Baird's Green scare wears thin

Green scare wears thin

Susan Riley
The Ottawa Citizen
April 20, 2007

We finally got step one of the Conservatives' two-step climate change plan yesterday: Scare the bejeesus out of everyone.

Environment Minister John Baird, sounding like an itinerant salesman peddling an ersatz home-alarm system, warned that meeting Kyoto Protocol targets would cost 275,000 Canadians their jobs by 2009, double electricity bills after 2020, send gasoline prices soaring to $1.60 a litre and double the cost of home heating with natural gas.

Sometime after 2012, the sky is expected to fall.

Baird didn't just pluck these alarming prognostications out of the warming air: His officials worked long and hard to produce a rationale for the Tory approach to climate change, which can most kindly be summarized as "easy does it," and, more accurately described as "deny and delay."

The second shoe -- a Tory plan that would see emissions continue to rise until technological solutions are found -- is expected to drop any day now. Once we are good and scared.

But it is going to take more than Baird's transparently bogus study to fool critics or dull public appetite for urgent action. The document doesn't take into account the significant cost of not acting to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, a price outlined in exhausting detail in a recent report from British economist Nicholas Stern.

Nor does it calculate energy savings in the short term, as our habits change and new products appear. It doesn't consider job growth, or export opportunities, in the burgeoning green sector, either.

Most important, it suggests meeting Kyoto targets means cutting emissions by one-third annually, starting Jan. 1, 2008 -- an overnight shift in consumption that would have a radical impact.

But that isn't how Kyoto is structured. First-phase reductions are averaged over five years, until 2012, and can be carried over to the next phase if unmet.

Meeting the goals will mean sacrifice -- and polls suggest voters expect some costs -- but most experts discount Baird's predictions of recession. As for the independent economists who endorsed the minister's dire findings, some, with reservations, it only proves you can find a consultant who'll say anything.

In fact, Baird and Prime Minister Stephen Harper risk being caught on the wrong side of history, science and, most damaging for them, the wrong side of business.

While the oil patch resists strict regulation, other sectors see profits in a green future. Yet, in the Commons yesterday, Harper took refuge in paleo-politics: The environment versus the economy. "We have no intention of doing anything that is going to destroy Canadian jobs," he declared, echoing George W. Bush.

This also mimics the gloomy and ultimately mistaken projections of corporate and political reactionaries who fought action on acid rain, ozone depletion and fuel-emission standards. All predicted economic calamity; in all cases, affected industries adapted and thrived.

The Conservatives' second, equally tired strategy is to blame the Liberals. We know the Liberals did next to nothing for 13 years. It is entirely plausible, as Baird charged yesterday, that Ralph Goodale and Anne McLellan stridently opposed Kyoto. So what? The Liberals have a new leader and, more important, the issue has new profile. This often leaves Baird and Harper berating an empty room.

Their study, "The Cost of Bill C-288 to Canadian Families and Business," was specifically commissioned to discredit a bill sponsored by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez that would recommit Canada to Kyoto and call on the government to produce a plan.

Significantly, Baird is ignoring a more detailed environmental proposal. The revamped clean air act, recently approved by all three opposition parties, is a sweeping reform that sets out targets and timetables for Kyoto and deals with air pollution, too.

Come to think of it, the Conservatives have had 15 months to produce their own plan, far short of 13 years, but still -- why the delay? Wouldn't Baird's officials be more usefully employed tackling climate change than telling us not to expect much? As for the final plan, if it is as amateurish and slight as this week's study, it doesn't deserve to survive.

The Tory strategy -- frighten and blame -- will only work if people are stupid. That seems to be the approach underlying many Harper strategies.

You want scary? Try drought. Floods. Ice storms. You want economic impact? Try forest fires. Pine beetle infestations.

Voters are not stupid. When Baird insists his party supports Kyoto -- apart from its targets and timetables -- they wonder: What part of the accord, exactly, do you like?

Conservatives' Kyoto analysis based on voodoo economics

OTTAWA - Before the advent of the Model T, New York City was filling up with horses.

An estimated 200,000 clogged the streets during equestrian rush hours and when they died, which was often, they rotted where they dropped.

Alarmed scientists predicted that something had to be done immediately to cope with the surging number of nags, each churning out 24 pounds of crappy fertilizer daily, or city streets would be rendered an impassable manure pile.

Enter the car, and horses as a primary mode of transportation were put out to pasture, leaving the streets to a new environmental problem.

