Yes, that may be a phrase, outlined as “a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse.” The rhetorical gadget gained widespread use throughout the Cold War when the Soviet Union would reply to accusations of human rights atrocities by alleging the West was no higher.
But we’re not right here to speak in regards to the Cold War. We’re right here to speak about Canada, the place whataboutism is making a false equivalency between two climate plans that couldn’t be extra completely different.
Here’s how the Globe and Mail’s John Ibbitson reviewed the Conservative’s plan: “When it comes to climate policy, the Liberals and Conservatives are mostly one and the same.” After summarizing a historical past of setting and lacking climate change targets — by earlier Conservative and Liberal governments alike — Ibbitson concludes, “When Mr. Trudeau became Prime Minister, he took meaningful action to reduce emissions, though the Parliamentary Budget Officer says they are insufficient on their own to meet the Paris goals. Now Mr. Scheer has a concrete, if probably insufficient, plan as well.”
Tweedledee and Tweedledum, he quips.
And Paul Wells, writing in Maclean’s: “I take Trudeau’s Liberals, today, to be more rhetoric than action on reducing carbon emissions, but a low bar is a low bar: if nothing else, they’re at least more ambitious on reducing emissions than Scheer’s Conservatives.”
Under Trudeau, Canada isn’t but on observe to hit our 2030 climate targets. Scheer claims, with out substantiation, to supply Canada “the best chance” of hitting them (however gained’t decide to hitting them). No actual distinction, some say.
But, cling on a second, actually?
Neither of those columnists bothered to really have a look at the observe report of what the Liberals achieved in workplace. If they’d, they might have concluded — as Simon Fraser University economist Mark Jaccard did — that Canada has, underneath this authorities, emerged as a global leader and an example for climate motion.
As Jaccard writes, the discrepancy between how world coverage consultants view Canada’s climate efforts and the way they’re perceived amongst environmentally involved Canadians seems to come up from two key issues: the federal government’s buy of the Trans Mountain pipeline and its admission that Canada isn’t but on observe to attain our 2030 emission discount targets. But he additionally flags a 3rd and critically vital cause: most Canadians aren’t conscious of all of the federal authorities has executed.
The Liberals deserve some blame for this: the majority of their climate communication efforts targeted on the carbon worth and little else. You need to be fairly intrepid to discover Clean Canada, a synopsis of the federal government’s climate efforts.
To assist fill this data hole, we at Clean Energy Canada have been writing a collection of op-eds for the National Observer with a singular goal: to speak in regards to the many, many federal climate insurance policies that now exist and that nobody talks about.
We’ve written in regards to the insurance policies that support electric vehicles. We’ve written in regards to the coal phaseout and other efforts to make Canada’s power grid 90 per cent non-emitting by 2030. We’ve written in regards to the measures to improve energy efficiency and, in doing so, make us a much less wasteful nation. We’ve written about the hugely important clean fuel standard and sustaining regulations for cleaner, extra gasoline environment friendly automobiles. All insurance policies that hardly ever made the headlines and but symbolize important motion past placing a worth on carbon air pollution.
The web impact of those efforts will probably be 434 million tonnes much less carbon air pollution in 2030 — taking Canada almost three-quarters of the way in which to our 2030 Paris goal. Meanwhile, modelling of the Conservative’s Real Plan finds that emissions will — await it — increase between now and 2030.
So, sure, at current neither plan will hit the goal. But the Conservatives are hardly pretending to strive, whereas the Liberals have constructed a basis of climate coverage in Canada in contrast to any we’ve had earlier than. And they’ve signalled ambition to do extra.
With climate change, each tonne of carbon air pollution issues. The extra we pollute, the extra the earth warms, the more severe issues get. As Kate Marvel, a NASA climate scientist, neatly wrote, “Climate change isn’t a cliff we fall off, but a slope we slide down.”
Climate change often is the prime problem this election, and that’s to not the credit score of 1 social gathering. For their half, the NDP and Greens have put ahead formidable plans which have helped spur a race to the highest.
And whereas the Liberals did purchase a pipeline after they had been in authorities, we don’t suppose this reality (which we’d agree was a mistake) ought to embolden casual disregard of the progress that has been made.
The Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change was signed by the prime minister and premiers in December 2016, and over these previous three years, the federal authorities has constructed the foundations for a clear energy future. Foundations upon which we are able to — and sure, should — do rather more. Foundations upon which our clear energy sector, which already employs roughly 300,000 Canadians, will develop and thrive.
Because whereas that progress was slowly made, it could possibly be rapidly misplaced.
Here is what we ask: take an hour, click on the hyperlinks above, and browse this collection.
Consider what has been achieved to this point, and study the concepts on supply for the way we are able to do extra. Read all the social gathering platforms. And keep in mind that the place there are foundations to construct on, there may be additionally the chance of a wrecking ball.
And then, on October 21, forged a poll for continued climate motion.
This submit was co-authored by Dan Woynillowicz and initially appeared in the National Observer.