Liberal environment critic David McGuinty said the study is skewed because it artificially restricts the use of international emissions trading and ignores the job creation that would come with a new focus on green technologies.
Dewar quoted Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, whose study in October estimated it would take two per cent of gross domestic product in advanced countries to reduce emissions to an acceptable level. Dewar said he believes Canadians would accept such a cost.
The government analysis itself admits that the costs would be much lower with different assumptions. A section titled "alternate scenarios" says unrestricted access to international emissions credits would cut the cost to about $25 a tonne, rather than $195 a tonne.
The study assumes that Canada can get only 25 per cent of its reductions through international credits, even though the Kyoto treaty imposes no such restriction.
Stewart Elgie, a professor at the University of Ottawa who focuses on carbon markets, says that single assumption inflates the cost of compliance by 700 per cent. He also criticized the study for ignoring the benefits of curbing emissions.
Is it 195 dollars per tonne or 25 dollars a tonne? What a sham, particularly when Baird trumpets figures which fail to acknowledge options at hand. So, you can drop the cost almost 8 fold, which puts the alarmist rhetoric into perspective. Couple that fact with the failure to acknowledge any positive benefits to the economy, through green technologies, and you have a decidedly different picture.
I believe it will be almost impossible to meet our Kyoto targets in the short term. Having said that, that admission doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our power to get as close as possible, which is realistic. The true intentions of this government are revealed, with their preference for joining this fraud of an group. H/T Woman at Mile 0:
In a somewhat surprising development, Canada, a long-time supporter of the Kyoto Protocol, announced that it may want to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), a six-nation coalition focusing on voluntary emission-reduction steps and technology transfers. Many environmentalists oppose AP6 out of a fear that it may undermine political support for the legally binding Kyoto treaty.
the Asia-Pacific Partnership is voluntary and technology-based, and lets each country set its own goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions, rather than legally binding them to a greenhouse gas reduction target. The group sees itself as "a voluntary, non-legally binding framework for international co-operation to facilitate the development, diffusion, deployment, and transfer of existing, emerging and longer term cost-effective, cleaner, more efficient technologies and practices
Baird went to Washington last week to argue for further emissions reductions beyond Kyoto. It would appear Mr. Baird's real purpose was to give the Americans the heads up that we were prepared to join the Bush shell game, to deflect environmental criticism. Voluntary, non-binding, which lets the participant countries do what they wish, that sounds like a winner!
I wonder if the other Bush crony, Australian PM John Howard, is starting to do the economic math of inaction:
Australians should pray for rain, because if substantial rainfall does not come in the next month the Government will ban irrigation in the country’s agricultural heartland so that there is enough to drink, the Prime Minister said today.
John Howard’s warning heralded a dramatic increase in food prices and the prospect that tens of thousands of farmers could see their crops fail.
Amid the worst drought in the nation’s history, Mr Howard said an expert panel had advised the Government that it had no choice but to turn off the water irrigation systems in the vast Murray-Darling basin in eastern Australia, an area about four times the size of the United Kingdom.
Its 55,000 farmers supply virtually all of Australia’s stone and citrus fruits, vegetables, cotton and rice. It is also the location of many of the nation’s vineyards.
It is expected that food costs in Australia will begin to rise immediately, and there were predictions that scores of farmers would be forced off their land.
Estimated cost, 30 billion dollars. Experts generally agree that this current crisis is related to climate change, which again begs the question, what exactly is a cost, what is the cost of doing nothing? The Asia-Pacific Partnership will be looked upon with utter disdain and contempt by future generations. Baird embraces nothingness, while simultaneously misleading Canadians. The apocalypse may be at hand alright.