so much flies under the radar these days.

What if the Harper government's approach to the environment -- rolling back previous safeguards, endlessly delaying regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, failing even to make serious efforts at conservation -- doesn't simply reflect indifference, neglect, or a single-minded attempt to shelter the lucrative and polluting tarsands?

What if the real, unstated, goal is to withdraw the federal government from environmental regulation altogether and hand full responsibility to the provinces? Green Party leader Elizabeth May, who has followed federal environmental policy for decades and over the course of several governments, is convinced that is the prime minister's end game.

While the Constitution treats the environment as a shared responsibility, Conservatives want to rewrite the rules "so the federal government doesn't have a role at all," she says. That fits with Harper's "libertarian" notion that government is largely an impediment to peoples' lives, outside of providing a few basic services.

For evidence, she cites the recent budget, which announced that environmental reviews of major energy projects would now be undertaken by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission --both regarded as pro-industry -- rather than the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, established in 1994.

This bombshell, mostly overlooked in an otherwise uneventful budget, was followed by a low-key announcement that the environment minister will now have wide-ranging powers to limit environmental assessments of contentious projects to specific elements -- a road into the site, for instance, or a nearby waterway.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice insists his government remains committed to oversight and his goal is only to reduce needless delay and duplication.

May says this is a canard -- that federal and provincial governments often run joint, rather than competing, reviews; that each level of government has different, if related, green mandates; and, that, without federal participation, there will be less scrutiny overall.

Quebec's best-known environmentalist, Steven Guilbeault of Equiterre, agrees both levels of government have "complementary" interests that rarely overlap. "Are you going to suggest that Ottawa shouldn't have a health ministry, because Quebec does?" he asks.

This latest tinkering follows another under-the-radar move in a previous budget that ended up "gutting," in May's words, the federal navigable waters protection act by redefining what is "navigable" and, therefore, entitled to protection.

These measures -- together with the fact that billions in federal stimulus spending was dispensed without a thought to environmental gains -- suggests to May a retreat in the face of inexorable pressure from industry for less "red tape," and a reflection of Harper's attitude that green regulation is a job-killing nuisance.

"If this government's policy goals were ever stated clearly, Canadians would be up in arms," says May. "So they talk about 'realistic' targets, and 'duplication.' They are very careful to disguise the most anti-environmental agenda of any government ever."

Besides being an environmental lawyer and long-time activist, May, of course, is Harper's political rival. But she isn't the only one struck by the disconnect between the government's more conciliatory tone since Prentice became minister and its retrograde, or contradictory, actions.

Four months ago, for instance, Prentice designated Nunavut's Lancaster Sound, a playground for whales and polar bears, as a potential national marine park. This week, the Citizen reported another arm of government, the Geological Survey of Canada, will be surveying the seabed this summer for oil and gas deposits.

Then there was the recent retreat on climate change, promoted as an advance. After an under-whelming performance at Copenhagen in December, the Conservatives committed to reducing emissions by 17 per cent under 2005 levels to match U.S. targets -- not acknowledging that this was a climb-down from the 20-per-cent reduction from 2006 levels they originally promised.

In any event, targets hardly matter since this government, like its Liberal predecessors, has yet to produce long-promised regulations restricting carbon emissions, industry by industry. They haven't even done the easier things, such as regulating water use by the tarsands or protecting caribou and other habitat around Fort McMurray.

Instead, they've ended a popular home retrofit program, cut funding for climate science, championed the seal hunt, allowed the continued export of asbestos, insisted on our right to harvest endangered fish species and, essentially, turned us into an international disgrace.

Last week, the government did embrace tougher North American tailpipe standards for cars and light trucks starting in 2011. But this advance was driven by the Obama administration and resisted, for years, by both Liberal and Conservative governments.

Harper has promised to move in lockstep with our biggest trading partner on environmental regulation -- a timid approach, perhaps, but the only hope for Canadians looking for a green future.

In fact, with the provinces taking over domestic policy and the U.S. determining our international standards, he can wash his hands of the environment entirely. And is.