s that preceded the Conservatives. In fact, the last time Canada was truly in a global lead was under former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. 

The Liberal record was marred by procrastination.  The Chretien government deserved credit for helping in the global effort to keep the Kyoto Protocol alive after George W. Bush decided to declare war on the agreement negotiated under the Clinton Administration.  The failure of the Chretien government was in developing a viable plan to meet Canada’s target.  That effort did not really begin until Paul Martin emerged from the 2004 election with a minority government.  His new Environment Minister Stéphane Dion began work on a plan that was announced in April 2005. Had that plan been implemented, we would have reduced emissions substantially.  It is debateable if we would be entirely on track to meet our 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but we would be closing in on it. 

The fact that emissions continued to rise under the Liberals, that the Chretien government invested billions in the Athabasca region in 1994 and invented the preferable tax treatment for the tar/oil sands in 1996, have become that government’s legacy.  The poor record has over-shadowed the fact that there was a real climate plan in place in 2005, with substantial fiscal measures in the Liberal 2005 budget. 

It has been very convenient for observers to view the Harper government’s performance as of the same character defined by Liberal failure -- lip service and no action.  My point in this article is to clarify how very different are the records of the various Liberal, Conservative and Progressive Conservative governments.  Obviously, the policies of any Green government would be dramatically different from any of the other parties in the House.  We would move in the direction of countries with excellent records.  We are particularly impressed with Sweden’s record of achievement, slashing greenhouse gases while growing their economy over the same period by 40%.  While Sweden and most of the EU receive excellent marks on their carbon-pricing and climate policies (as a group the EU has met Kyoto) Canada now rates at the bottom of any grading exercise.

Our current record is not one of ambition confronted by a lack of political will.  The Harper government is the first Canadian government to be actually off-side.  We have one of the only government’s in the world that has not grasped that the threat of climate change is real. 

Among the first actions of the Harper government was to pull IPCC science from Environment Canada’s website.  It was not a surprise to those who noticed that the Conservative Party in the 2006 election had agreed in a questionnaire from the Montreal Economic Institute that it rejected IPCC science.  The Harper government cancelled nearly all aspects of the climate plan immediately.  In March 2006, Harper’s first Environment Minister, Rona Ambrose, tragically inheriting the mantle of Dion as President of the Conference of the Parties under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, went to Berlin to chair the meeting dedicated to reaching Kyoto targets and negotiating a successor agreement.  At that meeting, she announced Canada no longer intended to respect our legally binding commitments under Kyoto. 

Ambrose announced our new target (20% below 2006 levels by 2020), but never put any plan in place to get there.  Neither did her successor, John Baird.  The next Harper environment minister Jim Prentice actually weakened our target further. Coming back from the spectacular disaster that was the Copenhagen 15th COP, Prentice announced that to harmonize with the US, our target would now be 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.  This had the effect of leaving Canada’s target above 1990 levels by 2020, while the US target works out to below 1990 levels.  “Harmonizing” in this sense was a PR exercise only.  In 2005 our emissions were higher than in 2006, so the target shell game worked to reduce the amount of carbon we were to reduce.

The most fundamental problem is that unlike Kyoto, which remains under international law legally binding on Canada, these new targets are mere political promises.  No knowledgeable reviewer believes Canada will reduce emissions on the current non-plan. In fact, our government is so far turning a blind eye to plans to build the Maxim new coal-burning plant in Alberta.   Meanwhile, the impacts from the climate crisis, in terms of floods, draught, loss of Arctic ice and permafrost, and increased severity of weather events, is worsening. 

The upcoming COP17 negotiations in Durban will be critical.  The Cancun COP16 talks in 2010 kept alive the hope of real action under a second phase of Kyoto.  On our current record and climate positions going into international negotiations, Canada can once again expect to receive the Colossal Fossil.  There is still time to change course.  Perhaps the new Environment Minister Peter Kent can rise to the occasion. As this issue is far more important than any partisan interest, I desperately hope he can shift his government’s position.