Creating power to stay in power:
Conservatives are out to prove that their plan is better than the Liberal oneTimes Colonist (Victoria) Saturday, January 20, 2007Page: A16 Section: Comment Byline: Les Leyne Column: Les Leyne Source: CanWest News Service
What a lot of trouble Prime Minister Stephen Harper went to in order to announce that a rather obscure alternative energy program that the Liberals unveiled earlier is going to carry on under his government. By plane, by motorcade and by water taxi he made his way almost literally to the ends of the Earth to illuminate the point that “Canada’s new government,” as Tories like to say, is following Canada’s old government when it comes to nurturing alternative energy suppliers.
Lester B. Pearson College isn’t the end of the earth, but it’s on the edge of the western frontier as far as most Canadians are concerned. It was a good backdrop for an alternative energy announcement (even if it is named for a Liberal PM) because it’s home base for the ecological reserve at Race Rocks, on which sits a tiny tidal-power demo project.
Harper has a newfound passion for eco-friendly initiatives that can be said to curb greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to climate change. It’s burning so intently that he even ventured past the college, hopping a boat for a quick run out to Race Rocks for a photo opportunity.The project is the only one of its kind in Canada. Getting electricity out of this sort of natural power — tidal, solar, geothermal, wind — is about the coolest thing you can imagine. But the technology needs a lot of work before it can go big league, so alternative energy needs to be coddled for years to come. Harper put down $1.5 billion over 10 years.
Federal Liberals fronted a similar program during their last term. Its future was uncertain when the Conservatives took over. But the conventional wisdom is that something clicked in the public’s mind recently.
Perhaps it was prompted by the extreme weather — savage storms in the west, freakishly warm days in the east. Climate change became a big deal and the Conservative government became determined, even desperate, to stay on top of it.
So Harper canned Rona Ambrose, his environment minister, replaced her with someone more familiar with the game of political hardball– John Baird — and set his government on an eco-blitz, which touched down at Pearson College.
Amazing what can come from Ontarians playing golf in December.
The blitz is an impressive one. The prime minister brought two supporting acts with him — Baird and Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn. The federal incursion demanded a provincial response, so B.C. Energy Minister Richard Neufeld made an appearance. And a host of people from the alternative energy world — third-party validators — were invited to bulk up the audience.
The message is double-edged. Conservatives want it known that not only are they concerned about climate change and doing something about it, they’re doing more than the Liberals ever did.
So Harper and Baird outlined their alternative energy funding and quickly compared it to the Liberal record. As Baird put it, meeting the targets set by the Kyoto accord was the start of a marathon, but the Liberals spent the first 10 years after signing it running in the wrong direction.
And Harper said the initiatives were funded in the last budget.
“It may seem like a year is a long time to get them in place, but what we faced when we took office was a whole series of environmental programs that either weren’t reducing emissions in most cases or hadn’t even got off the ground…”
That in a nutshell is what the next few months of environmental debate are going to sound like in Ottawa. Some voters will welcome the new thrust, regardless of its timing. Some will decide Harper’s commitment to cleaner air is too late to be trustworthy. And everyone will have to measure it against the Liberal alternative, which was skimpy, at least prior to the leadership change.
The money promised yesterday for clean power is supposed to createthe same effect as getting a million cars off the road. But if they wanted to tackle climate change head-on, why didn’t they just get a million cars off the road?
It would hurt too much. Harper said people have to have the ability to earn an income. ” What we’re trying to do with our environmental plan is allow people to be prosperous and have energy security as well.”
Harper pointed out the emissions debate often centres on the sectors of the economy that produce them. But everyone uses transportation, energy and industrial products. “If we’re going to make the transformations in our economy we want to make over time, there’s going to be a responsibility of everyone to participate in that.”
The winner of this argument will be the one with the best argument about why their plan to curb emissions won’t hurt as much as the other guy’s plan.
Reprinted with the permission of Les Leyne
lleyne@tc.canwest.com
Putting ‘green’ toward going green 
