Ashburnum Garden, a community garden run by Transition Peterborough. Photo via the group's website.

With any legitimate climate work being continually ignored by government, Canadians are growing weary. In tandem with our American friends, we’ve for years been witnessing the leadership void at the federal level being filled by some provincial, state and municipal governments, universities and businesses.

With Earth Hour showing that widespread participation in environmental initiatives is possible, some think the deeper work that needs to be done to meet climate goals will be met by new thinking beginning at the community level.

On Saturday I had the opportunity to hear a presentation from Transition Barrie, one of the latest communities to found a grassroots group dedicated to guiding its town to follow the light at the end of the tunnel of climate crisis, peak oil and economic downturn.

Transition Towns is a new community-based global movement founded in Ireland and England when teacher Rob Hopkins led his students to develop an “Energy Descent Action Plan” for their town. A student brought it to Kinsale, Ireland’s city council, and a plan for energy independence was adopted.

Thirteen communities in Canada now host transition groups, with usual enviro-suspects including Peterborough, Salt Spring Island, Nelson and Guelph. But with citizens of sprawling cities like Barrie and London also getting involved, the movement may have widespread appeal.

Inspired by concepts of permaculture, a system of gardening that designs a permanent, sustainable agriculture, Transition groups are led to relocalize needs and resources while drastically reducing their energy dependence. Filled with peakniks, these groups follow the Transition Towns Handbook’s twelve step program to community organizing, while “backcasting” to imagine the future they want, and determining what they’ll need to get them there.

Although the beginning of the group’s PowerPoint looks the same as any environmental/economic doomsday scenario, it quickly becomes evident that these are positive folks, ready to take on a challenge with their neighbours to create more meaningful, equitable and sustainable livelihoods.

The opposite approach of sometimes aggressive activism by environmentalists or anti-renewable energy folks, Transitionites host town host “unleashings” (rather than group launches), have “heart and soul” subcommittees, and let their organizational goals go with the flow of their members. They want to work with local governments, knowing that fighting complex issues at the community level won’t get them far as inspiring positive change.

The group has a resemblance to the Canadian-based Otesha Project, which has recently been exported to England, perhaps a trade for Transition Towns. Otesha is a youth-based organization which has recently announced that its environmental outreach and better living advice, done through cycling and theatre, has reached 100,000 Canadians over the last few years.

The work being achieved throughout Canadian communities by these organizers leaves Canadians to wonder why Parliament can’t look like this. Why can’t government even for a week not resemble a model of co-operation that strikes the heart of transformational issues faced by the globe?

Let’s hope that Transitionites and Otesha youth become more politicized, while keeping their methods positive—and if it rubs off on our politicians, all the better.

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and senior staff, react in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, as the House passes the health care reform bill, March 21, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

After over a year of battling it out for a universal healthcare system, President Obama has secured the (diluted) vision he intended for his country.

What, you might ask, does that have to do with Canada and climate change? Many are speculating that this victory has made it that much more probable that the President could also pass a major climate change bill. Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s direction on the subject has largely been to adopt whatever the American agenda is (unofficially known as the “I’ll have what he’s having” approach to climate change policy), this may mean we’re coming along for the ride.

Our prime minister has made numerous commitments to follow suit with what our southern neighbours choose to do, largely on the premise that our economy is so tightly linked to theirs that we would poorly position ourselves should we do any more or less on climate change than what the United States is committing to.

Until recently, this looked just fine for Stephen Harper, as it was not looking so good for the American climate change bill. However, two potentially key things happened this week that might affect our own climate policies: The American health care bill was passed, both reinvigorating confidence in the President and wearing down the opposition, and a compromised version of the climate change bill (worked on by the trio of senators: Democrat John Kerry, Republican Lindsey Graham, and independent Joe Lieberman) received support from both industry and environmental groups. Now key contacts are suggesting the senate isn’t up for another fight, which means there could be successful action on this bill in the near future.

