The Trudeau government is great with words, not so great with deeds. The prime minister gives a fine speech and his recent address to the United Nations General Assembly was no exception.

But look closer at the words and ask yourself: Is Trudeau really saying what he’s saying? He speaks the words well. But do they mean anything?

”There is no country on the planet that can walk away from the challenge and reality of climate change. And for our part, Canada will continue to fight for the global plan that has a realistic chance of countering it,” Trudeau told the UN. “We have a responsibility to future generations and we will uphold it.”

Good words — until you notice what they’re not saying. Nowhere in his speech does Trudeau say Canada will hit its commitments under the Paris climate change accord. He says that Canada will “fight for the global plan.” He can’t say he’ll fight for the Canadian plan since … there isn’t one. Not one that suggests Canada can actually meet its targets, at any rate.

Let’s be clear, here: What Canada promised to do in Paris simply isn’t possible right now, given what the provinces themselves have suggested in their carbon emissions outlooks to 2030. Western Canada plans to remain flat at best. That means Eastern Canada would have to reduce its emissions by 70 per cent by 2030 to meet the Paris target. Not happening.

But we’ll support the rest of you countries as you do what we won’t, Trudeau suggests. Hey, did you see my Star Wars socks? Thunderous applause. Diplomacy is easy.

The Paris promise is broken already. Normally, we’d count on Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to hold the prime minister’s socks to the fire for breaking a commitment, especially an international one. This time, there’s no real point.

The Conservatives’ shadow minister for the environment is Ed Fast, whose main worry is the “massive” carbon tax he sees Trudeau pushing on Canadians. Carbon pricing already covers much of Canada (B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec). At the low level Trudeau has proposed, carbon pricing is likely to have little effect on Canada’s emissions, based on B.C.’s experience with a carbon tax.

Fast knows this. He seems quite content with the Liberals’ decision to stick to Stephen Harper’s 2030 emissions goal, knowing that the Liberals aren’t going to come any closer to meeting that target than Harper would have.

The Conservatives have even generously supplied the Trudeau government with political cover in the form of outgoing MP Gerry Ritz’s boneheaded “climate Barbie” crack. Environment Minister Catherine McKenna jumped on it as a useful distraction and an excuse to avoid critical questions; the Liberal party instantly weaponized it for fundraising. CPC Leader Andrew Scheer kept his distance.

If every car in the country went electric over the next eight years, we would see a reduction in national emissions of about … 5 per cent. Nothing in the policy window right now gets us to 30 per cent — not even close. If every car in the country went electric over the next eight years, we would see a reduction in national emissions of about … 5 per cent. Nothing in the policy window right now gets us to 30 per cent — not even close.

There’s no point in waiting for the Opposition to push the Liberals to come up with a plan to meet a 30 per cent emissions cut target, since such a plan is the last thing they want.

So, what we’re stuck with is a completely meaningless debate. The Liberals embraced the Conservatives’ emissions target with the same lack of sincerity that Harper did. Their only real point of disagreement is over method: The Liberals want to pursue a carbon tax plan that won’t work, while the Conservatives believe a national carbon tax will gut the economy.

We know what would work, of course: a carbon tax set at a level high enough to actually influence consumer behaviour, coupled with federal funding to reduce fossil fuel use. But that’s not what the government is proposing, so the debate is a sterile exercise.

And then there’s the NDP. Shouldn’t New Democrats be ensuring the Trudeau government is living up to the COP21 Paris commitment? Let’s look at what the leadership candidates themselves have to say.

Jagmeet Singh has doubled down on Trudeau’s unrealistic goal by saying he would reach it by 2025. He has some ideas, of course, but they don’t get him around the basic math: Unless he’s prepared to scale back oil and gas production, he can’t get there from here.

Charlie Angus has proposed a national carbon budget. It’s an interesting idea. But given oil and gas right now constitute 25 per cent of the nation’s emissions, he needs to tell us how he would allocate that budget. Alberta generates almost 40 per cent of our emissions and has only about 10 per cent of our population. Given the huge regional disparities in emissions, how does he get around the interprovincial political conflicts?

Niki Ashton is opposed to new pipeline construction. She’s confusing cause and effect: Pipelines are built when market conditions are amenable to them — reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and you don’t need new pipelines. But she also seems to think the solution is going to come not from corporations but from the ‘grassroots’. Certainly, a great many corporations in Canada have interests that run counter to the 30 per cent reduction goal — but you can’t just cut them out of the equation, because ‘grassroots’ action isn’t going to get us anywhere near 30 per cent. That will take a solution involving corporations, governments and ordinary citizens.

Guy Caron has some breakthrough ideas: He’s talking about a serious carbon tax and large investments in electrification. He’s also talking about hitting 30 per cent by 2025 — still unrealistic, but at least he has the start of a plan, which puts him miles ahead of the Trudeau government. His ideas would certainly extend reductions beyond what the Trudeau government has proposed.

Consider: If every car in the country went electric over the next eight years, we would see a reduction in national emissions of about … 5 per cent. The target, again, is a 30 per cent reduction. Nothing in the policy window right now gets us there — not even close.

Trudeau and his ministers need to start telling Canadians the truth: Canada is a fossil fuel producer and his government is not going to act against that interest. Neither would a Conservative or NDP government. So we are not going to hit 30 per cent by 2030, certainly not by 2025. If everything in the current plan (such as it is) goes well, we might cut emissions by 15 per cent by the target date. I don’t care what your politics are. Neither does the math.

And Trudeau’s critics — in the opposition parties and the media — need to start holding him to account, to force him to confront the vast gap between his rhetoric and his actions. We don’t need more stupid insults, or dimwitted articles about the prime minister’s choices in haberdashery. We need answers — more than the UN got, for starters.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.