A study in contrasts

The CP's coverage of the Cons' plan to regulate auto emissions lumps together the responses of Buzz Hargrove and Jack Layton into a general category of "criticizing the plan". But a closer look at the statements shows a stark difference between a pseudo-progressive who allows narrow interests to outweigh any concept of the greater good, and a vision based on a shared commitment to environmental progress.

Hargrove's position is essentially based on a view that any regulation whatsoever is an unfair imposition on the car industry:

Hargrove said in an interview the proposed standards would force billions of dollars worth of changes to the way North American automakers manufacture cars, at a time when they’re already “on their knees.”

“The timing is ludicrous,” Hargrove said. “The industry has made major strides on emissions reductions, and a more appropriate way to handle this would be to introduce incentives for people who have older vehicles to trade them in for newer vehicles that are much more fuel efficient.”

Never mind that the regulations would only match planned standards in the U.S. - or that they'd only come into effect on four years' warning, which should offer a significant amount of lead time for the industry to adjust. For Hargrove, any solution which results in possible limitations on the car industry must be unfair. And in turn, the only solution which could be applied to the auto industry is to base an environmental strategy entirely on subsidizing new car purchases.

Granted, it's understandable that Hargrove wants to boost the fortunes of his own members above all else. But the result is a criticism of the Cons which completely misses the point, demanding an even less effective and more narrowly-focused means of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions than the one the Cons are proposing. And that position leaves the Cons able to take the side of defending the need for environmental action despite their own woeful record on the issue.

In contrast, Layton's position doesn't oppose the regulation at all, but rightly recognizes that it should form only a small part of a wider solution:

NDP Leader Jack Layton said the car industry should also be supported in embracing new technologies, and consumers should be given incentives for buying more efficient vehicles.

“It should be a package, a full approach toward a green auto strategy that allows us to get past that old contradiction between jobs and the environment,” Layton said.

In other words, the regulation may form part of a viable solution. But the next question is how to do more than the Cons are proposing, not how to justify doing less. And that places the onus on the Cons to explain both their embrace of joke standards for the oil industry and their lack of support to assist in the auto industry's transition to a lower-emission regime, rather than suggesting that it's simply an either-or question as to which out of the oil industry and the auto industry should face meaningful regulations.

Considering Hargrove's past efforts to undermine the NDP in the name of stopping PMS, one might expect him to pay more attention to what will achieve more progressive results and put the Cons on the defensive. Instead, he's shown only how narrow his interests really are when push comes to shove. And that should in turn cement Layton's position as the strongest national voice for progressive Canadians.