The warmer it gets this summer—both in terms of the temperature and Canada's upcoming election—the more likely we are to discuss climate change, and policy intended to combat it. In very broad strokes, the campaign angles are these: One side thinks that running against a Carbon Tax might be a winning message, while the other side wants to 'put a price on pollution'. They're not the only options, however.
But in terms of how likely the eventual winner is to make a difference in our fight to keep the Earth from irreversible damage, how much does it actually matter who you vote for? Is any party even close to proposing what it would take to make a serious dent in the challenges we face? What would it really take for government policy to come in line with the consensus of the scientific community? What would a climate change approach based in real data look like, one aimed at making the kind of difference the smart people who are getting really freaked out would approve of?
GUEST: Mike De Souza, Managing Editor, National Observer