The most flattering thing that can be said of our brand new Prime Minister Stephen Harper is that he has a way with words, neo-conning them into quite the polar opposite of their accepted meaning. Even a right-inclining columnist like John Ibbitson of The Globe and Mail (11/10, “Clean-air pledge is just political smog”) draws an unflattering conclusion: “Two months ago, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong said Canadians would be “pleasantly surprised” by his government’s autumn proposals to improve air quality. He may have been right about the adjective; but there’s nothing to justify the adverb. Stephen Harper’s announcement that his government will introduce a Clean Air Act next week was simply a political mirage.
“When the Conservatives declared earlier this year that Canada would fail to meet its Kyoto targets, they were simply speaking the truth. The Liberal government signed the protocol committing Canada to reducing carbon-dioxide emissions, and then failed to live up to that undertaking.
“But the Tories had another calculation in mind: Most Canadians were confused about global warming, which may or may not be linked to increased carbon-dioxide emissions, and which may or may not be reversible.
“But urban Canadians are very aware that smog is getting worse. The government’s strategy was simple: Shift from greenhouse gases to smog. Produce a program that toughens automobile emissions and reduces the pollution from coal-fired generating stations. Ignore environmental zealots such as those at the David Suzuki Foundation, but aim for at least a partial endorsement from the moderates in the environmental movement.
“Nice plan. Isn’t working.
“To reduce urban smog, the Tories needed to achieve several goals all at once: to work with the Americans to establish continental targets for reducing harmful emissions from coal-fired generating plants. And they needed to toughen emission standards at home. But there was neither time nor sufficient political capital to achieve the first goal, while the second would decrease business competitiveness and require Draconian increases in the price of cars and fuel.
“And the electorate, when it isn’t demanding cleaner air, is buying stupidly huge trucks while protesting against rising gas prices. The Liberals, to their sorrow, know all about this.
“Stephen Harper wants to be known as the prime minister who tackled smog. But nothing he has offered thus far suggests that, when it comes to fighting bad air, he is anything other than just another disappointment.”
However, his greatest misstep that concerns the environment, has to do with greenhouse-gas targets under the Kyoto Protocol. In the same issue of the G&M (“PM plans ‘intensity alternative’ to Kyoto” by Bill Curry and Mark Hume) we read: “Mr. Harper said his government will introduce next week its Clean Air Act, legislation that will trigger at least a year of talks with industry and the provinces to set mandatory reduction targets for pollution and greenhouse gases. But in responding to questions in Vancouver, Mr. Harper uttered a phrase that had the opposition fuming. ‘We will produce intensity-based targets over the short range and long term and they will cover a range of emissions, not just carbon dioxide, but nitrous oxide, sulphur oxide, sulphur dioxide, and it will be a comprehensive plan.’ It marked the first time the Harper government has said its plan to address global warming would be ‘intensity-based’. This means industries would have to reduce emissions per unit of production, such as per barrel of oil. “Lowering emissions per unit, however, does not mean that Canada’s total output of greenhouse gases will decline. If, for example, there is an expansion in the oil sands, total levels of emissions would increase even if per unit emissions decrease.
“Such an approach runs contrary to Canada’s commitments under Kyoto, which calls for the country’s total output of greenhouse gases to decline. Last month’s report from federal Environmental Commissioner Johanne Gelinas warned that, left unchecked, greenhouse gas emissions from Alberta’s oil sands could double between 2004 and 2015. But Mr. Harper said yesterday technology improvements will ultimately reduce total reductions over the long term. He cited a recent federal report that says emerging technologies – such as injecting carbon emissions back into the ground – could reduce emissions by 60% in 2050.”
In short, the PM is evading the issue with a plethora of “mays” and “mights” decades ahead. From this there is a lesson to be learned. Once a political leader has done a masterful job in evading one important issue, he forfeits his conscientious use of language in dealing with other key issues that may arise. He acquires, as it were, a forked tongue that wraps itself around the very words of the issue and twists language to cover up rather than to clarify. Mr. Harper’s “intensity-based” emission program warns us of what lies ahead with Mr. Harper in office.