On destructive engagement

Impolitical is rightly skeptical about the Cons' attempt to pretend they're not the leading obstacle to a global climate agreement at Copenhagen. But let's remember that it's hardly new for the Cons to pretend to care about reaching an agreement while doing everything in their power to sabotage any effort to develop one.

Here's what the Cons said publicly all the way back in 2007:

Environment Minister John Baird says Canada will head to a UN climate change conference in Bali with a "solid" plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions and will push for a "constructive" agreement with other countries to encourage global reductions.
...
Shortly before leaving for Bali, Baird told CBC News on Sunday that "we'll be arriving at this conference with a solid … plan to cut emissions here in Canada by 20 per cent by 2020 … and we want to work to get a constructive agreement, and such an agreement has to have countries, like the United States, China and India — all the big emitters — in order to be successful in this battle against climate change."

Yet here's what the Cons were found to be doing in the time since they shed crocodile tears over the lack of results in Bali:

The Harper government recognized last year that its plan to tackle greenhouse gas emissions was extremely weak compared to other developed countries. As such, government documents show it devised a strategy that included trying to split European Union members and tying assistance to developing countries to binding emission reduction targets as part of a bid to influence international talks.
...
The Harper government's approach to international climate change negotiations has long revolved around two important positions.

The first is that any new framework and commitments post-2012 must include major emitters, especially emerging economies like India, China and Brazil. The government states that any agreement will be ineffective without major emitters, while there are concerns over the competitive advantage emerging economies will have if they don't need to reduce emissions.

Secondly, the EU and other developed countries have agreed to reduce emissions by 25-40 per cent from 1990 levels. In contrast, Canada has made much lower commitments, which the documents admit will have ramifications going forward.

"Canada's negotiating challenge is compounded by the fact that our domestic goal for 2020 is a reduction of 20 per cent from 2006 levels (this is equivalent to roughly two per cent below the 1990 levels)," read several documents.

They also include talking points for Canadian officials warning their counterparts not to expect too much in negotiations for a post-Kyoto framework by the end of 2009.
...
Those were not the only messages prepared for Canadian officials and intended for officials from specific European countries. In fact, a great deal of the briefing notes dealt with trying to identify allies within the European Union who would press the bloc to require developing countries like India, Brazil and China commit to greenhouse gas emission targets along with developed countries.

Needless to say, nothing the Cons have done since then suggests that they've shifted from their long-held position of pairing a public facade of caring about climate change with desperate behind-the-scenes efforts to block any agreement. And if the Cons and their allies once again manage to put roadblocks in front of the global effort to reach a deal, then Harper should be at the top of the list when it comes time to dole out the blame.