PUBLICATION:          Times Colonist (Victoria)

DATE:                         2005.02.11

EDITION:                    Final

SECTION:                  Comment

PAGE:                         A11

BYLINE:                     John Williamson

SOURCE:                   Special to Times Colonist

ILLUSTRATION:        Photo: CNS / Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert arrives at a Saskatoon news conference recently in the world's first hydrogen-gasoline fuelled truck. It was created by the Saskatchewan Research Council. When the vehicle is idling, there are no emissions. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kyoto amounts to spending our tax dollars for nothing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The federal government has a big problem if it is serious about adhering to the Kyoto Protocol. The international treaty, which will come into effect on Feb. 16, commits Canada to reduce average carbon dioxide emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2010. Yet the government has yet to produce a national plan to achieve this.

Until very recently, Ottawa believed greenhouse gases would need to be cut by 240 megatonnes (MT) or 33 per cent below current levels. But strong economic growth has increased emissions and it is now believed the disparity is more likely between 280MT and 300MT, an amount requiring a 40 per cent decrease.

Some $3.7 billion has already been allocated to the Kyoto project. Yet a leaked cabinet document indicates Canada "will be significantly off" reduction targets as efforts will result in reductions of less than 100MT. It is obvious that short of imposing a punishing carbon tax that will grind economic growth to a halt, there is no realistic way for Canada to significantly reduce its emissions.

Kyoto was sold to the public as an easy way to save the environment with little cost or inconvenience. It was all nonsense. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions can only be done by curbing energy consumption.

But rather than come clean with the public and abandon the dysfunctional Kyoto plan, Ottawa is seeking to save itself by trying to adhere to the letter of the protocol, but not the spirit. It will make up any shortfall and "earn credits" by purchasing emissions abroad.

Thanks to the collapse of communism in 1989 -- and the Russian economy soon after -- Moscow has a surplus of "unused" greenhouse gas to sell. Many regard this as purchasing "hot air" since Russia will not need to reduce its current output.

This is all beginning to look like another ill-conceived and deeply flawed federal program: the gun registry. Canadians were told the registry would be a cost effective way to track gun ownership and reduce gun-crime. And as it did Kyoto , the public largely accepted the registry on these promises.

In 1995, Canadians were assured the firearms program would cost $119 million to implement, an amount to be offset by $117 million in registration fees from law-abiding gun owners. Today, we know the truth. The program's costs ballooned and are on track to hit $2 billion -- without any measurable impact on gun-crime statistics.

The Liberal government repeatedly failed to supply Parliament with accurate budget information on the registry's costs. An independent review of the program was aborted in 2002 because the government could not provide the complete financial picture to the auditor general. The registry stands as an indictment of the Liberals' ability to properly manage ambitious programs. And it will be the same with Kyoto .

The government is expected to increase its five-year Kyoto budget by $2.5 billion for a total cost of $6.2 billion. Of this amount, Ottawa is considering spending $1.4 billion to buy 100MT of greenhouse gas credits abroad.

Tax dollars will be sent abroad with no tangible benefits to Canadians, the economy or the environment. As with Ottawa 's gun registry, it will amount to spending money for nothing.

Does anyone really believe federal bureaucrats are capable of monitoring invisible, odorless gases in developing nations more efficiently than tracking guns in Canada or accounting for sponsorship dollars in Ottawa ? We should not be surprised when it is reported that the auditor general cannot determine whether or not foreign nations keep a lid on emissions sold to us.

Under Kyoto , Canada will continue to pump out emissions and claim victory while it pays foreigners for credits. Is this what environmentalists envision? Is this what taxpayers want? Or, like the gun registry, are we being sold another false bill of goods by the ruling Liberals?