If that target were, in fact, binding on Ottawa, then the obvious question to ask is: Why would Harper oppose a treaty that simply spells out that obligation?
The only logically answer:
The targeted cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in Harper's green plan are not binding on the government or the country. Rather, they are simply numbers chosen to convince Canadians that Harper is serious about fighting climate change.
I've heard various defences of the Harper approach, and none of them deal with the elemental point, instead working the margins to confuse. Baird said again today, that we have "absolute" targets, a full 20% by 2020, which puts Canada in a "leadership" role, by going "first". If any of those points were transparent and true, then all of the resistence falls away. No apologist can answer the above question head on, because there is an inherent logical contradiction that leaves nowhere to hide.