Thread by @beynate

I'll confess to liking @mattgurney too, but when it comes to climate science I put more stock in experts like Professor @MarkJaccard. And he sees a significant difference between the Conservative and Liberal climate plans.

theglobeandmail.com/opinion/articl…

While it is true that we are not yet on pace to meet our international obligations, without question this Liberal government has made significant and meaningful progress where previous governments (both Conservative and Liberal) have failed.

According to @environmentca, as of early 2016, GHG emissions in 2030 were projected to be 815 megatonnes (Mt).

Due to actions this Liberal government has taken, that number is now estimated to be 616 Mt. That is a 25% decrease vs. business as usual.

canada.ca/en/environment…

Policies implemented since 2015 (114 Mt reduction):

- Accelerated phase-out of coal
- HFC regulations
- Methane regulations

Pan-Canadian Framework policies (85 Mt reduction):

- Federal pricing backstop
- Clean fuel standard
- Low Carbon Economy Fund
- Net zero building codes

Factor in the 24 Mt land sector contribution (which I have not credited to the Liberal govt above), and we remain short of the Harper targets by an estimated 79 Mt. But that isn't the end of the story.

First, there are additional measures that will unquestionably reduce emissions but that are too difficult to model. These include major investments in public transit and clean tech.

In other words, the gap is likely smaller than it appears.

Second, should we succeed in October, we will have an opportunity to build on our meaningful progress, to get our country to where it needs to be. Should climate change minded governments be elected provincially before 2030, we may see additional measures there too (ex. CleanBC).

For what it's worth, I continue to believe that pricing pollution is the most efficient and effective way to reduce emissions.

I've said in the House that "the price on pollution should not stop in 2022."

ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer…

I also said this: "we clearly need additional actions when there is such political consternation over pricing pollution alone."

If Conservative politicians and commentator articulated stopped attacking the market-based answer climate change, it would no doubt be easier.

Now, Gurney also takes issue with the fact our government adopted the Harper targets (30% reduction below 2005 levels).

We know that this target is insufficient. I'd like to see it strengthened, and have called for that to happen.

But I also think the focus early on was rightly on strong action. In one term, even with significant action, it has been difficult to set us on a path for the Harper targets, let alone a more ambitious one.

After significant action these last four years, we are now at a place where meeting the Harper target is feasible. So we are also at a place where greater ambition is warranted, and we should push for ratcheting up our current targets, as contemplated by the Paris Agreement.

We should also think further ahead, for the sake of our planet. Other countries (UK, EU) are aiming to become net zero by 2050, for example.

For my part, I want greater ambition (stronger targets) new accountability rules (independent scrutiny), and stronger climate action.

But we have come a long way in a short period of time, we are committed to building on that progress, and I completely reject Gurney's conclusion that "it's far from clear that [a climate concerned] voter would find the Liberals much more impressive" than the Conservatives.

Instead, in the words of Professor Jaccard: "In just four years, [new federal] policies have transformed Canada from a global pariah under the Harper government to a model for climate action under Trudeau...In climate policy, experts agree that Canada is finally a global leader."

I’d intended to link earlier to Gurney’s column to which I am responding. Here it is: nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-g…