Crazy 'bout that mercury

The CP reports on what seems to be the first substantive difference in the federal environment portfolio under John Baird: rather than trying to pretend that action against other pollutants can be conflated with action against greenhouse gas emissions, the Cons are now standing in the way of anything getting done on other issues as well:

Canada's refusal to support a legally binding global pact to cut highly toxic mercury pollution is another Kyoto-style evasion that allies Ottawa with Washington, critics say.

Canada sided with the U.S. and India during international talks in Nairobi this week. The trio was among a minority of countries that blocked immediate progress of an enforceable system to curb mercury use, including a glut of noxious exports to the developing world...

Environmental groups blamed the U.S. and Canada for effectively delaying an enforceable system. Repeated studies clearly document health threats posed by air pollution, water contamination and mercury-laced electronic junk, they say.

"They want more talk but they don't back up that talk with action," said Michael Bender, spokesman for Zero Mercury, a coalition of 48 public interest groups...

Canada conceded in documents submitted to the UN Environment Program that "there is sufficient evidence of significant global adverse impacts from mercury ... to warrant further international action to reduce the risks to human health and the environment."

Still, Ottawa favours voluntary reduction efforts while binding rules are discussed for the next two years.

Of course, given the Cons' stated intention to ignore Canada's own laws when it comes to environmental action they don't want to bother with, there's little reason to think that a treaty would be acted on in any event.

But that only highlights the fact that there's neither a substantial near-term cost to trying to work toward an effective treaty, nor a rational basis for holding up what should be an important international effort aside from a general distaste for global cooperation. And it's particularly noteworthy that the Cons' rejection of an enforceable mercury treaty arises on an issue where - unlike on global warming - the Cons don't figure to have much of a base motivated by a desire to deny the problem.

Which signals that the Cons' already-ineffective mask on environmental issues is in severe danger of slipping off entirely. And it will only serve the Cons right if their willingness to side with the U.S. against the health of Canadian citizens proves toxic to their hopes for another term in office.