Only a matter of months ago, one presumed that by hitching his wagon to the American environmental policies, Stephen Harper was avoiding having to make any action on climate change at all (and indeed his budget decisions seemed to echo this). It seemed uncertain that a health care bid would pass, and confidence in the President’s ability to address environmental issues in a tough, concrete way seemed unlikely. Both leaders had disappointed at Copenhagen, and both had neglected to address the mutual responsibility they have for Canada’s tar sands.

But there were some substantive differences between the two. While Stephen Harper has failed to re-commit to ecoEnergy, and made major cuts to climate research, the United Sates spends, per capita, 18 times as much as Canada does on developing renewable resources. Now they may be on their way to putting their money where their mouth is, if this climate change bill moves forward.

What remains to be seen is whether or not Harper will remain committed to following in the American footsteps now that they seem poised to make some progress. Perhaps President Obama can help grease the wheels by making another friendly wager—in this country, a box of Timbits and a two-four of Molson can go a long way for encouragement.

The Conservative government’s budget announcement has brought with it a decision to defund the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, which has been studying climate change in a Canadian context since 2000. Their office will now be closing by the end of the year.

New research often shifts the dialogue by showing the reality of the situation. A new report by Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, for example, has shown Australians via the media that things are heating up in an already hot country, and that it’s not a good thing.

How does climate change stay afloat in the media without reporters finding stories from Canadian climate scientists? Media can’t find a friend in Environment Canada at the moment—well aside from staff leaks.

Canwest reported yesterday from a frustrated Environment Canada official with a document showing how the Federal government has been stifling senior climate scientists from speaking to the media. (This Magazine reported this, incidentally, way last summer.)

Media coverage of climate change science has dropped 80% in Canada, according to the source and a report by the Climate Action Network.

An email sent to Canwest from Environment Canada brass stated, “The new policy merely assures that communications with the media are co-ordinated, to achieve the goals set out above—namely, quick, accurate and consistent responses across Canada.”

But this information isn’t reaching the media. Journalists have been forced to submit written questions and wait for them to go through the chain. Story deadlines, however, don’t work like that, particularly in non-totalitarian countries where this isn’t the practice du jour. Media has grown tired and is being forced to turn away from federal research.

The government has created a two-fold mess of reducing the amount of quality research, and denying access to the rest of it. Media stories of the last week have focused on the overwhelming dry and warm winter experienced by much of the country. Thank higher beings there’s one man the Tories can’t silence, David Phillips, Environment Canada senior climatologist and perennial weather marketer. He called this Canadian winter “beyond shocking.” It may lead to “horrific water shortages, insect infestations and wildfires.”

But during a time of horrific effects from climate change, we need more than David Phillips. We need serious plans to drastically reduce emissions while planning to adapt to the effects all around us. The Conservatives aren’t coming close.

That ultimately poses the same question posed last week. Will the Liberal Party continue to support a budget and a government that does just the opposite?

Michael Ignatieff greeting listeners at a speech on the environment at Laval University, November 26, 2009. Creative Commons Photo by Robert J. Galbraith

Holy déjà vu, Iggy.

Is it just me, or is this whole post-prorogue budget announcement that the NDP and Bloc aren’t supporting feeling eerily familiar?

Rewind to November 2008. Stephen Harper prorogued the government to avoid a non-confidence motion brought on by the New Democrats and Liberals. This move bought him a little time, and as Dion stepped down as leader and Ignatieff stepped up, it put the new Liberal leader in a rather powerful position. The whole country looked to him to see what move he would make—maintain the coalition, or approve a Conservative budget?

Typically, we expect the party leading the country to hold the most power, but at moments like these it becomes apparent that the opposing parties are well-positioned to get some things done, leader of the country or not.

When the budget, and avoiding a non-confidence motion, hinged last year on Liberal approval, the Conservatives made room in their plan for some modest alterations Ignatieff insisted upon. Top of mind was the recession, and the creation of a strong stimulus package.

