Diverging interests

I agree entirely with Greg 's analysis that (barring an opposition deal on an environmental bill) a spring election is inevitable if the Cons insist on pushing "intensity" targets rather than real ones based on an understanding with Alberta's government. But as the CP notes, a confrontation between Ottawa and Edmonton may be inevitable on the question of whether the federal government has any role to play in environmental regulation:

Climate change could lead to constitutional turbulence in Canada, as the federal and Alberta governments push rival plans to limit greenhouse emissions.

Each jurisdiction has promised to regulate emissions from big industry using so-called intensity targets, but there’s no guarantee the targets will agree...

So which regime would prevail in case of a conflict?

“We’ll cross that bridge if we get to it,” said Olsen. But he noted that Alberta owns its natural resources, and will emphasize that point.

Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner struck a conciliatory tone when visiting Ottawa this week, but said he expected the federal government to harmonize its targets with Alberta.

Marlo Raynolds, executive director of the Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development, said Alberta’s rush to pass legislation may reflect stepped-up concern about the environment in Ottawa.

“It’s very curious that Alberta has jumped on this so quickly. In premier Stelmach’s leadership campaign you couldn’t find the word climate change or greenhouse emissions.

“I have a hunch that industry started getting nervous about what the federal government might do.”

As pointed out by Raynolds later on in the article, the danger is that Harper might agree to follow Alberta's targets to avoid a fight back in his home province. But it seems to me that the potential battle is instead more likely to lead to a split between Harper and Stelmach - which may actually bode well for the prospect of the federal Cons agreeing to a more effective scheme.

Starting off with Stelmach's standpoint, it's easy to see a political advantage for himself in picking a constitutional fight over jurisdiction to regulate emissions - how better to start his own tenure in Alberta than with a loud declaration of "get your filthy hands off my oil!"? And that in turn might provide him with some incentive to set articifially lax provincial standards, secure in the knowledge that he'll either be seen as having dictated terms to the PM, or win the chance to follow the time-tested Ottawa-bashing strategy.

So how would Harper respond to such a move? It's hard to see how going along with weak targets would play out as anything but a political disaster for Harper across the country: it would guarantee that no other party would be willing to sign onto the Cons' environmental plan, and open up plenty of opportunity for the Libs to win back seats in Ontario and Quebec by painting Harper as taking his marching orders from the oil patch.

But once Harper was already on the opposite side from Stelmach on any issue - whether the level of any intensity target or the federal government's very authority to set its own targets - there would be no benefit to him in taking common cause swith Stelmach solely over the question of whether to use intensity targets. And that's particularly clear given that (almost) every pressure on the federal scene is in the opposite direction.

So while there's some danger in the potential for cooperation between the federal Cons and their Alberta counterparts, it seems at least as likely that this will be the issue which drives a wedge between those groups. And if so, then Harper won't have any reason (other than his own stubbornness) not to work toward a plan that other federal parties can support.