Canada's longest-serving environment minister says the federal government's decision to mirror the U.S.'s approach to climate change is "the height of irony," because at one time Prime Minister Stephen Harper was the loudest voice calling for a "made-in-Canada" solution.

"Canada is now in this business of following the American lead, which is Mr. Harper's approach. This is the height of irony because Mr. Harper quite incorrectly accused the measures that we were proposing at the turn of the millennium as being not made-in-Canada. He is the man who insisted that we had to have a made-in-Canada policy. Ironically, we did then, and now he's saying we're not going to have a made-in-Canada policy at all, we're just going to do what the Americans want. He's a man who's been marvelous at switching positions, but this is one that's not been noted," said David Anderson, who was environment minister under former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien from 1999 until 2004. Mr. Anderson oversaw the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, in 2004, and like his successor in the Environment portfolio, Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Que.), he also has a dog named Kyoto.

The Harper government is on its third environment minister since it came to power in 2006, and although the Conservatives argued in opposition and then in government for a "made-in-Canada" approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they have yet to pass any climate change legislation. The current government line heading into the UN Climate Change Conference, in Copenhagen, is that it will wait to see what the U.S. does, which is currently in the process of drafting legislation, in order to harmonize the two countries' approaches and protect Canadian exports from economic penalties.

"We have embraced the concept of harmonization on a continental basis," Environment Minister Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, Alta.) said recently.

U.S. President Barack Obama has proclaimed his commitment to a more aggressive GHG reductions regime than existed under his predecessor, George W. Bush, but the legislature has been struggling to pass the Waxman-Markey climate change bill and preliminary drafts have indicated that the House and Senate are working towards emission reductions of 17 to 20 per cent under 2005 levels by 2020.

Environmentalists, who prefer the European reduction target of 20 per cent under 1990 levels by 2020, consider the U.S. legislation a disappointment. Although it's worth noting that the Environmental Protection Agency recently ruled that GHG emissions endanger public health and safety, and it is now in a position to regulate domestic GHG polluters. While the impact of this is still unclear, it could give Mr. Obama more leeway to negotiate a more aggressive stance at Copenhagen than that proposed by the House and Senate.

The opposition parties have been hammering the Tories for not showing leadership on climate change by coming forward with their own proposals, but Mr. Anderson said Canadians should be made more aware of the direction the U.S. legislation has taken and why it could be bad for Canada.

"The Waxman-Markey bill was heavily influenced by coal interests and in the Senate is going to be even more so. Coal, petroleum, and others fund U.S. elections and you say to yourself, 'Hey, we're just going to accept what those lobbyists developed for the United States and put that in place for Canada.' It might fit for the states, but not for Canada, this is the irony of just accepting what the Americans are going to do. Their legislation will be partly Obama's legislation, but there will be a whole pile of other influences that he won't be happy with, which will be reflected in that legislation as well. And we're just going to accept it, as if somehow that's good," Mr. Anderson said.

Mr. Anderson's predecessor, former environment minister Christine Stewart, signed the Kyoto Accord on behalf of Canada, in 1997. She said the government faced pushback from the public, the provinces, and industry in the lead up to signing the accord, but while it took courage to enter into the agreement to reduce Canada's GHG emissions, the government was not as brave in implementing it, and emissions continued to rise.

Ms. Stewart, who doesn't believe the Alberta tar sands development should be allowed to exist, said while the Canadian people are more "informed and engaged" than they were in 1997, they still don't understand the myriad benefits of transitioning to a greener economy.

"We need some more specificity about what we can do. And yes, it is going to cost something to our GDP for perhaps a short while but as we develop and create new industries it's going to be a huge advantage, and Europe is a testament to that. They're not suffering economic downturn because of reductions of CO2," she said.

Indeed, through a diverse array of measures, from investment in renewable energy, to tax measures, the EU has managed to reduce its overall GHG emissions, while continuing to grow its economy. In 2007 it reduced overall GHG emissions by 9.3 per cent below 1990 levels, with GDP growth of over 40 per cent during that time.

Prime Minister Harper initially said he would not attend the climate change negotiations, but then reversed himself one day later after President Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao announced they would attend the conference. While the PMO has not announced when Mr. Harper would be in Copenhagen, most of the at least 65 world leaders expected to attend will arrive in the final days of the negotiations, which run from Dec. 7 to 18.

A recent Ekos poll found that the environment rated third on the list of issues most important to Canadians, although as recently as 2007, before the global economic downturn, the environment was the most important issue to Canadians. Of those polled, 31 per cent said the economy topped their list of issues, 27 per cent said social issues were most important to them, and 18.4 per cent chose the environment as their No. 1 issue.

Ms. Stewart said the outcome of this round of climate change negotiations could affect how Canadians feel about the issue, and about the Conservative government.

"If people feel that Copenhagen will produce something of significance the public will respond positively. If it's not seen to be a success in Copenhagen people unfortunately become cynical that politicians just aren't serious about this issue, which many, many more people today consider to be very serious."

hmacleod@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times