On incomplete reporting

Yes, it's a problem if the Cons are giving different answers about climate-change policy to different audiences. But I'm not sure how the difference between federal action making next to no difference and its making even less than that makes for a more significant story than the prospect that each set of numbers from the Cons excludes up to half of the emissions actually produced by the tar sands:

The department said its estimates on overall emissions from the oilsands were preliminary and subject to change based on ongoing work to assess and calculate the industry's carbon footprint.

An independent report released Wednesday by British Columbia researcher Michelle Mech also listed numerous sources of emissions in oilsands production that were not included in previous calculations and could double the estimate of its annual carbon footprint.

Of course, there's somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem as long as the Harper Cons remain in power. After all, one can argue that it doesn't much matter what our future emissions path actually looks like as long as we're stuck with a government determined to do nothing to improve it, and willing to mislead Canadians in the process.

But from the standpoint of whether it's possible to trust the Cons' word on climate change, Mech's observations look at least as important as the differing federal reports. And based on the greater emission impacts involved, they're far more important in trying to develop a meaningful plan for a future Canadian government.

(For those interested, Mech's report (PDF) is well worth a read in summarizing numerous issues surrounding the development of the oil sands. And kudos to Mech for an important contribution to help shape the discussion about the oil sands over the next few years.)