Perhaps it was all that horse poop, but this anecdote sprung to mind as the federal Conservatives unveiled their doomsday forecast on the Canadian economic mayhem that would accompany the Kyoto accord crackdown on greenhouse gases.

It looks just one year ahead to the dawn of the Kyoto implementation period and whacks the economy with an immediate 33-per-cent slash in greenhouse gas discharges.

Not surprisingly, that means chaos and catastrophe as the economy spirals into a deep recession.

Now, in theory, Environment Minister John Baird did precisely what was required under the terms of a Liberal MP's private motion passed by opposition MPs a couple months ago.

But the unwritten intent of the document was not to serve as a realistic foreshadowing of Kyoto's ramifications, but to inflict ridicule on Liberal opponents who support the treaty.

His scenario calls for a $195 per tonne carbon tax, which both leading parties have vowed not to introduce. It foresees a $6-billion per year spending spree on international carbon credits, which the Conservatives have insisted they would not tolerate.

What's worse, the projection splices apocalyptic policy to frozen-in-time behaviour. There's no allowance in the economic model for free enterprise to react or human behaviour to adapt to dramatically new policy circumstances.

The economists who endorsed the government report were limited in their analysis by the gloomiest of scenarios and confined to existing technology. It's no wonder they glumly signed off on the document.

Tell an economist to predict the impact of cheap and plentiful cold water fusion on the Alberta energy sector, for example, and he'd see the province as an agrarian backwater with lots of empty subdivisions and skyscrapers at fire sale prices. They might not understand the province has evolved beyond oil and gas to full-scale economic diversification.

The future fluidity of free enterprise and the flexibility of human behaviour ensure climate-change adaptation is not only probable, it's inevitable.

If, as the model assumes, the price of natural gas doubles and gasoline rises to $1.60 per litre, gas-miser car sales will spike, thermostats will be lowered, electricity savings plans will be enacted and alternative energies will become viable.

We should pause to acknowledge the report does admit to shortcomings.

It deliberately excluded technology which isn't ready to roll now, such as carbon sequestration in airtight geological formations. And it admits monetary policy and exchange-rate reactions would skewer its projections.

But it's a waste of resources when the government could've produced a realistic model that factored in human adaptation, free enterprise ingenuity and the potential cost of doing nothing.

Look, anyone who believes Canada can actually meet its Kyoto obligations on schedule without serious economic complications is a common sense denier.

But show me a government that declines to take the climate change challenge seriously, and I'll show you a party that's doomed to sit on the Opposition side of the Commons.

Baird understands this and could afford to be gleeful as he publicly read back Liberal concessions that there'd be a hefty economic cost to cranking greenhouse gas discharges six per cent below 1990 levels.

That's because he will take a bold step forward next week by imposing harsh reductions on greenhouse gas emission intensities on the industrial and energy sectors.

But an allegedly serious analysis that assumes the worst about technology while ignoring the best of human adaptability cannot be taken seriously as a blueprint of the future.

It's greenhouse gases generating voodoo economics.

As such, Baird has crafted an historic correlation to the Big Apple's 1890s nag problem. He's seen future shock based on fixed 2007 scenarios -- and the end result is a lot of horse manure.

Don Martin writes for the Calgary Herald

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

Kyoto forecast 'alarmist'

Tempers flared on Parliament Hill yesterday as Prime Minister Stephen Harper used a new report that warned of skyrocketing energy prices and a crippling recession to justify his decision to walk away from Canada's international commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

The Conservatives argued the report - paid for by taxpayers and verified by five independent economists - proved Canada would be hard-pressed to close the gap between its current pollution levels and its commitment under the 1997 climate change agreement signed by the previous Liberal government.

Opposition parties, environmentalists and Quebec's new environment minister were among those who accused the Tories of fear-mongering.

"The real issue here is whether any of the opposition parties have the guts to face reality," Harper said in the Commons.

"You cannot reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by one-third in less than four years and have a positive effect for the Canadian economy."

The report provoked an angry reaction from the opposition, setting off a series of testy exchanges at a Senate committee that reviewed it with Environment Minister John Baird yesterday morning.

"We've seen the movie An Inconvenient Truth, but I guess this would be a convenient lie," said Liberal Senator Dennis Dawson, referring to last year's documentary on climate change that featured former U.S. vice-president Al Gore. "Every time we talk about changes that would normally protect the environment, we always have people coming in and telling us: 'It will destroy the economy.'

