There is no single action of Stephen Harper's which so clearly shows that he simply does not understand the threats posed by climate change as his cutting of the diesel fuel tax by two cents a liter.

The entire idea of restraining carbon emissions is to make them more expensive.  By making carbon emissions more expensive, the ingenuity and adaptability of Canadians is engaged and we will find substitutes and more efficient ways of doing things.

We willingly pay these extra costs now in the form of a carbon tax and use the money raised thereby to build a sustainable economy.  We do this so that future generations will not have to pay much greater costs in the future.  Sacrifice for our children, grandchildren and future generations is not a new idea.  The new idea is the realization that we are all in this together and that we have to do this on a planetary scale.

The only time that Stephen Harper seems to know what to do is when he is on the world stage surrounded by world leaders.  At the 34th G8 conference in Toyako, Japan he agreed that carbon emissions must be reduced 50% by 2050.  Once back at home, he doesn't seem capable of implementing this necessary idea.

Meeting the challenges posed by climate change must not become a partisan political issue. There must be an all-party federal/provincial conference held to which all of Canada's political and opinion leaders are invited.  At this conference we must lay out a blueprint by which Canada's greenhouse gas emissions can be cut 50% by 2050.  A variable carbon tax geared to this target will raise the necessary revenues and the blueprint (or should I say "greenprint") will determine how these monies are spent.  If we in Canada can't do it, who can?  Who will bet against Canadians and say that we can't do it?

We in Canada are citizens of one of the most fortunate countries in the world.  Compared to world and historical standards we are highly affluent and highly educated. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution we have benefited from over 250 years of technological development. We therefore have greater responsibilities than citizens of less privileged nations. It is incumbent upon us to meet the challenges posed by global heating.  If we cannot do it, no country can do it.  If no country can do it, the future on this planet will not be a pretty one for our descendants.

Meeting the challenges posed by global heating requires transformational change of the economy, not more meaningless rhetoric about meeting distant targets or taking other half measures.  None of the parties in this election are promising to do what is environmentally necessary.  They only give you their best guess of what is politically possible. I set down below why it is necessary to have transformational change and what we must do to achieve it.I also argue that we must demand that the center/left parties unite around this issue and if they will not unite, that you should vote for an independent candidate.

Even though the Conservatives are supported by only 38% of the electorate, they are likely to remain in power because the center/left parties will not unite to defeat them.  It is interesting to note that the leaders of the Liberal and Green parties can cooperate in their own narrow self interests but cannot cooperate in the larger interests of future generations of Canadians.

Below I set down my two-plank platform. First I state why it is urgent that we demand transformational change from our politicians and I state what must be done to make these transformational changes happen.  Second I argue for uniting the center/left, failing which I ask you to vote for me.  I begin by asking you to go back in time.

The Last Ice Age

Twelve thousand years ago the land which we now occupy was occupied instead by massive sheets of ice up to three kilometres thick.  The weight of this ice was so great that it forced the entire continent down into the molten core of the planet.  Since so much water was locked up into ice, ocean levels were low enough that people could walk across the Bering Strait into North America and island-hop short distances to ....Australia.....  The mean planetary temperature was two degrees Celsius lower than it was at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was 180 parts per million.

The Industrial Revolution

.. ..

By two hundred and fifty years ago the planet had warmed up by two degrees Celsius. The ice had retreated to the planetary poles and ocean levels had risen hundreds of feet.  The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million.

Today

In the two hundred and fifty years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased to 380 parts per million and the mean planetary temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees Celsius.  Rapid melting of the remaining ice sheets is occurring at the poles and at higher elevations. 

Estimates vary as to how much water would be released by complete melting as well as about how quickly this melting would occur.  The only way to find out for sure would be to do it, but if the estimates of an eighty meter rise in ocean levels over the next few hundred years are anywhere near correct, melting all this ice would not be something we would want to do.

For example, here in Ottawa West - ....Nepean.... we are roughly sixty meters above sea level.  If the oceans were to rise eighty meters, most of ....Ottawa.... would be under water. Future generations may see the ....Peace.. ..Tower.... on an island surrounded by brackish salt water. As our Parliamentarians took boats to work, maybe then they would take action!

The exact future however is immaterial.  The point is that by continuing to rely on fossil fuels as heavily as we do, we are experimenting with significant consequences. Ocean level rises of these magnitudes would result in hundreds of millions of environmental refugees throughout the world. Think of thousands of New Orleans-scale disasters.

