Second Thots

While Chantal Hebert writes another fine piece of analysis concerning the impact of the environmental file on the electoral landscape, the conclusion to her article might be in need of most attention.

This is what she writes:

From day one, living up to the treaty's obligations was going to involve some difficult choices, tough decisions that the Liberals when they were in government postponed, often because they were too costly or too divisive.

Time has not made the Kyoto goals easier to achieve.

A government whose environmental agenda did wreak serious havoc on the economy would do more long-term damage to the Canadian crusade against climate change than any of the current Conservative gloom and doom excuses to take the slow road on global warming.

In other words, and in a rather ironic twist, nothing might give the environmental movement more long-term credibility than the pragmatic approach to global warming of the Harper government.

As wise as this analysis might be, I'm afraid that the environmentalists are in no frame of mind to start listening.

Hard skeptics think that the enviros are on nothing more than a crusade to socialize the economy. They'd love to see capitalism take a hit.

Softer skeptics are probably happier to believe that the environmentalists are just a bunch of do-gooders who are naive about all things economic.

On the one hand, we have actual economists givings us hard facts about the impact of complying with Kyoto. On the other hand, we have a bunch of tree-huggers telling us that "we can cut megatonnes of emissions, but can also make megatonnes of money." Oh wait, a failed environment minister and current party leader keeps saying that, right?

So, as much as pragmatic progressives like Chantal Hebert might want to lecture the enviros on sound strategic policy, even the soft skeptics know that the last thing environmentalists want to hear is sound strategic policy. Megatonnes of hot air is all they keep talking about.