Catherine McKenna is a very busy environment minister. She meets with representatives of the EU and China this week and her department is setting up a website to teach children about climate change. She came out swinging against her critics over the decision to put climate change on the table in the NAFTA negotiations and is setting up a panel of high profile politicians and CEOs to advise the NAFTA talks on environmental issues.

Great stuff. Very entertaining. What she isn’t doing is admitting that we are not going to get anywhere near our 2030 goal of a 30 per cent reduction from our 2005 emissions. If she really believed that commitment was important at all, her first priority would have been to draft a roadmap to get us there, instead of pouring her energies into PR fluff.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr have been doing what they can to promote the fossil fuel industry through pipeline development and recent tweaks to offshore drilling regulations after consultations with industry types. They’re talking about pipelines that depend on 20-year commitments and growth in world demand for oil that nobody outside of government circles actually thinks is going to happen in the foreseeable future, if at all.

The case for new pipelines is running miles ahead of reality. The International Energy Agency came up with a scenario involving a 2.7 degree C temperature increase (which is almost twice as high as the aspirational scenario McKenna was instrumental in establishing in Paris) that foresees significant growth in the oilsands sector in the 2030s due to rising demand from China and India. If that scenario turns out to be correct, Canada would need new pipeline capacity — but not for over a decade. The current push for pipeline expansion is being driven by political needs, not the economy.

And the IEA itself admits that the 2.7 degree scenario actually would be a disaster for the planet; its other scenarios require high carbon taxes to shift the world onto a low carbon path. In its 2 degree scenario — the one that lines up with Paris — there is no oilsands growth forecasted.

While Trudeau talks, other countries act. China and India were once considered laggards on the climate file; they’re now tracking well ahead of their emissions reduction commitments. While Trudeau talks, other countries act. China and India were once considered laggards on the climate file; they’re now tracking well ahead of their emissions reduction commitments.

This is the essential contradiction at the heart of the Trudeau government’s approach to climate change: It claims it is firmly committed to action, even to the point of pushing for its inclusion in NAFTA, while simultaneously promoting a fossil fuel sector that has no future if the world actually follows through on the Paris accord.

So let’s ignore what McKenna and Trudeau say, and focus instead on what they do. Between 2005 and 2010, Canada’s emissions dropped 5 per cent. Then, between 2010 and 2015, emissions increased 3 per cent. That increase happened even as Ontario was weaning itself off coal — a major shift but, compared to the scope of the problem, low-hanging fruit. We’re spinning our wheels.

And while Trudeau talks, other countries act. China and India were once considered laggards on the climate file; they’re now tracking well ahead of their emissions reduction commitments. The United States has experienced a 9 per cent emissions decrease since 2005. Forget the rhetoric coming out of the White House. The U.S. isn’t the outlier. We are.

‘But,’ I hear you saying, ‘Canada’s putting a price on carbon, right? Isn’t that a game-changer?’ Sorry to disappoint: The B.C. carbon tax you’ve heard so much about has been largely ineffective, showing essentially no emissions reductions in the last three reported years; previous years’ reductions could be attributed in part to the effects of the Great Recession. High taxes, coupled with revenues directed at climate change action, can change consumers’ behaviour and turn around emissions trends. Middle-of-the-road tax hikes with revenue-neutral flows that go mainly to corporations don’t do a thing.

The fight against climate change is leaving Canada behind. China just announced it is setting a timeline for the end of sales of internal combustion vehicles. India has said it wants to establish an all-electric transportation system by 2030 and is developing detailed plans to make it happen.

Norway plans to ban internal combustion vehicles by 2025. Britain and France have flagged 2040 as their target date. The German parliament has suggested 2030 as a target date; meanwhile, Germany’s world-class automotive industry is lining up to produce electrics on a big scale.

Why can’t Canada do the same? When did we convince ourselves that merely talking about climate change action is almost as good as coming up with a plan?

Maybe somebody at this China/EU summit will stand up and say what we all ought to be thinking: “Brave words, Ms. McKenna — but what do you plan to do?” The minister would have no good answer to that question.

It’s really too bad, as it seems like McKenna truly believes in what she is trying to do. If only we could be convinced that Trudeau feels the same way.

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.