Stéphane Dion - The environmental candidate

I'll admit it. I am not a traditional "environmentalist". I have never been a person who is moved by environmental arguments. Instead, I trust the scientists over the social activists and don't understand why people should care about GM foods, for example. As long as scientists say that something is environmentally acceptable, I will generally take their word for it.

As a result, I cannot help feeling like a bit of an imposter in my support for Stéphane Dion. As readers might have noticed, I have avoided getting into the specifics of the environmental policies of the leadership candidates. Ignatieff's people bug me about this because they are convinced that they have the real environmental candidate. They want me to read through their proposals and compare them to Dion's. Let's be very, very clear - that will never happen.

And yet I am drawn to Dion's environmental message. How can this be? What does it mean? Frankly, I think that I am probably closer to the average Canadian on this issue than the standard environmental policy wonk. I know that the environment is an important issue and I want the government to do something about it. At the same time, I find the specifics too boring to take an active interest. Prove to me that you actually intend to do something to help the world and I will trust you as long as you do not give me a reason to distrust you.

Dion's message is very simple. In the 20th Century, Liberalism was about providing economic success and social justice. In the 21st Century, we must add a "third pillar" of environmental sustainability. These three pillars - economic success, social justice and environmental sustainability - must be melded into coherent policies that work together to create a more just society. The theory is so simple and obvious and it is difficult to not be convinced.

In contrast, we have Michael Ignatieff with strong environmental policies but no overarching message. While many of his promises are to "Establish...targets and timelines" and "Develop a plan", he also has some specific proposals that have won over some environmentalists. What Ignatieff is missing is the communications framework. While he might have great policies, Ignatieff seems to be treating the environment as one of many issues. He is not treating it as the overarching, all encompassing problem that it is.

Of course, both of these men are kilometres ahead of Stephen Harper. Yesterday, he announced his environmental non-plan to a disappointed press gallery. Even John Ibbitson - the man who wrote the real policy framework for a conservative Canada - says "Harper's Clean-air pledge is just political smog". While past Liberal governments might not have lived up to their environmental commitments, at least they made commitments and tried to reach them. Harper's answer to the environment is to do nothing at all. Brian Mulroney must be rolling over in his political grave.

I am not a crazy environmentalist. I am a right-leaning, progressive Canadian. I care about the environment and want the government to do something about it, but I simply do not have the time or knowledge to figure out what needs to be done. Stephen Harper's proposals disappoint me because I fear that he will lead us off the cliff. I believe that Ignatieff's proposals are good, but he has not convinced me that he takes the issue seriously enough. Stéphane Dion makes me believe that he will do something to clean up our planet. He has even made me believe that this is the issue on which the Liberal Party must live or die. That is why he is the environmental candidate for the non-environmentalist.