The Liberals remain firmly behind the goals of the Kyoto Accord for the reduction of greenhouse gases, while Stephen Harper has suggested that the Accord is not the best way for Canada to help slow global warming. Is the Accord worth sticking with? Is Canada’s current environmental policy up to snuff? Our writers toss in their two pennies.

Paul Martin’s support for the Kyoto Accord is important to multilateral unity on the topic of global warming and to Canada’s commitment to internationalism. A significant reduction in worldwide carbon emissions requires the participation and co-operation of all states, especially the leading industrial nations. Any defection from the international consensus on climate change undermines the hard-won agreement and could lead other states to withdraw from the accord or otherwise ignore its stipulations.

We know that reducing emissions comes with economic costs associated with higher levels of business regulation. However, the Liberals have a $4-billion plan to support a sustainable economy. This package is full of tax incentives, subsidies for clean energy, and public transit funding that will help ease the burden of tighter restrictions. With a head-on approach to the problem, a new “low-carbon” economy will emerge and show the world that industry and the environment can co-exist.

An environmental policy that places restrictions on emissions will be forced to rely on voluntary reductions from business. Politicians who place their faith in this method point to the emerging trend of corporate environmentalism, which in fact is but an illusion as companies are really trying to find alternatives to high oil prices.

  • Cam Vidler

Since 1990, Canada’s emissions have risen 24 per cent, despite our Kyoto pledge to reduce emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels. One of the main causes of this discouraging state of affairs is the faulty environmental plan put in place by the Martin government.

Canadians have become familiar with commercials advertising the “One-Tonne Challenge,” a government initiative that exhorts private citizens to voluntarily reduce emissions. This do-it-yourself policy ignores the fact that, for example, much of the population growth in Canada has been in suburban settings where single-family homes inevitably consume a lot of energy. There are incentives to retrofit homes, but these incentives have not resulted in an increase of energy-efficient suburban houses.

Martin’s plan promotes wind power, but does not acknowledge that subsidies to other energy industries have made it impossible for wind power to compete. Large industries-including the energy industry-are only responsible for 16 per cent of Canada’s reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, despite the fact they produce 50 per cent of total emissions. This imbalance epitomizes the faulty Martin plan that will result in Canada being unable to fulfill its obligations under the Kyoto Accord.

  • Miriam Katz