Why should these things happen to nice people like us?  Because physics and chemistry have laws independent of moral worth. For the last 650,000 years there has been a lockstep relationship between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and planetary temperatures.  This seems to be an inescapable scientific fact. Wishful thinking apart, we have no reason to believe that this relationship will not hold into the future. We simply must restrain our carbon emissions.

The Future

We know that the temperature of a planet near a sun will rise if we inject heat-retaining gases into its atmosphere.  What we don't know is what will happen if we take a planet and tell its seven billion inhabitants that injecting heat retaining gases into the atmosphere will raise the temperature of the planet.  This is because the politics of global heating, not the science, is uncertain. What is politically possible and what is environmentally necessary are two different things.

The Politics of Global Heating

There is increasing awareness that the human race simply cannot continue to extract and burn fossil fuels without restraint.  At the recent G8 conference, the leaders of the developed world, including George Bush (who during eight years in power has done nothing to address this problem) and Steven Harper, endorsed the target that by 2050 greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 50%.

It is important to realize that this is a conservative target.  The reason that this target has been set is that because it is the consensus view of scientists worldwide that serious consequences such as outlined above will ensue if we fail to meet them. 

Despite endorsing this target on the world stage, Prime Minister Harper came back to ....Canada.... and opined that the country will be "screwed" and "shafted" if carbon taxes are adopted as a matter of national policy. The Prime Minister takes this attitude despite thousands of economists including eight Nobel prize winners arguing that a carbon tax is the single most effective method of discouraging greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging transformation to a sustainable economy.  While paying lip service to the target (and by default to the "20% by 2020" target endorsed at ..Bali.. by his "Environment Minister") he seems to have no serious plan to achieve it.  He speaks vaguely instead of "regulations".

The Liberals argue for a carbon tax of $10, $20, $30 and $40 per ton in successive years of their proposed mandate and the Greens, not to be outdone, have proposed a tax of $50 per ton.  Other per ton figures have been recommended. The Stern Report, for example, suggested that a tax of $80 per ton is necessary in order to meet the required objectives. I have read recommended prices of up to $150 and more per ton. The NDP wanting to dance to the different drum of blaming the corporations has proposed a cap-and-trade system whereby limits are placed on the emissions of large final emitters.

While these per ton taxes and caps are on the right track, the question is not what the carbon tax per ton should be but rather what the price per ton of carbon must be in order to meet the targets of 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2050 and the yearly milestone targets along the way. 

The only way to achieve these goals is to set hard emissions reduction targets for every year on the way to 50/50 and then impose whatever level of tax is necessary to achieve those targets. The tax rate must therefore be adjustable, perhaps set by the Bank of Canada in conjunction with variable interest rates.

The monies raised by this tax will be re-invested into building a sustainable economy and into mitigating the negative impacts of this transition. Building a sustainable economy will not "screw" or "shaft" anybody.  Building a sustainable economy is a huge challenge, will create millions of jobs and will result in a sustainable future in which all Canadians will win.

Necessarily as a result of this rebuilding process the fossil fuel economy will shrink from its present size and through diversion of resources and corresponding reinvestments, the sustainable economy will grow.  This is transformational change. A 50% reduction by 2050 will bring about a future very different from what we know today.  However, it appears that we must make these changes.  If we in ....Canada.... cannot make such changes there is no hope that the less affluent and less educated countries of the world will make them.  If these changes are not made on a planetary scale and if we fail to do our part, the future will not be a pretty place for our descendants. We will not have a second chance to get it right. ....

Strategic Voting....

Apart from making the point that we have an unprecedented challenge facing us, one that can only be addressed by transformational change, the other point that needs to be made is that the present government does not reflect the views of the electorate.  For example in 2006 here in Ottawa West - ....Nepean.... the Conservatives won 25,000 votes while the center-left parties won 32,000.  Yet while Mr. Baird in a very real sense does not represent the views of his constituents, he holds power as "Environment Minister" in a Conservative government which in turn reflects the views of only 38% of the people!

.. ..

Three Promises....

My value as an independent candidate is in what I symbolise, namely the necessity of transformational change and the fact that the center-left parties must unite to defeat the inadequate policies of the right.  If the center-left parties think that their particular policy version is more important than protecting future generations from catastrophic consequences and if they will not unite to defeat the right, then they don't deserve your vote. 

.. ..

I appreciate the paradox of running as an Independent while complaining that the center-left parties are splitting the vote.  I have asked the NDP and the Green candidates to drop out of the race and have offered to do the same if they do.  They have declined, arguing that you have the right to hear what they have to say.  This course of action simply results in keeping the reigns of power in Conservative hands.

