The Clean Air Act (I): Blowfish
(Mainly due to my slackery, I’m going to break up my analysis (such as it is) of the Conservative government’s Clean Air Act into a few parts. So bear with me.
Let me first say that the Liberals CAN NEVER attack the Conservatives on the issue of Climate Change. They had 13 years since the Rio Summit and nine years since the Kyoto Accord to do something substantial. Instead, we got years upon years of consultation and some half-hearted programs. It didn’t help that the Official Opposition (the Conservatives) attacked climate change as a figment of the world’s imagination (irony, no?). All the while, our country’s GHG (GreenHouse Gas) emissions have gone up while other countries (notably European ones) have been working hard to meet the Kyoto targets. So thanks, Liberal Party of Canada, for sitting on your hands instead of leading.
That being said, the Clean Air Act is good politics, but poor policy. Some good ideas are there, but the follow-through is weak, like spaghetti noodle weak.
So let’s deal with the politics first. Why is it good politics? Even though the policy IS weak (which I will explain in an upcoming post), it shows voters that they’re finally doing something about climate change (even though they’re hiding it behind the catch-all of ‘air pollution’). That’s the problem though. They’re doing something, not something substantial. While air pollution is a serious issue, climate change is much more serious especially considering it is a global-scale issue (where I would argue, often times air pollution is to an extent, a localized issue). The local concerns almost always trumps the global.
The Harper Conservatives only ever meekly admit in public that climate change is an issue (except for Garth Turner, and look what happened to him...)…and only when prodded while the spotlight’s on them. God forbid they say the name…you know, Kyoto (yes, yes, it’s still a Japanese city. It’s okay. You can say it). I don't know why critics have to still accuse the government of abandoning Kyoto...The Liberals left the Kyoto Accord bleeding and gasping for air. The Conservatives just put the final bullet in its head.
They’ve gotten praises from some industry groups and some fringe lobby group masquerading as speaking the truth about climate change, but that’s not a surprise since they’re the ones who would be happy with inaction. Meanwhile, the opposition parties, the environmental groups, many pundits, have seen this for what it is: A blowfish. It looks big, but really there’s nothing inside.
The opposition parties have even stated that they will kill this Bill (C-30) on second reading. So now, it plays even better to the Conservative’s advantage since, whenever the next election comes around, they can argue that, “we had a plan in place, except the Opposition killed it. So vote for us, because we actually tried to do something”. If that isn’t a win-win for them, I don’t know what is. They get to make the Opposition look partisan and unconcerned, all the while they don’t have to do something they never believed in. Not that it matters, because even if this bill passes, It won't have an appreciable effect on reducing GHG emissions anyways.
So Part II, dealing with the actual policy will arrive shortly.
In the meantime, for ACTUAL climate change answers and information, go to RealClimate. It’s a blog written by the actual scientists working on this issue, the people on the ground, in the air, everywhere, as it were.
PS: I'd like to say I wrote that last paragraph before I read the Maisonneuve article and while we pretty much say the same thing, I liked the way they said it. That's why that person's a journalist, and I'm just a blogger sitting at home.
5 comments:
"They get to make the Opposition look partisan and unconcerned, all the while they don’t have to do something they never believed in."
This is exactly why politicians make me so angry and frustrated. Especially when the topic is something I consider as crucial as global warming. Does the course of action you've described here sound reasonable to ANYBODy except a politician?
Once again, politics have gotten in the way of actually accomplishing anything.
The thing is that it's not all politicians. Just ours...and maybe the Americans. There are definitely politicians out there in the world, in positions of power, who are actually trying to do something about climate change.
We just don't happen to have them.
Devils advocate comment:
I note that Calvin discussed the politics of this Bill before the actual policy and environmental implications.
If we want less politics and more substance from our representatives we have a role to play in accomplishing that.
Democracy is still pretty good at giving us the government we deserve.
Fair point, Matt. I discussed the politics first because it was much more obvious than the policy implications, which requires more research since I want to get the science/policy right and that requires more effort, which is not to say I don't want to make that effort.
Although now I'm also interested in seeing what kind of changes the House committee will be making to the bill, and whether the private member's bill to re-commit our government to Kyoto will pass or not.
I also want to take responsibility for however late that post will take, since I'm a known procrastinator and people keep telling me I have this thesis to finish.
But in the end, it is absolutely my fault if the post's late in arrival.
Post a Comment