While the Globe and Mail took Canada's Conservative government to task for a weak GHG emissions goal for 2020, Australia's just-announced goal is only marginally better.

Incidentally, both Australia and Canada are in the top five of the world's per-capita emitters of GHGs.

From the BBC:

Barack Obama has named physics Nobel Prize winner Steven Chu as his energy secretary and tasked him with finding alternatives to fossil fuels.

The US president-elect said the new administration's priorities were to end US dependence on foreign oil and fight climate change.

Naming his environment team, he said US energy dependence had grown even as global resources were disappearing.

During last week's U.S. Senate showdown over auto sector aid, some southern U.S. Republicans blocked the package, ostensibly on the grounds that the unions hadn't given up enough. Salon explores why.

The Globe and Mail wrote the following in an editorial:

When Jim Prentice took over the environment brief six weeks ago, he emphasized the need to balance environmental action with economic realities. But there appears to be little balance in the government's approach. When Mr. Prentice asserts that Canada will reduce its carbon emissions by 20 per cent as of 2020, he means from 2006 emissions levels, not the 1990 levels, as would be the base line if the Kyoto Protocol were to be the goal.

Canada is committing itself to a three-per-cent reduction in emissions by 2020. ...

I could have sworn the Globe was opposed to any attempt to meet Kyoto on the grounds it would hurt the economy, although the above only notes the weakness of the Tory target -- without suggesting anything tougher, let alone trying to meet Kyoto.