With this election, environmental politics have grown from infancy, when they weremostly ignored by political caretakers (think Kyoto under Paul Martin), into asomewhat troubled and as yet politically unruly childhood.

Itâe(TM)s an impressionable phase. No matter how much or how little climate measures areseen as a key issue, October 14 will shape the mainstreaming of climate politics foryears to come.

There are big reasons why we wonâe(TM)t forget this historic time. At this writing, theelection down south has gone into hyperspace because nobody has a script for whathappens when democracy meets Wall Street and doesnâe(TM)t budge.

But whether we take it on or let it pass us by, rest assured that the carbon taxwill be the forget-me-not of our own remarkable election. But that doesnâe(TM)t make itinteresting.

This was supposed to be the election on the environment, but it has barely made itto the adult table for some obvious reasons and for some that are disturbinglyunderground.

A laurel goes to Stéphane Dion, who bravely thrust himself into the avant-garde ofclimate awareness with his courageous and complex Green Shift/carbon tax proposalthat has garnered a B+ on the exacting Sierra Club election platform rating system.

Dionâe(TM)s weakness as a communicator combined with his strength as a policy wonk is themost obvious reason itâe(TM)s all gone so poorly. However, the whole issue has a language problem that goes beyond Dionâe(TM)s. Thereâe(TM)s anew carbon vocabulary that we have yet to learn. Ask any kid, the basics are thehardest part.

This election is a tale of two plans that nobody understands. Sure, we all know theNDP says cap and trade. The Liberals and the Greens say carbon tax, then later capand trade. Who doesnâe(TM)t glaze over at that stuff

But buried within this policy contest are important issues that could have asurprisingly long-term impact on both climate change and the partiesâe(TM) long-termpolitical fortunes.

Last Thursday, Jack Layton, sensing that he could move in for a political kill inBC, decided to join his provincial NDP counterparts in denouncing the Liberal carbontax as a measure thatâe(TM)s âeoeunfair for ordinary working families.âe

âeoeWeâe(TM)ve got a better climate change plan,âe said the New Democrat leader, pointing outthat his partyâe(TM)s plan âeoetargets the big pollutersâe and âeoecreates incentives toradically reduce carbon production.âe

Layton said that Liberal leader Dion âeoewants to triple BC Premier Gordon Campbellâe(TM)scarbon tax. As prime minister, Iâe(TM)ll make sure a federal carbon tax never sees thelight of day.âe

This is Layton using our lack of experience to score points that donâe(TM)t hold true.Yes, cap and trade does target big polluters âe” there are 100 or so that areresponsible for about 50 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. But the real world ismore complicated than Layton is admitting.

Charging emitters doesnâe(TM)t mean that extra costs donâe(TM)t get passed along to consumers.And in a far less regulated way than does the carbon tax. Plus cap and traderequires a lengthy and convoluted process that will take years to get up andrunning.

BC is already part of the Western Climate Initiative (see box), which is working ongetting a cap and trade system started. The plan is to begin in 2012, with athree-year compliance period before it fully comes into effect. Thatâe(TM)s at least sixyears away. A tax can happen next month.

The same week as Laytonâe(TM)s statement came out, some newly-agreed- upon rules weremade public. Only the business press reports on this stuff, so Layton didnâe(TM)t have toanswer to stories like the one in the Globe that starts off with âeoeThe smokestackindustries in British Columbia have just caught a big break âe” one that could turngreenhouse gas emissions from a regulatory headache into a money maker.âe The reason for the boon is that in the BC Liberalsâe(TM) plan, as of 2012, heavy industrysubject to cap and trade would not have to pay the carbon tax âe” offering them apossible cap-and-trade savings of up to 96 per cent on their carbon tax payment. Worse still, if Layton and his provincial party have their way, the carbon tax willbe long gone by 2012. How will that help address the climate crisis?

Probe any of the countryâe(TM)s committed environmental groups active in the non-profitworld and youâe(TM)ll find another unsettling reason why it all still seems so hard tounderstand.

We get a steady diet of spin from party leaders trying to score electoral points,while in large part, our most informed citizens who work professionally in thepro-environment world and could be our bullshit detectors are barred from expressingthemselves for fear of losing their charitable status.

