Stephen Harper is REALLY not a leader

A number of policy decisions undertaken by Stephen Harper’s federal conservatives demonstrate a wilful disregard for the use of evidence and research to inform policy, including the Conservatives’ approach to child care funding and their literacy funding cuts.

But most unforgivable among their systematic evidence-blindness is the approach they’ve taken to addressing climate change, another issue on which the Conservatives are out of touch with ordinary Canadians. On climate change Stephen Harper has forgone long-term, strategic thinking and planning in favour of a pattern of actions calculated to secure short-term, unsustainable gain.

Stephen Harper’s climate policy is not based on science

There is no scientific debate on whether global warming is happening or whether humans are causing it. Moreover, there is a scientific and political consensus on the greenhouse gas reduction targets that must be met if we are to avoid serious environmental calamity.

In April 2007, Germany outlined a plan to cut CO2 emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. Not long before, that, European Union leaders had agreed to cut CO2 emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020.

Canada’s Green Party pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 (PDF), Liberals say 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 (PDF), and the NDP say 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. John McCaim aims, much less ambitiously (but still more ambitiously than Harper), at a return to 1990 levels by 2020, while Barack Obama sets his sights on 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

You will notice a pattern emerging here: following targets originally set in the Kyoto accord, everyone uses the benchmark of 1990. Everyone, that is, except Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, who aim for a 20% reduction from 2006 levels by 2020 and make no reference to 1990 levels.

The reason why everyone uses 1990 as benchmark and why numbers around 20-25% crop up so often is that they are based on recommendations of the International Panel on Climate Change. Harper take note: IPCC stands for “People who are international experts and who every reasonable leader is listening to.” The IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report makes clear the degree of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that is necessary to avoid catastrophic damage to human societies and natural ecosystems, and all the emission reduction targets outlined above are based on IPCC recommendations–except those of Stephen Harper and John McCain.

Experts agree: Harper’s plan will fail to meet even its modest targets

A recently released study by three respected Canadian economists, including internationally-renowned climate change expert Mark Jaccard, lays out several critical flaws in the Conservatives greenhouse gas reduction plans, and concludes:

as currently designed, it is highly unlikely that the policies of the government of Canada will achieve the target of reducing national emissions 20% below 2006 levels by 2020. The lack of an economy-wide emissions price and the allowance for 100% offsets for industrial emitters make it highly likely that emissions will be significantly higher than target levels in 2020 and indeed might even be close to today’s levels. Since the government claims that it is intent on achieving its 2020 emissions reduction target, it is difficult to understand why it does not immediately convert the intensity cap to an absolute cap and eliminate or severely reduce the offset provision.

The damning report echoes findings from a report by Environment Canada, released June 2008, that was quickly shuffled away by the Conservatives. The report found that:

many existing climate change measures such as the transit tax credit, regulations to increase biofuels production and the banning of incandescent light bulbs will result in a fraction of the greenhouse gas emission reductions that they were previously estimated to achieve.

The fact that many of their measures are going to be significantly less effective than they’ve been telling us is entirely in keeping with the Conservative’s history of basing policy on ideology, ignoring evidence, and willfully keeping the public from the truth. This is further evidenced by the fact that since early 2008, the government’s own civil servant scientists have been effectively censored, and ordered not to speak to directly to media.

A contempt for truth

A vote for the Stephen Harper is a vote for more government from someone who have shown that he doesn’t care about basing decision on fact or common sense, and who will go to extreme anti-democratic lengths to prevent the truth from being discovered by citizens.

Such maneuvers may translate into short-term political gain, but are entirely un-strategic. At this juncture in time, a truly strategic leader would recognize the threat posed by climate change and undertake measures to address it. Indeed, this is the course that is being adopted by the vast majority of political leaders in the Western world, at various levels of government. But Harper would rather stick his head in the sand and pretend everything is business as usual: a classic failure of leadership.