My solution to this problem is to ask all of you to vote for me.  I will make only three promises to you and if you elect me I will keep them.  My promises are:

1. To faithfully represent the interests of my constituents and to help you with your dealings with the federal government,
2. To represent the interests of the citizens of ..Ottawa.. to the federal government and to cooperate with other members of Parliament from the ....Ottawa.... area, and;
3. To do everything in my power to address the clear and present dangers posed by global heating.

.. ..

Please vote for a sustainable economy and please vote strategically, preferably for me!

Thank you for your kind attention.

Yours truly,

David Page, M.A., M.Ed., M.B.A., L.L.B.

Barrister and Solicitor

Independent Candidate for Parliament

P.S.  Your contributions to the dissemination of this message are welcomed.  Tax receipts for monetary contributions can be issued.  Volunteers and other participants in the democratic process are needed and welcomed. You can contact me by email at audi.alteram.partem@gmail.com or through this website if you are a member.

My name is David Page.  In 2004 I came to Ottawa in order to attend law school.  I graduated from the Faculty of Law in 2007 and was called to the Ontario Bar in June of 2008. When I ask myself what is the most important and useful thing that I can do with my life at present, the answer that I give myself is to try and make people more aware of the urgency of implementing policies to address climate change.  My opinion is that everyone must do everything that they can to speed the transition from a fossil fuel economy to a sustainable economy. 

My part of "everyone doing everything" is to run for Parliament in Ottawa West - Nepean as an independent candidate.  I choose to be an independent candidate because I believe that action on the environment is too important to be the matter of partisan politics.  I choose to run for Parliament in Ottawa West - Nepean because this is the home riding of Environment Minister John Baird.

Federal elections are times when the country as a whole must choose the best way forward.  An election campaign is a battle of ideas.  The two ideas that I submit to you for your approval are as follows:

Firstly: Environment Minister John Baird is not worthy of being re-elected on the ground that he and his government have done nothing to move Canada into the forefront of the global struggle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and

Secondly:  If the Liberals, NDP and Green Parties cannot cooperate to defeat a sitting Environment Minister who has done nothing to address the challenges of climate change, then they don't deserve your vote either. 

My personal motivation is that I cannot be at peace with myself unless I stand up and speak to you about the importance and urgency with which these matters must be addressed.

For the past several years I have been involved with the Institute of the Environment at the University of Ottawa.  Several members there have expressed the idea that people will not demand action on the environment until disaster looms.  Just how bad does it have to get before we demand action?  The Oceans are warming and with this warming comes the bleaching of the world's coral reefs. The Seven Seas are becoming more acidic through their absorption of atmospheric carbon to the point where shellfish may no longer be able to make their calcium shells.  Ocean levels are rising and threatening low lying countries.  Some small islands in the Pacific have already had to be abandoned.

Here in Canada we have thirty-four million acres of dead pine forest because the winters are no longer cold enough to kill the mountain pine beetle. Our Inuit peoples are telling us that the Arctic is changing dramatically as are the scientists who work there.  Scientists

who spend time outside of the cities and in the natural world are sounding clear warnings about the disappearances of species. The petroleum industry argues that global warming is not a reality but the insurance industry disagrees vehemently. There are more severe weather events. There are more wildfires.  There are more droughts. I could go on for days recounting evidence that we are changing our planet by the demands we place upon it.  Just how bad does it have to get before we the people demand action from our politicians?

The World is slowly waking up to the perils in which we have inadvertently placed ourselves.  The European Union is making massive efforts to try to meet the targets set by the Kyoto Protocol.  Here in Canada we have paid lip service to the notion that we must restrict greenhouse gas emissions but we have essentially done nothing.  Our emissions restraint record is the worst in the developed world.  The writing is on the wall and we would read it if we would think of more than our own narrow interests.  The challenge is enormous.  We must transition from a fossil fuel based economy to a sustainable economy and we must do so on an urgent basis.  Millions of people see the necessity of making this transition but millions of people are not enough.  We need hundreds of millions of people in the West and billions of people worldwide to see this necessity.

A federal election is an opportunity to pass judgment on the performance of the government. Here in Ottawa West - Nepean an election is an opportunity to pass judgment on the performance of Environment Minister John Baird.  As Environment Minister has Mr. Baird faithfully represented the interests of his constituents on the Environment?  In 2006 in Ottawa West - Nepean 32,000 people did not vote for Mr. Baird while only 25,000 people did. 

