The removal of Stephen Harper as Canada’s Prime Minister in favour of Justin Trudeau has been claimed by green evangelists as an emphatic repudiation of Harper’s ‘inaction’ on climate change.

Wrapped in youthful idealism and a seasoned practitioner of soaring rhetoric, Trudeau is by appearances the antithesis of his sometimes dour, often dreary predecessor. And nowhere is this contrast more pointed than on the question of climate change.

Harper’s steadfast refusal to heed the calls from at home and abroad to plunge Canada headstrong into an economy-crippling emissions trading scheme had long made him a pariah among the climate change lobby’s true believers. Derided by the United Nations as a ‘climate laggard’ and chastised by Kofi Annan for ‘playing poker with the planet and future generations’ lives,’ Canada – along with Australia – came to be depicted as the lepers of the developed world at multi-lateral climate love-ins.

Enter Justin Trudeau – a man who assumes the Prime Ministership brimming with green-eyed enthusiasm. Trudeau has been received by the media as a climate saviour of sorts; an apostle sent from above to absolve Canada after nine years of conservative environmental apostasy.

Pledging a ‘pan-Canadian’ approach to tackling the world’s purportedly impending climate crisis, Trudeau wants emissions cut by 30 per cent by 2030. Better yet, he is prepared to tax electricity while spending upwards of $60 billion to get there.

However, despite being maligned by the media as a climate criminal, the truth is that Harper was no laggard. Rather, he approached climate change the way any true conservative approaches a major problem; with caution and a healthy dose of scepticism.

No idealist, Harper recognised that diving head first into costly emissions abatement schemes before the rest of the world would be little more than an exercise in moral vanity. Like Australia, Canada contributes a miniscule slice of the world’s total carbon emissions. And like Australia, energy is a significant part of Canada’s economy. Jumping ahead of the pack and implementing a full blown emissions trading scheme back in 2008 might have been a morally satisfying thing to do at the time. But with the benefit of seven years hindsight, we know that emissions trading schemes have far from become the standard fare for first world economies, much less developing nations whose emissions will continue to grow for years.

As a Conservative, Harper was doubtless very much alive to these grim realities. And like any Conservative Prime Minister deserving of that moniker, Harper was not prepared to foist the moral burden of global climate change onto ordinary Canadians by hitting the hip pockets of households and crippling the country’s energy industry.

No, Harper had the good sense to realise that contrary to the prophecies of climate doomsayers, he wasn’t standing at some critical juncture with the choice being between a wind powered nirvana and coal-fired purgatory. Rather, the outlook on global action was fluid in 2008 and remains that way today. So in these difficult circumstances, what did the Harper Government actually do about greenhouse gases?

He introduced a number of modest yet effective measures that saw Canada’s overall emissions fall over the course of his term; a first in the nation’s history. Harper’s Clean Air Act required the country’s 700 biggest emitters to cut their emissions over several years and introduced energy efficiency targets for cars and household appliances. He also made wise investments in renewable technologies and incentivised businesses to reduce their power usage.

Harper’s approach carved out a pragmatic niche between the extremes of bald-faced denial and alarmism. His measures acknowledged that reducing emissions was at some level desirable and necessary. But he didn’t pretend that Canada sacrificing its energy sector on the altar of climate martyrdom would have any affect on the temperature of the planet whatsoever.

In Harper’s view, we live in an imperfect world in which climate change is but one problem.

He has no time for the fantasy that by going it alone in taking radical action, Canada will somehow inspire the Chinese and Indians to raincheck bringing the next 100 million of their populations out of poverty until they can afford to do so with windmills and solar panels. As both a middle power and middle polluter, Harper was conscious of the fact that Canada was poorly placed to seize the mantle of global climate leadership.

The fact that Harper called out ad-hoc emissions trading schemes for what they are – futile – is probably why the climate lobby loathed the former Prime Minister so deeply. These are, after all, the same people who think continued existence of life on earth hinges on whether the world embraces an internationally binding carbon tax before the opening ceremony of next year’s Olympic Games.

With the recent passing of the fictional date that Marty McFly was flung 31 years forward in time in Back to the Future II, it is worth contemplating what someone from a bygone era would make of today’s climate debate. Would they too admonish Stephen Harper for being a feckless luddite for urging caution at a time where the course of world climate action remains decidedly irresolute? Would they join with the applause for Justin Trudeau’s promise of more expensive electricity and less mining all in the name of Canada doing it’s fair – albeit tokenistic – share?

With the Paris Climate Change Conference now only a couple of weeks away, it is possible that the world will bind together and bring the doomsayers some early Christmas cheer. But for those a little less evangelical about the forthcoming climate apocalypse, Stephen Harper’s approach to climate change will be remembered as the model exemplar of considered caution in the face of rank hysteria.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in