Let's say that a friend told you
that he's determined to be a PGA golfer by 2020. Unfortunately, he has barely
ever set foot on a golf course.
So you'd probably ask what he's
planning on doing to reach his goal. Daily practice? Hiring a coach? Hitting
the weight room? After all, 2020 is not so far away when he's starting from
scratch.
If your friend's response was "No,
no real plans at all," you'd have to ask yourself whether he's serious. You
might even wonder whether he's telling the truth about this PGA plan,
especially if he had a history of exaggerating his golfing prowess.
Unfortunately, this is not too
far off the situation Canadians find ourselves in when the federal government
talks about its national target to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Only instead
of aiming for the PGA, our government is content to play for a tie in the
neighbourhood tournament.
The Harper government's first 2020
target, set in 2007, faced ongoing critiques that it falls short of what the
science requires. In late January, the government weakened its 2020 goal even
further, stating that the step back was needed to align with the U.S. target.
Canada's national goal is now to
cut its emissions to just over 600 million tonnes by 2020, a level equivalent
to about 2% above the 1990 level. To put that in context, Canada's greenhouse gas
emissions in 2007 were 747 million tonnes, or 26% above their 1990 level.
We'd love to see a more ambitious
target. But without plans to meet them, targets don't mean much: there's little
difference between wanting to lose 3 pounds or 40 if you decide to keep right
on eating donuts.
As of today, there is virtually
nothing behind the government's target. No plan of any kind to meet it. No sign
of policies strong enough to stop the growth in our emissions. And although
there have been public investments, they barely scratch the surface of what's
needed.
There's essentially no debate
among experts about the solutions we need. It's pretty straightforward: put a
price tag on greenhouse gas emissions so that polluting options cost more than
clean ones, use smart regulations to supplement that price signal, and invest
in clean technologies.
Over the years, many studies have
also looked at the economic impacts of putting those policies in place in
Canada. The clear conclusion is that Canada can prosper while cutting our
emissions, even if we act more quickly than the U.S. does. And the longer we
wait, the more it costs to reach our targets.
Instead, the federal government
says it won't move until Washington does.
That's not just timid; it also
runs counter to our interests as Canadians. The U.S. Congress is engaged in an
intensely political fight over climate and energy policy. There's no guarantee
that the end product of their feverish political horse-trading will be an
effective plan. And with Washington lawmakers worried about local industries
and U.S. jobs, it's safe to say that Canada isn't one of their priorities.
Of course the U.S. is one
important element in shaping Canada's approach. But it shouldn't be the only
one.
Strong climate policy now would
give Canadian businesses the certainty they need to make green investments. It
would help to restore our country's tarnished image on climate change before we
welcome the world to the G8 and G20 summits in Muskoka and Toronto this summer.
Ambitious green energy policies
would also let Canada to take advantage of the growing clean energy economy, as
Ontario has done with its support for renewable power - a policy that is already
producing impressive new investments in manufacturing and green technology.
Instead, Canada's federal budget
invested next to nothing in green energy this year. President Obama's proposed
budget for the next fiscal year would outspend us 18 to 1 - per capita - on
renewable energy like wind and solar. And the gap is growing: last year, the
U.S. outspent us by a "mere" 14 to 1.
Prime Minister Harper has
chastised his Liberal predecessors, rightly, for making climate promises and
failing to act on them. But he is now doing exactly the same thing - years
later, and with a weaker environmental goal.
