My previous post posed the question of whether President Bush’s complete ignorance towards climate change actually might have been a benefit to the environment. How? The President’s refusal to deal with the issue essentially served as a catalyst for a number of regional-level plans (WRI, RGGI, etc.) to evolve in the USA to address climate change.

With so many issues it is fascinating to compare the differences between the two neighboring countries of Canada and America, and climate change is no exception.

Canada has shown that ‘official’ support and acknowledgement of climate change by the federal government (including ratification of the Kyoto Protocol) do not necessarily lead to positive steps being taken. Essentially Canada has dragged its feet on climate change at the federal level for the past several years. In my opinion this has occurred because of a combination of factors.

First, Canada has been somewhat politically unstable over the past three or four years. During this time there has been a change in the governing party which resulted in major policy shifts, including climate change policies. There have also been a number of successive elections that resulted in minority governments. For my American readers not familiar with this concept, a minority government means that the governing party does not have enough representation to pass legislation without forming coalitions with other non-governing parties. This results in a government that is politically weaker and generally less able to pass strong and impactful legislation.

Before I continue, it should be noted that political instability can only be partially blamed. The previous Liberal government that was in power when Canada signed onto Kyoto was equally as ineffective at slowing greenhouse gas emissions or implementing effective plans to do so and it was a more powerful majority government.

Second, there is the belief amongst many high-profile experts that the federal government does not want to effectively penalize one of our biggest cash cows and political bargaining chips (the Alberta oil sands) through mandatory greenhouse gas reductions that would impact its bottom line.

Third, Canada is quite often reluctant to take a leadership role on cross-border issues as momentous as climate change. There is often the desire to wait for American policy-makers to take the lead on such issues, and this is precisely what has occurred in this case as the Canadian government is waiting to see what the incoming Obama administration will do.

This shuffling of feet at Canada’s federal level has resulted in a great degree of uncertainty at the provincial level. Only recently have the provinces begun to take measures into their own hands, probably because they have given up on receiving any actual leadership from Ottawa – and hats off to them for doing so! A number of those provinces are actually joining forces with regional made-in-America solutions to climate change that emerged because of President Bush’s refusal to act.

Which brings us back to the original question. Is it worse to have a leader that completely ignores climate change and pretends it doesn’t exist? Or is it actually worse to have a federal government that recognizes the problem but only gives it ‘window-dressing’ treatment with ineffective policies and wasted time? I suppose time will tell – let us hope that President-elect Obama breaks the mold and brings federal-level leadership on climate change that is serious and produces results.