As Environment Minister Mr. Baird has gone onto the World stage and informed the world that Canada cannot meet its Kyoto targets but will reduce its emissions 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2050 all the while saying nothing about 2008, 2009 and 2010. 

Mr. Baird has also argued that Canada should not have to reduce its emissions unless the developing nations of China, India and Brazil also reduce theirs.  Since these announcements were made, have any of you heard one word about how the government intends to meet their modest target of a 20% reduction by 2020?  In the book Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge the authors write: "The conservative policies will not lead to a 20% drop in emissions by 2020.  The more likely outcome is that emissions, far from declining, will actually continue to rise".  

It is simply not right for Canada, one of the most fortunate nations in the World to go to, for example, the 600,000,000 people in China who live without electricity and tell them that they must stop or slow development while Canada itself does nothing, and I repeat nothing, to restrain its own emissions.

We inhabit a planet where one billion people live on less than one dollar a day and where another one billion live on less than two dollars a day.  On this planet we live in what is loosely termed "The West" where another billion people live in unprecedented material abundance when compared to both world and historical standards.  We owe this prosperity to the hard work of our ancestors, our own hard work and to a civilization and an economy built upon fossil fuels.  The rest of the world looks at what we have and is determined to have it too.  The technologies that make this possible are available to all. 

The problem with this prospect is that it is not sustainable.  We are becoming increasingly aware that billions of hard working people are placing demands on the carrying capacity of this planet that the ecosystem simply cannot withstand.   We must transition to a sustainable economy and we must transition to it as rapidly as possible.

I have already argued that Environment Minister Baird is not worthy to be re-elected on the ground that he and his government have done nothing to address climate change.  They fiddle:

• While the planet burns;
• While freely criticizing previous governments for inaction;
• While urging developing nations to restrain their emissions; and,
• While failing to do the hard work necessary to throttle back emissions here in Canada. 

The above is my firm opinion based on extensive reading and involvement with the Institute of the Environment but the judgment at the polls is yours, not mine to make.  The Liberals at least have the political courage to argue for a carbon tax.  Theirs however is a modest proposal.  A carbon tax is nothing new.  The Norwegians had a $15 per ton carbon tax on high carbon oil in the early 1990s and the record shows that this tax was successful in reducing emissions.  The Liberal proposal of a $10 per ton carbon tax in the first year of their plan rising $10 per year to a $40 per ton tax after four years is half the recommended world price of the Stern Report of $80 per ton and one quarter to one fifth the price per ton thought necessary by many economists to reduce carbon emissions to safe levels.  Satisfy your own mind on this matter. 

The points that I am trying to make here are that the Liberal plan is a modest proposal and that even such a modest proposal stands a good chance of being defeated unless we can agree that Conservative "environmental policy" must fall in the next election.

The NDP want a cap-and-trade system and refuse to support the Liberal plan.  This is petty squabbling.  The plans are compatible.  The Greens complain that the Liberals stole their ideas.  The idea of a carbon tax is not the intellectual property of the Greens.

My present point however is this: If the opposition parties cannot agree that the needs of the environment are more important than bickering over whose ideas are the best, then none of them deserve your support.  I have contacted the Green Party and the NDP and suggested to them that in order that the policies that Environment Minister Baird symbolizes be rejected at the polls it is essential not to split the vote.  I have suggested to them that because rejecting Conservative policies is the most important objective they should not run in this riding.  I have undertaken to commit myself to also dropping out of this race if we could agree that it is more important to have progressive policies in place instead of more empty Conservative rhetoric.

The fact that I am still in this race means that the opposition parties are willing to put their own narrow interests ahead of the well-being of the planet.  Please send a message to the politicians that you are tired of partisan politics and want action.  Send this message by electing an independent candidate.  If you should decide to elect me to be your representative in Parliament I make to you three promises:

1. That I will faithfully represent your interests in Parliament and look after you in terms of your dealings with the Federal Government.  You will be my extended family and I will use all the powers of my office to look after you;
2. That I will cooperate with other Members of Parliament from the Ottawa area to further the interests of Ottawa in its dealings with the federal government; and,
3. That I will do everything in my power to make Canada a world leader in making the transition from a fossil fuel economy to a sustainable one.

You can find out more about me and contact me through my blog at www.myspace.com/threepromises.  Thank you for your kind attention.

Yours sincerely,

David Page, M.A., M.Ed., M.B.A., LL.B.

