Stephen Harper “The approach we have chosen, basing emissions reduction targets on units of production in the short run, allows growing and developing economies to engage in significant greenhouse gas reductions without putting themselves at immediate risk.' http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1004/80760" title="http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1004/80760" target="_blank"http://www.conservative.ca/EN...

Harper's claim that his intensity based plan could serve as a model for others and bridge between Europe and America is simply laughable. Intensity of emissions has been going down on their own and during this time GHG emissions have gone up 25%. Indeed, since 1996 intensity has gone down an average of 2% every year. If you simply extend that line out over the next thirteen years, Canada will have reduced intensity by 26%. Of course there are plenty of reasons to believe that intensity will fall at an even quicker rate meaning that the Conservatives will likely not have to lift a finger to achieve a 33% drop in intensity by 2020. There is also no reason at all think that a decrease in 33% emissions intensity will lead to an absolute reduction in GHG.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_repo rt/2005/images/fig2_e.gif" title="http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_repo rt/2005/images/fig2_e.gif" target="_blank"http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/i...

For the Conservatives to claim that their intensity based model could help “bridge” the gap between America and Europe is breath taking example of chutzpah for another reason. Bush first championed the idea. Specifically even though Bush did not believe in the science behind global warming shortly after taking office he nevertheless promised to meet intensity based targets and really why not. For the reason outlined above, viz., it meant that he not have to do anything. Emission intensity was bound to go down on its own. For Harper to claim that his rebranding of a Bush doctrine, that the Europeans have long since rejected, could serve as a “bridge” between Europe and the US now is simply amazing and an excellent example of how condescending he can be.

Of course Bush was not the only one to hit on intensity based emission drop back then. In 2002 Ralph Klein, also then no believer in the science of global warming, promised to reduce the intensity of Alberta’s emissions by 50% by 2020. Needless to say, they did not advertise that they expected the province’s GHG emissions to go up by 33% in that time period.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache" title="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache" target="_blank"http://72.14.253.104/search?q...:BxUxCNJg6S4J:www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/resources/publicatio ns/member/dsf-intensity-t argets.pdf+george+Bush+intensity +based+emission+targets&a mp;hl=en&ct=clnk& cd=1&gl=ca

Finally, the Coups de grâce of Harper’s “Bridge” to nowhere is that intensity based emissions plan was one of the center pieces of the Martin government’s plan to fight global warming, the same plan that Conservatives have panned as so useless as do not even worthy of being called a plan. Pace the Conservative myth machine, the Harper government was not the first Canadian government to go to a G-8 summit with a “plan” for tackling global warming, the Martin government was.