Conservative government opposes their own plan

The conservatives have pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, though they didn't specify how. TD bank produced a report to figure that out, and how much it would cost.

The conservatives responded by calling the report irresponsible. "We oppose our plan, it is a very bad plan," said Mr. Prentice. "Anyone who proposes a plan such as ours is a fool, and it surely won't work. It's too expensive! And we certainly oppose any mechanisms which would make our plan work".*

The Globe and Mail's editorial board doesn't like the plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, they fear it might force us to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Eventually, we will have to move to no use of oil and gas, effectively killing the industry. This will prevent the world from being plunged into chaos, probably a worthy goal.

That the fossil fuel industry must eventually die if we stop using fossil fuels shouldn't be controversial, but the Globe fears that the plan to mitigate climate change could "euthanize a vital Canadian industry".*

They propose, if it's too difficult to stop emitting greenhouse gases, then we simply aim for a smaller target than the one in the government plan which the government opposes.

I'm sure they can get the laws of physics to agree with them and get the earth to slow down it's warming to match the reduced Canadian target.

There is a valid concern buried underneath all of this, which is that people like money, and will protest if you stop then from earning money. Alberta and Saskatchewan currently earn lots of money by supplying people with fuel, which those people use to destabilize the climate. This needs to be stopped. Stopping people from destroying the planet means less money for Alberta, so of course they're going to be pissy about it.

So we need to balance this national unity concern with our other goal of not destroying the world, or, alternatively, destroying it less. The globe and mail shows little awareness of this in its discussion of the issue however. They seem to suggest it might be good to lower greenhouse emissions, but not if it upsets anyone, and they don't really seem to grasp why it might be important.

* This is technically a paraphrase.

* An actual quote