This year, why not leverage this power once again, Iggy? Last time around recession was the issue du jour, and certainly stimulating the economy is always a smart move, but that isn’t the only issue that Canadians feel strongly about—some uncertainty around climate change has settled in, but a majority of Canadians still believe that it is a very serious issue.

This year, Ignatieff could leverage his power and suggest changes to the budget that would increase jobs, stimulate the economy, and begin to lay the tracks for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.  My suggestions? Start modestly, but with policies that will lay the foundation for further climate change policies in the future.

• Introduce a strong transit plan with emphasis on effective public transit routes;

• Create a regulation or carbon price that would reduce total industrial emissions by 3% annually; and

• Make a national investment in renewable energy, green manufacturing and electric vehicles.

All of these strategies require job creation, and will cultivate a new “blue/green” economy. Of course, for this to be an effective political move as well as climate change reduction strategy, it will require that all parties get on board, which is why incremental change will have to be where we start for now.

So go ahead, Ignatieff,  force Harper’s hand into a new green economy. Afterall, this opportunity seems to come but once a year—you should make good use of it.

All the papers last week were abuzz about an op-ed written by now-backbench Conservative MP Maxime Bernier. Writing how climate change is an unsure thing indeed, he said his party was on the right track by playing it cool in Copenhagen.

He was roundly criticized by Canadian media and bloggers. Globe contributor Robert Silver called him Canada’s Sarah Palin. The National Post’s article on the matter began with Environment Minister Jim Prentice stating that the Harper government did not share Bernier’s skeptical position on the science. And Sun Media writer Lorrie Goldstein’s article, Mad Max makes sense on climate change, stated: “The good news is Harper is better on climate change than the opposition parties. The bad news is, that’s not saying much.”

Wait a minute. Harper not strong enough on climate change? Sounds like something we’ve been saying for a while.

Goldstein, however, thinks he hasn’t rejected climate change enough. Even believing in the evidence is too much.
But that’s okay, who reads the Sun anyway?

Oh right, lots of people.

Sun Media Corp. is Canada’s largest newspaper publisher, having eaten up dozens of mainstream dailies and hundreds of other community papers. It reaches over 10 million Canadians.

Bernier’s view was echoed by Conservative bloggers and comments in online articles. There was significant talk of Bernier setting up a future leadership run for the Conservative Party.

Move over to provincial politics and Ontario’s Conservatives have already chosen their Bernier. Leader Tim Hudak, elected last year, is a right-winger through and through. The Party’s environmental platform is perhaps yet to be hashed out for the next election, but there are rumours that the Green Energy Act—a new staple of support for renewable energy projects in the province—might be something Hudak would repeal.

This would be made politically salable by the unexpectedly strong pressure from supposed grassroots organization, Wind Concerns Ontario, which has branches in towns across the province. Hundreds come out to environmental assessment meetings to oppose wind establishment in their areas. These people are finding a friend in Tim Hudak.

Similarly, the Ontario Landowners Association is one to watch. The organization is another collection of rural groups from across the province with a membership 15,000 strong who support policies that may appear radical or American to their urban friends. And though some are good stewards of their land, they may not be interested in hearing about climate policy.

Although Randy Hillier, first president of the Association, lost soundly to Hudak in the Party’s leadership bid, its strong anti-Liberal message of rural land rights and ability to bus people to meetings may give Hudak the desire to lean on it in the next election. Having been in a room of rural Ontarians during a presentation by climate change skeptic Patrick Moore, I know that there is a widespread desire to hear and believe in the other side.

Drilling down one more level to municipal politics, Rocco Rossi, former National Director of the Liberal Party of Canada and inner-circle advisor to Michael Ignattieff has thrown his hat in the ring for Toronto Mayor, promising to ditch bike lanes and pause the city’s ambitious transit plan. After having taken Al Gore’s climate presentation training, this so-called “liberal” is looking to plan a city without the critical infrastructure necessary to support a safer method of travel for both cyclists and drivers, ditching a key urban carbon reduction measure.

