A Deal in Cancun

Read about it here. Or on Lizzy May's blog.

Rex Murphy, Lawrence Solomon, you may blow me.

That is all.

PS. But not quite. Much more here.

Two Environmental Proposals Up For A Vote At Liberal Convention

One resolution, proposed by the Quebec wing of the party, calls on a Liberal government to unconditionally commit to meeting the Kyoto Protocol targets, enacting legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that would include 'establishing a carbon tax, a cap and trade system or a combination of both.

This one's not so good. Committing to Kyoto at this point is purely symbolic, and I'm not sure how effective the symbolism can be anymore. Copenhagen 2009 is the new game in town and things are looking a bit rocky. While I doubt that a pure collapse in talks is possible, you could wind up with something so watered down that the goals become purely aspirational, on a world-wide basis.

Why not commit to an aggressive Green approach in Copenhagen? Look forward, not backward.

As for the carbon tax, well you could change the phrasing to something like "and/or" and keep the tax as one possible policy tool. Or you could excise it entirely. As written, this sounds like its an inevitable part of the policy mix.

Another, proposed by the British Columbia wing of the party, calls on a Liberal government to consider 'all mechanisms of investment, incentive and taxation' to combat global warming and stimulate sustainable economic growth.

Love the "investment, incentive" part. The Federal Libs should be looking to Dalton McGuinty on this one. He has made a decision that our laid off auto workers are going to manufacture the machines that power tomorrow's green economy. Again, the reference to a carbon tax is optional, IMHO. Has it, in any form, been made toxic on account of The Green Shift?

I dunno. But I am glad to see that the party hasn't entirely given up on the issue. And I hope these resolutions send a signal to Mr. Ignatieff that he can't just blow it off. You wanna be Liberal leader, got gotta occasionally do something Liberal.

Note: Actually, Taylor has the entire Quebec resolution here. It is not as bad as I thought, although most of the points made above still apply.

CPoC Should Make Its Campaign Carbon Neutral

Blogging Tory Erwin Gerrits asks: How does buying [carbon] ‘offsets’ save the environment?

He then cycles through the standard list of denialist talking points: CO2 isn't a pollutant, Kyoto a Socialist plot, carbon offsets don't work, Gaia worshipper Maurice Strong wants to give our money to the Chinese.

And he concludes that, because Global Warming is all baloney, the Conservative Party shouldn't really worry about buying carbon offsets in an effort make their own campaign carbon neutral.

Naturally, asking the wrong question leads you to the wrong conclusion. The question he should be asking is: Will the Conservatives live up to the principles of their own environmental plan?

Because the Tories have insisted that Global Warming is not all baloney. And because buying carbon offsets is central to the Tory's own Turning The Corner initiative. In fact, what they have proposed--their environmental plan--is a standard issue national "cap and trade" system, albeit one with loose time-lines and inadequate (because intensity based) emissions caps. It even allows Canadian companies to participate in the CDM, the international carbon trading system developed under the Kyoto accord. Conceptually, it is not a lot different from the NDP's proposals, and not a whole lot different from Stephane's Dion's Green Shift. For example, even under the Tory cap and trade system, money will flow East from Alberta.

But that aside: the Tories believe in it. Therefore they have given the stamp of approval to a means of reducing the carbon footprint of their campaign to zero but are not using it. Why not? Are they suddenly running out of money? If so, why not take all the money they've saved from shutting down their $1,000,000 website and its pooping puffins and redirect some of that cash saving the planet from their own hot air?

But What Will Ed Say?

It's a national cap and trade system, albeit a not particularly effectual one that caps emissions intensity rather than emissions per se.

Given Mr. Stelmach's previous remarks re such schemes

"A cap-and-trade scheme is a money transfer that does nothing to reduce pollution. In fact, it just allows companies to pay to pollute."

...his lack of outrage at John Baird's "Turning The Corner" plan is most interesting.

The EcoLibertarian has the best thing I've read on the plan, which he describes as Kyoto-esque.