Are Conservatives conceding too much territory to the environmentalist left when they adopt their language to discuss climate change?
The city council in the most conservative place in the country, Calgary, under the direction of new progressive mayor Jyoti Gondek, has just adopted a net-zero climate scheme that will cost the next two generations of Calgary residents 87 billion dollars to implement fully. The plan stems from an earlier, non-binding resolution to declare a climate emergency in Cowtown.
Something similar happened on a federal level a few years. Conservative leader Andrew Scheer whipped his caucus to agree to a non-binding motion to support the United Nation's climate change agreement. It was very soon that the targets in that agreement were written into a trade agreement with the EU, CETA. And the vote by the Conservatives to support the Liberal motion has been used by the Liberals as a cudgel against any Conservative that dares to differ on the issue of climate change ever since.
This is why even conceding language, phrases to the left and agreeing to non-binding virtue signalling announcements is a bad idea that leads to worse ones.
My guest tonight recently penned an op-ed in the National Post chiding the Conservatives for adopting Liberal talking points and suggesting that Conservatives must seize the opportunity of their leadership election to reset their communication strategy on climate change.
But will they? Or are they too scared of CBC to do what they know the grassroots want?
Joining me tonight to discuss this issue and the farmer's rebellion in the Netherlands is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada.