"Canada now has one of the most aggressive plans to tackle greenhouse gases and air pollution in the world."
it seems odd to hear these criticisms:
Canada played a lead role in undermining the Kyoto protocol on climate change, at a major United Nations conference that ended in Vienna yesterday, critics say.
The week-long meeting of 158 nations concluded with a compromise that makes it less likely the next phase of the protocol, to start in 2012, will require stringent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, they said.
"It's clearly Canada joining the forces of darkness," said John Bennett, of ClimateforChange, an Ottawa-based advocacy group
Logically, if Canada is truly a world leader, with targets beyond the EU, as Baird constantly argues, then you would assume Canada would have NO difficulty supporting tight language and ambitious targets. Afterall, Canada is moving beyond the international community, which should translate to easy advocacy, as opposed to the hold-out status seen in Vienna (the same pattern witnessed in every single international gathering to date). Canada should be authoring the language, given our "aggressive plans".
What we have is a rhetoric gap, wherein claims are made, but when it comes to concrete commitment or action, there is resistence. If anyone can reconcile the contradictions, then they may have discovered a new mathematical formula, because from here it just doesn't compute. "Leading the world" - "resistence on the world stage"= "hot air".