On immediate impacts

There's plenty of speculation flying around as to the possible impact of Gary Doer's appointment as U.S. ambassador. But surprisingly, none of it seems to focus on the area which holds the most potential for Doer to either achieve something of importance despite the weaknesses of the government which appointed him, or permanently tarnish his image.

At the moment, much of Doer's reputation - both in terms of his policies as premier, and his connections built within the U.S. - is based on his having been one of the driving forces for progress in fighting climate change. And in particular, his work with the Western Climate Initiative has helped to set up the most promising means of getting around what was then complete recalcitrance at the federal level on both sides of the border.

Now, the playing field has changed: the U.S. administration looks to be trying to take a lead role on the issue, leaving Stephen Harper's government as the most determined to halt any international progress. And with the Copenhagen conference set to take place this fall, Doer's first couple of months on the job would seem to have potential to either create a path toward a deal, or undermine any hope of getting one signed.

How might Doer make a difference for the better? We know all too well that Harper is seldom one to listen to anybody who might challenge his orders. But there will be an obvious need for Doer to be in regular contact with Harper and his office in managing Canada's most important international relationship.

Which should create a significant opportunity: to the extent both the Obama administration and Doer himself see action on climate change as an integral part of the economic relationship between the two countries and make that message clear to Harper, it'll be awfully difficult for the Cons to justify their usual vocal opposition to a global deal which has U.S. backing. So Doer's appointment could lead to a joint effort by Canada and the U.S. to push toward agreement in Copenhagen rather than being the two main holdouts against international consensus.

In the long run, that would seem to make for the best outcome for everybody involved. And even Harper would seem to stand to benefit from being seen as willing to work toward international solutions rather than being just as petulant in the world as he is at home.

But then it's equally possible that Harper doesn't have any intention of moving from his usual position. In that case, Harper might well be hoping that Doer's previous credibility on the issue will reduce the U.S.' inclination to criticize Canada's position, and make him at least marginally more persuasive in spouting the same old lines about how we'll never agree to cut emissions until the developing world agrees not to develop.

Of course, few outside the tar sands (and their analogues around the world) figure to be particularly eager to see Canada successfully stand in the way of global agreement based on Doer's current profile. But Doer himself might well be the biggest loser if that's indeed Harper's strategy.

The initial surprise of having him suddenly lined up against any international agreement might well play a role in shaping the relative positions of Canada and the U.S. this fall, giving him at least some claim to have influenced global events (if contrary to the principles he's espoused during his public life so far). But the result once that initial impact wore off would be to undermine his own credibility on the issue - and the few friends he'd make in Harper's camp for sacrificing his good name to the interests of the oil companies would seem to be far outweighed by the current goodwill that he'd lose.

For now, we don't have much way of knowing exactly how much autonomy Doer will have as ambassador, and how much (if it all) Harper is willing to listen to him on climate change or on any other issue. But with Copenhagen just a few short months away, we may find out in a hurry whether any good will come of Doer's appointment, or whether Harper is simply looking for somebody else whose reputation can be thrown under the bus to further the Cons' agenda.