But could it work for him? With commuting cyclists currently making up a very small proportion of residents, a move to make driving even appear more convenient, in a time when traffic jams clog Toronto morning streets, might be politically expedient in many Toronto neighbourhoods.

The United States is undergoing a strong movement of its far-right known as the Tea Party, described in a weekend article by Frank Rich. Rich warns to take the group seriously. The Tea Party has got people in the U.S. talking, and its mainstream conservative party getting nervous.

American writer Chris Hedges gives his answer to the movement and the weakness of Barack Obama (at Copenhagen and beyond), in a piece yesterday stating that the progressive left and the Democrats have succumbed to cowardice and have lost their energy. He urges a move back to third parties on the left, suggesting that a credible alternative to the state of the economy and society is what is most needed to bring the public onside, not liberals talking about policy all the time.

And so in the rural revolution and climate change deniers and their supportive media and blogs, Canadians may have our version of the Tea Party. While Americans, politics may be their hockey at the moment, we too may soon have an excited right which could pit itself against climate progress at a level that even Stephen Harper won’t touch. And whether that means bringing rural landowners in for climate consultation or starting a socialist revolution, it sounds like something worth planning for.

Well played, Mr. Harper, well played.

While you’re probably sitting comfortably at 24 Sussex, sipping Chianti and learning how to play “Hey Jude” for Laureen’s next fundraiser, I’m sitting in bed at 11pm Monday night trying to rack my brain for what to say this week about the state of climate change in Canada.

How did we get here? Just two months ago I could have made a full time job keeping up with the news updates on the federal reaction to COP15: “Mr. Harper will be attending part of the discussions in Copenhagen,” “No wait a minute, he has decided not to attend,” “But wait! Just more news from Parliament Hill…” The media provided a detailed play-by-play commentary on every move the Prime Minister and his colleagues made leading up to the international climate negotiations, and the response from the country, extensively covering protests, new studies and reports, and every other action. But now? Crickets.

As the swell of voices and actions came to a crescendo in November and December, so too did the voices of climate deniers and subsequently, so-called climate scandals. Anything that discredited the climate movement, climatologists or anything else to do with the COP15 meetings was eagerly thrust on the front page until we were so confused about what to think, who to blame and what to do next that we were all to happy to receive our holiday gift from Mr. Harper—distraction, in the form of prorogation.

Ah, yes, that wonderful word that so united the country for a brief moment to take to the streets (or to their Facebook accounts) and vent their frustration with the current government. We were all so very upset about a word I suspect most of us still don’t fully understand. It seems we needed the catharsis, and were legitimately fed up, and I bet much of that upset stems from the Prime Minister’s handling of the Canadian climate change policies.

But as the dust has settled, commentary on our carbon crisis has remained noticeably absent. Our Prime Minister has treated our legitimate concerns about climate change like a giant temper tantrum from a nation full of toddlers. And ever the stern disciplinarian, he has left us alone to wear ourselves out and lick our own wounds until we’re ultimately distracted. And what better way than by hosting an international sporting event (that will not be named here)! Yet another distraction for the media, and the country.

When Darcy and I started blogging about climate change we wanted to contribute to part of a bigger picture. We knew we weren’t necessarily saying anything that hadn’t been proposed before, but it was important to be one of many voices. I don’t mind telling you right now, it’s become a tad lonesome. Where’s the camaraderie? Are we merely a country of fair-weather environmentalists?

I know we all have [International Sporting Event] fever, and who doesn’t want an extended holiday after Christmas? But climate change policy is slipping off the national radar, and we are playing right into the federal government’s hand. It is all too helpful to Mr. Harper that we have shied away from the topic in recent weeks; we have an obligation to ourselves to follow through. Could the country, indeed the whole world, really have been this swept up in climate change only to let the issue fall off the agenda now? I don’t think so. Maybe like Wiarton Willie we just need a few more weeks of hibernating before we’re ready to come out of our holes and get back at it.

