A "Bridge" too far; Harper's rebranding of Bush to "Bridge" to him

Stephen Harper “The approach we have chosen, basing emissions reduction targets on units of production in the short run, allows growing and developing economies to engage in significant greenhouse gas reductions without putting themselves at immediate risk.’http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1004/80760

Yesterday I said this.“Harper's claim that his intensity based plan could serve as a model for others is simply laughable. Intensity of emissions has been going down on their own and during this time GHG emissions have gone up 25%. Indeed, since 1996 intensity has gone down an average of 2% every year. If you simply extend that line out over the next thirteen years, Canada will have reduced intensity by 26%. Of course there are plenty of reasons to believe that intensity will fall at an even quicker rate meaning that the Conservatives will likely not have to lift a finger to achieve a 33% drop in intensity by 2020. There is also no reason at all think that a decrease in 33% emissions intensity will lead to an absolute reduction in GHG.”http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2005/images/fig2_e.gif

I would like to add one more thing.

For the Conservatives to claim that their intensity based model could help “bridge” the gap between America and Europe is breath taking example of chutzpah for another reason. It is George Bush that first championed intensity based targets and for the reason outlined above, viz., it meant that he not have to do anything. Emission intensity was bound to go down on its own. For Harper to claim that his rebranding of a Bush doctrine that the Europeans have long since rejected as a “bridge” between Europe and the US now is simply amazing and an excellent example of how condescending he can be.