With the result of the election in Australia, Canada is the only nation in the Commonwealth that is opposed to binding climate change emissions targets. The only one.That's a little embarrassing. Why is it the case?Simple. Most people propose binding targets only for developed nations. Harper suggests that it's not fair. He suggests this for two reasons, both of which are valid.First, he complains that the US is not involved, and that they are a major emitter. This is a valid point. The United States will have to be involved in any global effort to solve climate change for that effort to be successful. That's hard to deny. If we are all to take action in their absence, that action is unlikely to be adequate to solve the problem, and we will suffer the economic detriment while the United States will share in any environmental benefit at no cost. Further, Canada is particularly susceptible to the United States economically if we are participating and they are not, because if production costs go up here do to emissions restrictions, companies, jobs, and economic activity will move to the United States where there are no such (or fewer, or less stringent) restrictions.So playing without the US in the game is likely to be ineffective (a problem that all nations share equally), and will cost us even more than it will cost everybody else (a problem particular to .Harper also complains that not all major emitters are required to take part. Most of the proposals are for all developed countries to have binding targets on their emissions. That's how Kyoto worked. Harper argues, again, that this can't work. We can't combat climate change if there are people who are allowed to emit as much as they want. And again, this has economic consequences. If production costs are cheaper in those developing nations, production will move there, and will move away from countries that are restricted in emissions. Not rubbing right up against any such nation that problem probably doesn't apply to us as much as it would apply to places in Asia, but the point remains.There will be an economic redistribution from developed to developing nations as a result of any such scheme, and the end goal of mitigating against climate change will be impeded.There is no argument in favour of the United States staying out of climate change solutions. That will hopefully change eventually, and the rest of the world can't sit around waiting for them to take the lead, because they are essentially slowly killing the rest of the world.There is an argument for excluding developing nations. It would be unfair, the argument goes, to restrict those nations that have not yet developed from using the same technologies that developed countries used to achieve economic growth. We burned forests, and coal, and we're better off as a result, so it's unfair to exclude them from the same opportunities.That's not a great argument, as far as I'm concerned. First of all, it wouldn't be fair if it was done without compensation. I don't know if compensation is possible, or if its cost would be prohibitive, but the point remains that if you want people to stop doing something that they have the right to do, you give them something for it. Second, I don't know why we so quickly accept that development as it has been understood - the very thing which is now threatening catastrophic changes in climate - is such a worthwhile objective to pursue. It seems terribly short-term thinking.So, Harper has some good points.The problem with Harper's arguments, though, is that we're caught in a prisoner's dillemma. Everyone is in the same situation (with some exceptions). If we all say "It's not in our interests to take part, because the system is flawed," then we're just dooming future generations to living in a world of ever-increasing climate volatility.Honest, thinking Liberals accept that the existing international climate-change regimes are flawed, and say this: "This may not be sufficient, but doing less is not better."Personally, I'm willing to go further. The climate change problem will be solved. Either we will stop screwing with mother nature, or mother nature will prevent us from screwing with her. Both scenarios have dark possibilities. Human beings will fight for the resources they need to survive. If the resource is a livable climate, and that resource is threatened, they may fight. If no one fights for the climate, the climate will reduce and move the livable space on this planet, and human beings will fight for access to that space. Either way, it is very easy for this challenge, if we fail to meet it head-on, to become truly catastrophic.And Canada, for the time being, is opting for "aspirational targets."