Barrister and Solicitor

Independent Candidate for Parliament in Ottawa West - Nepean

The federal Conservatives have announced a new target: 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  This target follows on the heels of 20% by 2020.  May we expect 100% by 2100 and 200% by 2200?  How about 1,000% by 3000?  Are we supposed to believe them?  What are their plans for 2008, 2009 and 2010 and how are they going to get there?

Interesting that George Bush was a signatory to this meaningless bit of propaganda.  This man ran for the Presidency in 2000 campaigning for cuts and reversed himself as soon as he took office.  Now that he is leaving he is getting tough - on the distant future.

If you read George Monbiot's Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning he argues that a 90% reduction by 2030 is essential to avert catastrophe.  If you read Jeffrey Simpson et.al.'s  Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge you will find the authors dismissive of the Conservative's 20% target stating instead that under the present regimes emissions will steadily rise until 2020.

Who are you going to believe?  These things are capable of proof only by waiting until the relevant times - and the longer we wait, the more fraught with peril delay becomes and the harder it is to reach atmospheric targets (since once in the atmosphere, carbon takes centuries to remove).

Perhaps I have read too many books, listened too much to the news and attended too many lectures but I am firmly convinced that climate change is a real and present danger which must be addressed with some urgency.

The latest three books on the subject that I have read are Field notes from a catastrophe by Elizabeth Kolbert; Censoring science: inside the political attack on Dr. James Hansen and the truth of global warming by Mark Bowen and Plan B: rescuing a planet under stress and a civilization in trouble by Lester R. Brown.  They are all saying the same thing: Climate change is happening and the time to address it is now.

Yet when I take my convictions into Ottawa West - Nepean, the home riding of John Baird, the Conservative Environment Minister, and try to talk to the people about this problem I seem to be entering a different reality.  People are largely uninformed and preoccupied by their everyday concerns.

I wonder how many people are aware of the Liberal carbon tax plan, let alone how many care that Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and former head of Britain's Economic Service, thinks that the correct price per ton of emissions is $80 per ton or twice the eventual Liberal goal?

It doesn't appear to be about the needs of the environment (although arguably it should be), it seems to be about what people are willing to do.  What a struggle to even reach one person!

For the last 650,000 years planetary temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations have moved in lockstep.  Scientists have been able to determine this by drilling kilometers deep into the Vostok ice field in Antarctica and measuring the atmosphere of the era that was trapped in the compressed ice. 

During this time period, greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere ranged between two hundred and two hundred and ninety parts per million.

For the last two hundred years we have been building a civilization using the energy contained in fossil fuels.  Burning these fossil fuels has resulted in an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations to present day levels of three hundred and ninety parts per million. 

There is overwhelming scientific consensus that these concentration increases are driving increases in planetary temperatures.  These temperature increases are more pronounced at the poles due to planetary rotation and atmospheric circulation. 

The temperature of space is absolute zero.  Without our atmosphere, Earth would be a cold and lifeless place. The reason we are kept warm on this planet is because our atmosphere traps the sun's heat.  This atmosphere has coevolved along with the planet over a period of billions of years and life has begun and evolved in harmony with the atmosphere. We are altering the atmosphere through our economic activities and as a result it is trapping more heat. 

Fossil fuels have been deposited in the earth's crust over at least the last fifty million years.  We are digging them out, burning them for energy and increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the process.  If we continue to do this without any self-restraint and if the relationship between planetary temperature and greenhouse gas concentration holds, given enough time we will raise planetary temperatures to the point where the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will all melt.  This will raise ocean levels by three hundred feet.  One billion people live within this range and they will be forced to seek higher ground.  We know from human history that these environmental refugees will not be well received.

Sir James Lovelock [http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/episode6] predicts that it is already too late to prevent such catastrophic changes and that by the end of the century 80% of human beings will have perished in wars fought over higher ground, in famines caused by climate-change-induced droughts and by the inability of the plants that feed us to adapt to the rapidly increasing temperatures induced by climate change.

Lovelock is by no means the most pessimistic scientist.  Others predict that we have passed or will soon pass a "tipping point" beyond which self-perpetuating cycles such as shifts in the planets albedo, thawing of the permafrost with massive releases of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) and increasing levels of water vapour (another greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere as a result of increasing temperatures will all culminate in turning Earth into another Venus - only somewhat cooler due to our increased distance from the sun. 

What does the future hold?  My personal view is that humanity is like Scrooge waking up on Christmas morning after having a potentially unpleasant future revealed.  I think we need to get to work and start to build a sustainable civilisation that is within the Earth's carrying capacity and wean ourselves off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible.  There is no one Big Solution.  Everyone has to do everything they can at every level of organization to help tackle the problem.  Think of the problem as Gulliver and of us as the Lilliputians.

