Canadians could be forgiven for growing discouraged at the lack of progress in curbing greenhouse-gas emissions, despite dire warnings of disaster.
sa国际传媒 signed the Kyoto Accord in 1997, committing to a six per cent reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2012. Instead, emissions increased.
In 2007, then-premier Gordon Campbell described the battle to cut greenhouse-gas emissions as more critical even than the two world wars. The sa国际传媒 Liberal government pledged to cut emissions by at least 33 per cent from 1997 levels by 2020, 80 per cent by 2050.
The 2016 interim target was an 18 per cent reduction. The government managed eight per cent.
It seems, sometimes, that real reductions based on clear targets and a plan are impossible.
Except Scotland did it. The country set aggressive goals for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, and surpassed them. In 2009, the government set out to cut emissions by 42 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050.
But when the numbers were counted for 2014, Scotland had already beaten the 2020 target 鈥� emissions were down 45.8 per cent. The goal of 80 per cent seems well within reach.
So why did Scotland succeed where sa国际传媒 and British Columbia failed?
The government targeted areas where big gains were possible, such as waste disposal and the use and source of electricity. (And it had good fortune in the form of several warmer winters that cut heating use.)
And the initial success encouraged greater ambition. In January, the government announced a new target of a 66 per cent reduction by 2032. It released a detailed action plan at the same time.
We are not holding Scotland out as a paragon; its economy has struggled in the past few years, though more because of falling oil prices than its climate-change plan. And the country鈥檚 current debate on allowing fracking for shale oil, gas and methane has big implications for its future climate plans.
But it should still be greatly heartening to see that the Scottish government decided on a priority, set ambitious targets and followed a long-term plan, with regular independent progress reports to the public.
You don鈥檛 even have to consider climate change a priority to applaud the demonstration of competence and commitment. The goal could just as easily have been job growth or better educational outcomes or reduced child poverty.
Scotland鈥檚 success is a reminder of the obvious importance of a broad, cross-sector plan, clear goals and targets in achieving big change.
It鈥檚 also a reminder, as we head into a provincial election campaign, that government can be highly effective and even, like Scotland, achieve what seemed impossible.
As voters, we should focus less on small policy differences and negative campaigning, and more on parties鈥� big goals for the future and the credibility of their plans.
That is the path to meaningful change for all British Columbians.