"It was not true in 1960, it was not in 1970 and it won't be true (in the future)."

Baird urged the Senate to reject a private member's bill tabled by the Liberals to force the minority government to comply with its Kyoto obligations of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels.

He cited figures from the government report that warned the economy could shrink by 6.5 per cent under such a scenario, driving up the cost of electricity and gasoline by more than 50 per cent, and causing nearly 300,000 Canadians to lose their jobs.

"This might not seem like much of a sacrifice for the opposition parties that united to pass Bill C-288 in the House of Commons, but for the government these numbers are simply unacceptable," Baird said.

"We are talking about jobs and families. We are talking about Canadian quality of life or, in the case of Bill C-288, severely limiting that quality of life.

"Rather than take it to those reckless extremes just to make up for lost time, we prefer a more balanced and a more realistic plan, which I will introduce soon."

Baird added the government remains committed to the Kyoto process and would make its "best efforts" to achieve its targets.

The Liberals insisted their new climate change plan, which includes introducing penalties for large industrial polluters, would address environmental issues and allow for economic growth.

NDP leader Jack Layton said global warming posed the greatest threat to the Canadian economy.

"The prime minister has got to stop hiding behind bogus, irresponsible and incomplete reports that purport to suggest that it's either (a choice between) jobs and the economy on the one hand or the environment on the other," Layton said. "That's simply wrong."

Baird said the government is building on new programs and initiatives announced since the beginning of the year.opopspanfontp

"I'll take responsibility for the action of my government over the last year if members from the other party take responsibility for the inaction of 10 years," he said.

Government officials refused to say how much it cost to produce the study.

In Quebec City, rookie Environment Minister Line Beauchamp called her federal counterpart "alarmist," and accused him of overstating the economic impact of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Beauchamp, who was sworn in the day before, said the real question to ask is: What is the cost of not implementing Kyoto?

She noted Sir Nicholas Stern, chief economic adviser to the British government, estimated in a report last October that not acting on climate change now would have a devastating impact on the world economy. He said the worst-case scenario was a 20-per-cent contraction in global consumption.

Beauchamp said Quebec will meet its share of Canada's Kyoto commitments "by 2012," thanks to a federal transfer payment of $350 million.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Ottawa's commitment toward Quebec's green plan just before Premier Jean Charest called the March 26 provincial election.

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2007

Kyoto study raises alarm

OTTAWA–Canada could face a deep recession, sky-high energy prices and about 275,000 fewer jobs if it slashes greenhouse gas emissions to meet its Kyoto targets, according to an economic analysis prepared by the Conservative government.

Environment Minister John Baird presented the report yesterday to a Senate environment committee that is studying a Liberal bill that would force a massive cut in emissions – about 270 megatonnes by 2012 – when they are still increasing.

Baird said the government would need to "manufacture a recession" in order to meet Kyoto as the legislation, Bill C-288, demands.

"The government would need to introduce major punitive measures to get the deep cuts in emissions in the very short time frame required by (the bill)," he said.

But opposition parties jumped on the study, calling it a Tory "shock and awe communications" strategy.

Even Quebec Environment Minister Line Beauchamp, whose government has been friendly to Ottawa, described the federal study as alarmist.

"The assumptions of the scenario are extremely severe," she told a news conference.

In the Commons, NDP Leader Jack Layton said the report "deliberately deceives the Canadian people about the impact of Kyoto obligations."

Liberal environment critic David McGuinty said the study is skewed because it artificially restricts the use of international emission trading and ignores the job creation that would come with a new focus on green technologies.

"Of course it's hard to get the job done without tools," McGuinty said. "That's like saying it would take years to build a subway line with teaspoons."

The study comes as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Baird prepare to roll out a revamped climate change plan, likely next week, with mandated emission reductions for industrial polluters like Ontario's coal-fired electricity plants and Alberta's oil sands. It is expected to include targets for reductions that will fall well short of those set out in the Kyoto treaty.

Harper gave a spirited defence of his government's much criticized performance on the environment in the House of Commons.

"The reality is ... you do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one-third in less than four years and have a positive effect on the economy," he said. "This party has no intention of doing anything that's going to destroy Canadian jobs or damage the health of this economy."

The government received a major boost with the endorsement of five independent economists, who reviewed the analysis before its release and sent letters saying that they agreed with its general findings.

