Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, speaking today at the close of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Sydney, said, "I’m also very pleased that the Sydney Declaration mirrors the Canadian climate change approach on many levels."
By which he clearly meant: We're not planning to do anything about it, either.
UPDATE: Environmentalists reject APEC climate agreement.
There was never any reason to hope that the conference of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries was going to come to anything useful. The goal, as Australian Prime Minister John Howard stated from the outset, was to prevent the implementation of binding emission reduction targets.
Now we come away with vague climate intensity targets - little more more than business as usual - and a round of self-congratulatory rhetoric.
Leaders at the 21-nation APEC forum will enter their annual two-day summit this weekend in Sydney, Australia, hoping to agree on a statement to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. With the world’s two largest polluters still at loggerheads, however, they might have accomplished more by staying home and not spewing CO2 to attend the conference.
It would be nice to be proved wrong by coming events, but the promise of an APEC declaration on climate change seems like another triumph of public relations over policy.
The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is meeting this week in Australia and according to the conference chair, the goal will be to reach a consensus on a greenhouse gas emissions strategy.
"We have here … the world's biggest emitters — China and the United States — and to have that discussion with them and to see if we can get an agreement on principles for managing carbon emissions and cooperation across the world's major economies would be a really good step forward," said Australian Treasurer Peter Costello.
Not surprisingly, the US contingent to the APEC meeting is downplaying the likelihood of such an outcome.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