You may have won the battle, Mr. Harper, but if this keeps up, we are all likely to lose the war.

A charging station concept by Better Place, a private company attempting to develop a business model for electric cars.

We’re not getting the job done with the Harper government, so where do we go next? Rebecca’s option of industry leadership in last week’s column may have raised some eyebrows for those of us working on policy like pricing carbon or regulation to get industries to do the right thing. And also for those who see industry as the bad guy—not an unreasonable view—since big companies produce an unreasonable amount of total greenhouse gases.

The truth is that companies need drivers to reduce pollution. One of those can be internal, through a corporate leader who gets it, who has started a company that meets her own values, or one who has seen the light, like Interface head Ray Anderson after reading The Ecology of Commerce.

These cases, however, are the exception. While you might see some big oil companies appear to be getting ahead of government by requesting a carbon tax, the next thing you read, the same company’s dealings with pollution and people in Nigeria or Alberta raise questions of ecological commitment.

On the other hand, some companies have made the commitment to green all the way. The clean technology sector is growing on the Toronto Stock Exchange. An area of growth, this sector has nowhere to go but up.

Corporate sustainability specialist Bob Willard has long talked to sustainability change agents about the kinds of factors that influence companies to move—and many do exist. From NGOs putting on the pressure to insurance companies more than peeking into the concept of climate change, big companies have been nudged for quite a few years now.

So how do citizens shift the economy to what we want—drastically reduced carbon, in the least?

Green companies need support. Governments may be more willing to support incentives to help clean companies and reduce subsidies to grey ones, than explicitly regulating or taxing pollution. One area of potential policy pressure.

But as citizens and potential consumers and investors, we can do more to support and expand those companies doing the right thing. And of course as people show choices with their pocketbook, they must doubly make that choice at the ballot box. Those without the privilege of financial resources (like NGOs) can support companies leading the green economy in other ways.

On the flip side is punishing the bad guys—making them change or lose profit share if they don’t.

Large industries, and increasingly financial institutions, have been the target of boycotts and campaigns to change their practices. These campaigns can work if being given support from all organizations that need work on climate causes. Campaigns should be given focus. One effective lobby targeting divestment from a tar sands company, with presence at shareholder meetings, newspaper ads and calls from prominent Canadians could get other companies looking at what they need to change.

Good neighbour campaigns take a more positive spin, through tactics like community letter writing to companies that should be doing better. These can be effective because of the personal tone, recognizing CEOs as people too, and putting social pressure through community ties.

Industry’s time to pollute needs to be up. With some more clever pressure from the people, things could shift from the bottom up.

Welcome to the new age of the environmental movement. We don’t chain ourselves to trees and sing protest songs—we use blackberries to notify the press about the latest report findings. With the exception of a few spirited protestors who scaled the parliament building or occupied a minister’s office, most of the effort from organizations in the fall leading up to Copenhagen concentrated on studies and reports and media-savvy communications tactics.

Increasingly, more people make full-time jobs out of protecting the environment, and many more still are involved in a part-time or volunteer basis. All of this collective energy isn’t for nothing—just like any other industry, we demand results. But it often seems that no matter if we’re talking about water protection, the Boreal or, in this case, climate change, we seem to measure whether we’ve been successful or not by one single measure—policy change.

In many ways using policy change as a measuring stick makes sense. Policies are tangible, measurable and, in theory, binding. Governments can either follow policies, or not, and suffer the consequences of public scorn if the issue’s hot enough. There has been no single more-demanded climate change outcome from the public than a clear, thorough, and meaningful climate change policy. But the federal government has made it clear: that shit ain’t happening.