Mark Jaccard, a professor of environmental management at Simon Fraser University, said the study backs up his own research that it is now impossible to meet Kyoto's 2012 targets without causing a recession.

The government's Kyoto impact study predicts that individual Canadians could see natural gas prices double and electricity prices rise by 50 per cent over five years, changing $90-a-month bills into $145-a-month bills. Gasoline prices would rise more than 60 per cent to $1.60 a litre before 2012.

More than 275,000 Canadians could lose their jobs by 2009 and the unemployment rate would rise by 25 per cent, while the gross domestic product would decline by 6.5 per cent, the study estimates. The proposed bill would result in a carbon tax on industry of about $195 per tonne of carbon.

Green Leader Elizabeth May said a carbon tax, which is designed to make it more expensive for industries to pollute, should be set at between $30 and $50 a tonne. She said the study's elevated figure was intended to create a picture of "economic disaster."

In addition to Jaccard, TD Bank's Don Drummond, the University of Calgary's David Keith, McGill's Christopher Green and Informetrica's Carl Sonnen signed off on the Kyoto study. Drummond, TD's senior economist, said the bill would ruin Canada's competitiveness.

Like Kyoto? Don't vote Liberal!

Contrary to the advice of Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, anyone who cares about global warming should not vote for Stephane Dion and the Liberals in the next federal election.

The Liberals' record on this issue during their 12 years in power can best be likened to an arsonist returning to the scene of the crime and shouting: "OMIGAWD! WHERE ARE THE FIRE TRUCKS?"

The Liberals, first under Jean Chretien and then Paul Martin, were at least 30% behind their own Kyoto target of reducing man-made greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels, starting in 2008, when they were defeated last year. But even that figure grossly underestimates the extent of the Liberals' failure to address what they now insist is the number one crisis facing our planet.

In their 1993 Red Book, Chretien and Martin (who co-authored the document) promised to reduce Canada's man-made greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005.

Thus, the Liberal government's dismal record of steadily increasing greenhouse gas emissions from 1993 to early 2006 can fairly be described as one of repeatedly watering down its own targets.

For Liberals to complain now that Prime Minister Stephen Harper hasn't imposed mandatory reduction targets on the fossil fuel industry, after 15 months in office, is rich.

Here's then Liberal natural resources minister Anne McLellan touting the merits of the Grits "Voluntary (yes, you read that right) Challenge and Registry" program -- VCR for short -- on climate change in October, 1996.

In a speech to fossil fuel industry representatives, she called it a "key element" of the Liberals' plan to reduce greenhouse gases while balancing "the needs of the economy with those of the environment."

She chummily advised them that "the more we can achieve through the voluntary approach, the less pressure there will be for other types of measures."

McLellan also assured the reps of Canada's major greenhouse-gas emitters that under the Liberals "a carbon tax is not on the table," despite the fact environmentalists wanted one, because "we must not depart so fundamentally from our southern neighbours, with whom we conduct 85% of our trade, for we would risk seriously damaging Canada's competitiveness, and as a result, our economy."

SHORT MEMORY?

While May praises Dion and the Liberals now on global warming, here's what the Sierra Club of Canada, when May was executive director, said about their environmental record in the fall of 2000: "On issue after issue, in the last eight years, Canada has moved from a leadership environmental position globally, to being a laggard and international embarrassment. Whether in negotiations to control persistent organic pollutants, or to reduce greenhouse gases ... Canada is now achieving a new reputation -- as a country that blocks progress to environmental goals."

May also praised Dion five years later when the Liberals, with him as environment minister, finally released their greenhouse gas reduction plan.

By contrast, as Jamey Heath, former research director of the NDP notes in his book, Dead Centre, "eleven environmental groups, the Bloc and NDP condemned it as too weak."

Finally, in October, 2005, near the very end of the Liberals' 12-year reign, Canada's dismal environmental performance was ranked 28th out of the 30 industrialized nations belonging to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. That evaluation, prepared by Simon Fraser University, was released by the David Suzuki Foundation.

So seriously, for anyone who cares about global warming, why would you ever vote Liberal?

Like Kyoto? Don't vote Liberal!

Contrary to the advice of Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, anyone who cares about global warming should not vote for Stephane Dion and the Liberals in the next federal election.

The Liberals' record on this issue during their 12 years in power can best be likened to an arsonist returning to the scene of the crime and shouting: "OMIGAWD! WHERE ARE THE FIRE TRUCKS?"

