Biggest unanswered question for me tonight is what action (or inaction) on climate change means for Canadian federalism. Aggressive plans mean a federal gov't pushing policy down onto provinces and, let's be real, primarily on AB. But that has huge potential consequences. 1/N
Yeah, I know. I'm wrapped up in constitutional law right now, but the federal government can't just repeat climate emergency three times fast and necessarily do whatever it wants. It has powers, but by no means exclusive powers, to force big cuts in GHGs on provinces. 2/N
But, there is lots the fed gov't can do. That's great. But if you're prepared to offhand shutting down AB's oil sands industry in 10 years like it's nothing, like it's part of some great economic boom project, you're not being honest with people.
I don't care what you've read into an IPCC report. Try saying we're going to shut down every industrial operation and penitentiary in Kingston. Or Trois-Rivières. Or Saint John. But, don't worry because green jobs. Know what? It's insulting.
Canadian action on GHGs demands a leader who understands 5 things: 1) climate science; 2) Canada's Constitution, our economy and our place in the world; 3) tech and what is possible at what cost; 4) how policies change behaviour; 5) the distributional impacts of our choices.
I'm not sure any of the leaders tonight showed they have 5/5 on this front. I thought 4 of the leaders made some good points and, given my mentions the last few days, I'm not sure I'm handing out grades ever again.