Almost all our enviro non-profits rely on tax-receiptable fundraising, and underRevenue Canada rules they canâe(TM)t publicly be seen to advocate directly or indirectlyfor or against any political party.

Off the record, they report that the Tories are watching closely and that theypunitively send in the auditors whenever the groups are critical of Conservativepolicy or actions.

The result is that during this election, many of the best minds in the country areeffectively muzzled.

Iâe(TM)m on the phone with Keith Stewart of the World Wildlife Foundation, whoâe(TM)s tryingto answer my questions about the carbon tax, when I have an âeoeam I living in China?âe moment.

âeoeLetâe(TM)s see,âe he says, as he struggles to find a way to say what heâe(TM)s thinking. âeoeIhave to be careful not to say anything that could be deemed to be directly orindirectly in support or against any political party.âe

Iâe(TM)m not surprised in the least. This is repeated over and over during the researchfor this story. This little secret arm of repression is a big reason why theenvironment hasnâe(TM)t been more of an issue in this election. Imagine a panel of savvygreen commentators on the CBC chewing on the party leadersâe(TM) performance on climatechange. Not going to happen.

This explains why we donâe(TM)t know more about how cap and trade has worked in Europe orwhy the carbon tax has been so successful in Sweden.

But we do have two environmental organizations, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, thatdonâe(TM)t rely on tax-deductible donations, which is why theyâe(TM)re the only groups to havestepped into the election fray. On Tuesday, September 30, they issued a jointrelease.

âeoeIf you care for the environment and want action on global warming, donâe(TM)t voteConservative,âe said Bruce Cox, exec director of Greenpeace Canada, at a newsconference on Parliament Hill.

That afforded me the chance to talk to the orgâe(TM)s climate and energy coordinator,Dave Martin, about the carbon tax debate. Martin doesnâe(TM)t think Dionâe(TM)s plan is thebe-all and end-all, by any means. âeoeThe Liberal proposal needs more programs thatsupport renewable energy and efficiency,âe he says.

But he thinks itâe(TM)s âeoea strategic mistake on Jack Laytonâe(TM)s part to oppose the carbontax.

âeoeHe should have adopted the point of view of the environmental community âe” that theplan doesnâe(TM)t go far enough, fast enough. He has ceded the environmental turf to theLiberal party. If I was active in the NDP, I would be angry,âe he says.

We may be approaching a turning point in this election.

The only aspect of climate policy thatâe(TM)s got any attention until now is how wellthese policies sell to voters âe” not whether theyâe(TM)re needed (they are) or whetherthey work (depends on how theyâe(TM)re implemented) âe” especially the carbon tax, whichhas spent the first half of the election almost in hiding, like itâe(TM)s embarrassed tobe seen.

If the Tories and the NDP had had their way and kept Elizabeth May out of the debate, itâe(TM)s a sure bet that the issue wouldnâe(TM)t have surfaced in this last leg of the campaign either. But she is the one leader who knows how to breathe life into this issue.Watch for how she positions income tax relief paid for by the carbon tax, instead ofthe other way around.

Of course, no matter what happens with the election, energy prices will continuetheir rise through the roof. Soon we will become so familiar with the language ofcarbon, we wonâe(TM)t even remember not knowing this stuff. Think how baffling the termâeoesub-prime mortgage crisisâe was just a few months back. The credit crisis has taughtus quickly.

And whatever their differences, we are fortunate that we do have four parties thatacknowledge the climate crisis and are set to do something about it. Itâe(TM)sdisappointing that a left-wing party like the NDP has decided to play into theanti-tax prejudice thatâe(TM)s become neo-conservatismâe(TM)s favourite child. But the party still does put forward many platforms worthy of its history. Itcertainly doesnâe(TM)t deserve a place as the overarching pinnacle of all our hopes anddreams, however. Nor do any of the others.

Thing is, we donâe(TM)t need strong leaders so much as we need strong policies. Thiselection, the only way to go is like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace say. Vote tobeat the Tories. Check out VoteforEnvironment.ca to find out how in your riding.