The Liberals, first under Jean Chretien and then Paul Martin, were at least 30% behind their own Kyoto target of reducing man-made greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels, starting in 2008, when they were defeated last year. But even that figure grossly underestimates the extent of the Liberals' failure to address what they now insist is the number one crisis facing our planet.

In their 1993 Red Book, Chretien and Martin (who co-authored the document) promised to reduce Canada's man-made greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005.

Thus, the Liberal government's dismal record of steadily increasing greenhouse gas emissions from 1993 to early 2006 can fairly be described as one of repeatedly watering down its own targets.

For Liberals to complain now that Prime Minister Stephen Harper hasn't imposed mandatory reduction targets on the fossil fuel industry, after 15 months in office, is rich.

Here's then Liberal natural resources minister Anne McLellan touting the merits of the Grits "Voluntary (yes, you read that right) Challenge and Registry" program -- VCR for short -- on climate change in October, 1996.

In a speech to fossil fuel industry representatives, she called it a "key element" of the Liberals' plan to reduce greenhouse gases while balancing "the needs of the economy with those of the environment."

She chummily advised them that "the more we can achieve through the voluntary approach, the less pressure there will be for other types of measures."

McLellan also assured the reps of Canada's major greenhouse-gas emitters that under the Liberals "a carbon tax is not on the table," despite the fact environmentalists wanted one, because "we must not depart so fundamentally from our southern neighbours, with whom we conduct 85% of our trade, for we would risk seriously damaging Canada's competitiveness, and as a result, our economy."

SHORT MEMORY?

While May praises Dion and the Liberals now on global warming, here's what the Sierra Club of Canada, when May was executive director, said about their environmental record in the fall of 2000: "On issue after issue, in the last eight years, Canada has moved from a leadership environmental position globally, to being a laggard and international embarrassment. Whether in negotiations to control persistent organic pollutants, or to reduce greenhouse gases ... Canada is now achieving a new reputation -- as a country that blocks progress to environmental goals."

May also praised Dion five years later when the Liberals, with him as environment minister, finally released their greenhouse gas reduction plan.

By contrast, as Jamey Heath, former research director of the NDP notes in his book, Dead Centre, "eleven environmental groups, the Bloc and NDP condemned it as too weak."

Finally, in October, 2005, near the very end of the Liberals' 12-year reign, Canada's dismal environmental performance was ranked 28th out of the 30 industrialized nations belonging to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. That evaluation, prepared by Simon Fraser University, was released by the David Suzuki Foundation.

So seriously, for anyone who cares about global warming, why would you ever vote Liberal?

Baird bites back

Today, let's examine why this also holds true for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

Few can approach the hypocrisy of the Liberals these days as they yap at Harper for doing nothing to combat man-made global warming. The Liberals had more than 12 years in power to do something -- and did squat.

But they are matched every time Harper and Environment Minister John Baird fire back that the Liberals did nothing while they were the government. True, but beside the point.

The point is that had the Liberals ever reduced greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels, instead of allowing them to increase faster than even the United States, the Conservatives would have gone berserk.

Anxious to protect their Alberta political base -- the province leads Canada in emissions because of its energy-based economy, particularly the oil sands -- Harper and Co. never demanded the Liberals do more to combat global warming while in Opposition. In fact, they wanted them to do less, arguing the Grits should never have signed the Kyoto accord on climate change in the first place.

Not only did Harper, while Alliance leader, rail against Kyoto in a 2002 fund-raising letter as a "job-killing, economy-destroying ... socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations," he also dismissed the science behind "this so-called 'accord'" as "based on tentative and contradictory ... evidence about climate trends." He warned it would cripple the fossil fuel-based economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C., arguing (in capital letters, no less) "THERE ARE NO CANADIAN WINNERS UNDER THE KYOTO ACCORD." Clear enough for you?

In the 2004 election, Harper vowed to scrap the UN treaty in favour of "realistic pollution control measures." After winning last year's vote, Harper's first version of his Clean Air Act, which has now been completely rewritten in committee by the opposition parties, didn't even mention Kyoto.

Harper's so-called concern about global warming and the environment has precisely mirrored its recent rise in the polls, as it moved from being a very low priority for Canadians, to the top one.