In the heat of Copenhagen, when I was griping about some ineptitude of our Prime Minister in terms of battling with the carbon crisis, a reader suggested in the comments section of this series that my “obsession with leadership” was puzzling. Touché, reader. It certainly is frustrating, disappointing and possibly futile to expect that after all the hoopla leading up to Copenhagen that should have impressed upon our Prime Minister that Canadians indeed want a firm stance on climate change that he will suddenly draft the policy of our dreams after the fanfare has fizzled.

In a rerun of the Rick Mercer report that ran this weekend I heard the comedian quip that “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, or in Canada’s case, the federal government.” Well then the Prime Minister and I must be two peas in a pod, because I keep coming back to the same thing in every blog post: this country cannot make any serious strides towards carbon reduction without a strong federal policy committing us to actual reductions.

Our reader’s point that the focus on the federal government was “puzzling” could also imply something I’ve suspected for some time: that I may be flogging a dead horse. But, I ask, what other conclusion can I come to than to insist that a federal climate policy is necessary?  We know that despite being sold green issues of Vanity Fair and hybrid SUV’s for the past several years, personal reductions pale in comparison to industry’s contribution to carbon emissions and that the problem has become too severe to expect that simply purchasing your next cut of meat from a local butcher will reduce the carbon load enough. Pardon me for not trusting myself or any other individual with the responsibility of making enough personal reductions while we teeter on global crisis.

But, perhaps where individuals are seemingly incapable of collectively making the right choices, there lies another body capable of making the tough decisions: industry. If there is a serious flaw with concentrating on policies, it is assuming that just because they are drafted and created (which is enough of a battle) that they will be followed, both inside government and out. It would not be enough for the Canadian government to create a strong climate change policy, commit it to paper and walk away, they would have to work with the private sector and ensure that they are able to work towards these targets. Policy won’t lead to industry standards, but industry just may be better poised to raise the bar on climate reductions where government has failed to do so.

While we have generally concentrated on accepting that the federal government needs to create legislation, there’s also no policy-making formula. Perhaps if industry leaders were to raise the standards the government would be shamed into creating the policies that the rest of the sector would have to follow. The swell of attention around climate change in the fall has been unprecedented by any other issue in the past several decades, and yet the federal foot has been put down, and it remains clear that policy won’t be leading us out of the gate. So we will either have to find new ways to create and measure our success, or if policy is to remain our yardstick, then perhaps we need to rethink who we are asking to lead us to it.

We’ve marched, oh how we have marched.

The “get back to work” signs now find their place in the closet where dust has begun to flirt with the climate-themed “350” signs of October and December. The proroguing of Parliament has left the country with no ability to act on any sort of climate legislation (though that’s not so different than when it’s in session). We also now have the launch of a popular movement for democracy, based partly on a collective desire to deal with a whole raft of issues, the climate crisis being one.

A failure of international politics in Copenhagen and of democracy domestically has left a situation that is indeed bleak, though also provides time for activists, and all active citizens, to regroup. Journalist Murray Dobbin wrote last week: “These politically opportune moments do not arrive very often and it is incumbent upon existing organizations to rise to the occasion, support the nascent movement and begin gearing up their own machinery to take the fight to Stephen Harper and his government.”

We now have an election coming up—if not April, then at some point soon. But are we really that serious about firing Steve, as many rally signs had proclaimed?

Dobbin continues to ask if this democracy movement is about reform in itself or will it include the specific goal of ridding Canada of its current Prime Minister?

The big elephant in the movement is the political siloing of the non-Conservative activists. Diversity of voice often brings strength, but a split of support because of the partisanship of most of us in the movement continues to pose a problem within Canada’s electoral system.

The Conservatives’ drop in the polls due to shutting down Parliament and the prisoner abuse scandal has been sharp and pronounced. While without much in the way of advertised policy, the Liberals have managed an upswing in support, with the NDP, Greens and Bloc all down slightly in the New Year. The now two-party race for government is something to keep more than an eye on.

