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.

Had Canada tried to meet Kyoto, it would have had to cut emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012 -- something made more difficult by almost constant emissions growth since 1990.

Most critics suggested the Tories issued a target of 20 per cent by 2020 because it sounded the same as Europe's 20 per cent by 2020 target -- albiet one set with 1990 as the baseline year.

While rightly criticizing the Conservatives' cynical sleight-of-hand on this issue, and noting the growing urgency of the climate crisis, the Globe doesn't exactly come out with a bold prescription for what should be done.

Come on, guys. You have the luxury of thinking deep thoughts and taking strong positions. You can do better.