Yesterday, Baird unleashed the Conservatives' latest bid to undermine Kyoto, a report endorsed by several independent economists, which argued to implement the treaty at this late date (next year) would soon send Canada into a severe recession costing 275,000 jobs, hike electricity bills by 50%, up the price of gasoline by 60% and double the cost of heating a home with natural gas.

The opposition called it fear-mongering, but after blasting them yesterday for passing an earlier motion that would theoretically require the Conservatives to implement Kyoto, Baird hilariously added, "please, however, don't take my criticism of Bill C-288 as a condemnation of Kyoto." He said the Tories remain committed to it ... short of actually doing anything it says. (I swear, you can't make this stuff up.)

What Baird and Harper were really doing was countering the apocalyptic, "climate porn" rhetoric of global warming fanatics (if we don't implement Kyoto, we're all gonna die) with some apocalyptic, "fiscal porn" rhetoric of their own (if we do implement Kyoto, we're all gonna go broke).

Anyway, with Green Party Leader Elizabeth May now endorsing Dion over Harper on global warming (yeah, like that's a choice!) you should probably vote for the NDP or, in Quebec, the Bloc, if you really do care about climate change. Sorry.

Failure to act on environment a crime against future generations, Suzuki says

MONTREAL
Political and business leaders who fail to act on climate change are committing a crime against future generations and the courts may be the way to force them to change, says David Suzuki.

The environmental activist said leading scientists around the world have been sounding the alarm over global warming for more than two decades.

"If our so-called leaders ignore the warnings, I would think that this is a crime against future generations and I'm wondering if there's a legal basis for taking action against people who run corporations or who run government, for their inaction on global warming," Suzuki told reporters yesterday ahead of a speech to the Quebec Bar Association.

"I happen to think it's a crime, or perhaps we can call it a sin."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has effectively abandoned Canada's commitments under the international Kyoto Protocol, promising instead homegrown solutions and more realistic reduction targets.

Environment Minister John Baird released a federal study yesterday suggesting the treaty's emissions-cutting targets could be met only at a massive economic cost.

Suzuki was not impressed.

"First of all, let's stop listening to the goddamn economists," he said.

Suzuki said Baird has not taken into account the cost of ignoring global warming.

"Twenty per cent of the economy will disappear," Suzuki told reporters.

"It will cost more than World War I and World War 2 put together. We'll go into a kind of depression we've never, ever had in all of history."

The Senate should gas over-the-top environmental bill

The Senate -- unelected and overwhelmingly Liberal -- is largely irrelevant to the lives of ordinary folk, who can only marvel at the perks and privileges lavished upon its members.

In the current debate over climate change, however, the Senate is considering a potentially ruinous piece of legislation that could affect the livelihood of every Canadian.

We refer to Bill C-288, a private member's bill put up by rookie Quebec Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez.

Most private members' bills melt away like June snowflakes. But in the overheated atmosphere in Ottawa, C-288 was approved by the House of Commons and is now before the Senate.

If passed, this bill would require the government to meet limits on greenhouse-gas emissions established under the Kyoto protocol.

There are loud and insistent voices saying this is necessary -- that Canada has an obligation to abide by a treaty it signed.

Other voices, though, are starting to make themselves heard.

First, Canadian Auto Workers Union president Buzz Hargrove, no friend of the Tories, spoke of the "insanity" of the environmental movement targeting Ontario's auto makers.

As Hargrove pointed out, Canada is responsible for a meagre two per cent of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions, and shutting down the entire economy would have a negligible effect on the environment.

This week, Don Drummond, the respected chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank -- a man whose advice the Liberals have sought in the past -- has issued a damning opinion on Kyoto compliance.

Rejecting C-288 as unworkable, Drummond raises the spectre of a deep recession whose effects might be comparable to the economic collapse of Russia. The only way Kyoto can be met, he says, is through the imposition of an insupportable $195-a-tonne carbon tax.

Under that scenario, Environment Minister John Baird predicts 275,000 Canadians would lose their jobs, gasoline prices would jump 60 per cent and natural-gas prices would double.

Are Canadians really ready to gamble their prosperity on an obscure backbencher's Alice-in-Wonderland obsession?

We agree with Baird that it's no time for "reckless extremes." Let the Tories introduce their promised plans and go from there.

In the meantime, the Senate, chamber of sober second thought, should gas Bill C-288.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Leave a brief comment, name and town at: 604-605-2029, fax: 604-605-2099 or e-mail: provletters@png.canwest.com

© The Vancouver Province 2007