Hot air rising

For all the hysteria about the NDP supposedly "propping up" the Cons (which they've apparently miraculously managed to do despite the conspicuous lack of any votes lately which could result in the Cons losing power), it's a prominent Lib who's providing undeserved political cover for the Cons' plan to allow greenhouse gas emissions to keep increasing:

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and Toronto MP John Godfrey, the party's former environment critic, "have acknowledged that intensity is the way to go," (said John Baird).

But Godfrey, now chair of the Liberal caucus environment committee, agreed intensity targets could be acceptable if they're part of a long-term strategy to achieve cuts.

"If it leads to an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, it's okay," he said.

Many scientists oppose such targets because they'd let emissions keep growing, and environmentalists condemn that as a phoney policy.

"The Canadian public won't stand for intensity targets," said John Bennett, executive director of the Climate Action Network, a coalition of environment groups. "They are nothing more than fakery. We have to have absolute caps."

"Intensity targets are a means for politicians to pretend they're doing something when, in reality, they're allowing emissions to increase," said Matthew Bramley, Ottawa researcher for the Calgary-based Pembina Institute.

So, to sum up: while Lib bloggers rightly condemn the Cons for refusing to move past the bad joke that is an intensity-target scheme, their own party is perfectly happy to support exactly that type of plan - leaving open only the question of how far down the road to punt the need to actually reduce emissions. Or to use Greg's analogy, "let's just slow down the flow of water for now, and we'll see about draining the tub in a decade or so".

I hope we'll see at least some outcry from the Libs supposedly committed to real emission reductions when it's their own party buying into the same false promises that the Cons are trying to push. But it's hard to be optimistic at this point.

Update: To Scott's credit, he's right on top of it.

(Edit: fixed wording.)