I must say, one of the more frustrating distinctions is this argument that environmental concern runs counter to economic prosperity. Today, I read one piece which said Ignatieff was following Dion's path, and this was a mistake because the environment isn't the big issue, it's the economy. Do we really lack the sophistication to connect the dots here? The overlap isn't even theoretical anymore, it's everywhere within our economy. As Ignatieff pointed out, countries that have seized the initiative and become world leaders environmentally are creating massive employment and opportunity:
Global investment in clean energy technologies was a hundred and fifty billion last year.
Germany has created more than two-hundred-and-fifty thousand clean energy jobs. They’ve cornered sixteen percent of the global market.
Train your gaze to a place like Ontario, where it's manufacturing base is disappearing, can one not see the potential in Canada becoming a "leader" in a growing "industry". Canada has fallen behind, any initiative which both promotes new schemes, while simultaneously boosting critical PRODUCTIVITY through efficiency is attractive. You can make the economy argument along side the environmental one, and it doesn't take much imagination. The two concerns are not mutually exclusive, nor in conflict, they are actually reliant at this stage. To say Ignatieff has the wrong focus, well it's the critics eyes that are blurry, this is exactly what the Canadian economy desperately needs.
I'm quite encouraged, that within the current demand for policy, Ignatieff chooses to take this route, to make the environment a central Liberal theme once again. Without the burden of the "tax" word, I see no reason why we can't articulate the marriage between the economy and the environment, why going green can mean green, not a sacrifice but a must to keep pace with the world. A good start....