The reaction of many people to the challenges of climate change is to deny them and argue that the scientists are mistaken.  In the early days of the Second World War a group of scientists headed by Albert Einstein told President Roosevelt that science and technology had progressed to the point where a bomb of unprecedented destructive power could be built and that it behoved the Allies to be the first to develop this bomb.  Action was taken and the Manhattan Project was begun. There was no public debate about whether the scientists had it right.  The risks were too high.

Analogously in the present day the risks of inaction in the face of the challenges posed by climate change are equally great.  By the time the predictions of the scientists start coming true in such a manner as to be self-evident to the 90% of people in the developed world who live in cities, the possibilities of being past the tipping point become greater.  Delay and inaction is fraught with peril.  The people who live near the poles and the scientists who work there send back report after report that climate change is happening much faster than expected.  There is a clear and present danger.  It is in the very air we breathe.  The danger is increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

We can predict the behaviour of physical systems such as the relationships between gas concentrations and temperature.  What we cannot predict is the behaviour of human beings.  How will people react to these potential catastrophes?  How many warning signals do people need before they are moved to action? In other words, what are we going to do about it?  What must we do about it? The short answer is EVERYTHING!

In Canada, the Harper government has spent billions of dollars in the "war on terrorism".  As a result of these expenditures, deaths due to terrorism have been "reduced" from zero to zero.  The only terrorist incident we have had so far in Canada was the Air India bombing and in this incident, all the warning signals were ignored.  In keeping with this negligent blindness the Conservative Government with its power base in the oil rich provinces is ignoring the danger signals of climate change.

Stephen Harper, while an astute politician, has only a Master's degree in Economics and is not a man of any particular vision.  Before taking office he characterized Kyoto as a socialist plot designed to transfer wealth from the rich nations to the poor ones.  He has come a long way in changing his views since then and has been forced by public pressure to make greater efforts to deal with their environmental concerns but what has he done?

He has criticized the Liberals for ratifying Kyoto but doing nothing to implement it.   This is a valid criticism but the blame cannot be laid at the feet of the Leader of the Opposition.  Without the support of the Prime Minister, the Environment Minister on his own heads a weak portfolio and cannot single-handedly implement the necessary changes.

Stephen Harper has sent his Environment Minister to Bali where in front of the world and the Canadian media targets of a 20% reduction of greenhouse gases from 2006 levels by 2020 have been publicly announced.  What was not told to Canadians by the Environment Minister and his boss was that Alberta's target of a 14% intensity reduction of emissions will make it impossible for Canada as a whole to meet the modest 20% goals.  Harper and Baird are carrying on the deplorable Canadian tradition of announcing targets and then not meeting them.

Also in Bali Harper and Baird tried to reverse the onus for addressing climate change and remove it from the developed nations, the U.S. and Canada in particular. The onus is not on the developing world to lead the world away from a fossil fuel economy.  Canada is one of the world's leading nations with a high standard of living and a highly educated workforce.  We must lead the way.  We must do our share and a share that recognizes the historical benefits we have accrued from having had access to a fossil fuel economy for centuries. 

The European community is being far more proactive than Canada and is struggling to meet its Kyoto targets instead of abandoning them as we are doing here in Canada.

Humanity had an earlier, milder brush with disaster when our scientists noticed that there was a huge hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica. Rowland and Molina hypothesized that this hole was due to air conditioning and aerosol gases (CFCs) reaching the stratosphere and destroying the ozone molecules.  This hypothesis was vigorously attacked by those who had a vested interest in keeping these gases but it was eventually confirmed by the scientific community and Rowland and Molina were awarded the Nobel Prize for science.  The world, recognizing the threat, organized to address it and CFCs were phased out beginning in the developed nations.

In the case of CFCs we have one small family of gases affecting one small segment of industrial activity.  In the case of fossil fuel gases we have ubiquitous gases generated by nearly every aspect of our economy.  The challenges posed and the responses required are similarly greater.  Every nation on the planet must address these challenges and the developed nations must again lead the way. 

Here in Canada we have to show the world how an advanced nation can continue to progress while reducing its dependence upon fossil fuels. 

Please take the time to listen to the CBC podcast at the following link:  http://www.cbc.ca/podcasting/pastpodcasts.html?45ref45

Scroll to Ideas: How to Think About Science and then to James Lovelock and form your own opinion of the risks we are running.