While progressives are split within many parties, the weakness in civil society institutions and movement organizations is also harming the cause. The environmental movement itself within Canada seems to have more and more organizations working on similar climate ends, and there even exists more than one coalition/umbrella type group that focuses on federal climate lobbying: Power Up Canada, Climate Action Network, Power Shift, and so on.

Perhaps this can be used to advantage. Three main strategies present themselves to guide us to the ultimate aim of reducing climate change emissions immediately and in the long-run.

• Some organizations may wish to stick it out, putting continued pressure and policy work on the international negotiating system leading to Copenhagen 2: Mexico City.
• Others must work on focused action that directs the removal of high-carbon sources to our atmosphere like coal plants, tar sands projects and industrial projects, which could reduce emissions quickly and may influence positive actions in other countries.
• The remaining organizations can concentrate on lobbying and coalition-building that focuses MPs and political parties to bring the climate agenda far forward in preparation for legislative debate and the next election.

Organizations working on these three objectives should be ready to support each others’ goals, each with a focus that could bring results – a multi-pronged strategy that may well bring success in at least one area.

We have a unique opportunity.It is largely up to the size and tact of citizens movements whether we let the government keep pushing the climate around or we push the agenda over the top.

Follow Stop Everything’s climate, political and action updates at: http://twitter.com/stop_everything

Environmental activists hold a demonstration in the centre of Copenhagen on December 15, 2009 in Denmark World leaders started arriving today to attend the Climate Summit where they hope to work towards a global agreement. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

A lot of stock has been put into the current International Climate Change Conference. Not only a stake in our future, and the world as we know it continuing to exist, but our national identity—how we deal with international conflict, how we assist other countries needing a hand, and when we choose to exert a leadership role. For the issue of climate change has never just been an environmental one, but a moral one.

Yesterday, unexpectedly, the Canadian government announced that Canada had changed its position and would lead in climate reduction figures and commit to aid for developing countries to do the same. In what turned out to be a bit of a cruel joke, however, it was actually a hoax. For Canadians, it remains quite sad that the possibility of our government adopting a leadership role on climate change is just that—a joke.

Long gone are the days when Canada was seen as an international leader. We’re now generally considered one of the bigger obstructions during international discussions on the biggest issue of our time.

Not only are our political leaders positions embarrassing, but some other outspoken Canadian figures. Today on CBC’s Metro Morning Jeff Rubin, former CIBC Chief Economist and author of Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller, echoed a disappointing attitude that Prime Minister Harper and Minister Prentice have voiced before—the idea that Canada is not the biggest polluter globally, and therefore it’s China and India that should step up to the plate and reduce their emissions first.

What a sad state of affairs it has become that our national attitude is to rely on developing nations, who still struggle with more basic problems of hunger, housing and poverty, to lead the way. Canadians use more oil per capita than Americans, making individual Canadians more than proportionally responsible for their part in the global climate change dilemma. It is morally reprehensible to expect those with a lower standard of living to “do their part” before us.

Yet an interesting article from the Washington Post suggests that while Canada and America do need to step up to the plate, perhaps the best thing we can do back home to send a clear message to Copenhagen is to make December “Green Free” month—that we should stop our individual efforts and demand institutional change. During the civil rights actions of the 1960’s, the author argues, it would not have been adequate for a few progressive folks to adopt integrative values in an otherwise bigoted environment—the difference is in institutional change.

So too, it argues, should be our attitude to hold our leaders accountable. It will not be acceptable to go half way, it will not be acceptable to rely on individuals to take action, and it will not be acceptable to point fingers and say someone else isn’t doing their part so we shouldn’t have to either.

We can hear the tck tck tcking of the clock as the summit only has a few days before its conclusion. What will leaders emerge with? That they have finally adopted the positions of leadership that their titles would suggest? Or is it up to us, as individuals, to paint the world green? And what, as Canadians, will we choose to hold on to as our national identity?

Flopenhagen, Hopenhagen… it may well be time for Copenhagen. As in, how are we going to cope with the aftermath and repercussions of this conference?