In his May 3 guest editorial, "Think beyond next election," Trevor Hancock, referring to Conservative leaders asked, "Why are they fighting against one of the most effective tools we have to reduce global warming, one that if done properly is revenue-neutral and socially just?"
The answer is obvious. It is a burden on the economy and it will have zero effect on global warming.
Canada is responsible for only 1.6 per cent of total global emissions, according to Environment Canada. China, by far the world's biggest contributor with a third of all emissions, puts out more GHGs than the U.S. and European Union combined. Just their increase each and every month is more than Canada's total emissions per year. If we could eliminate all our emissions, it would make no difference to the climate because of how much more China is continually increasing their output.
It's like tilting at windmills. Any action taken by us is nothing more than virtue signalling.
And if you are nave enough to think that if we cut emissions, the rest of the world will follow our example, well I have some swampland in Florida for sale.
Canada's commitment to the Paris Accord is to cut emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, a target which we have no hope of reaching.
China by contrast will meet its Paris Accord target. They committed to increasing emissions until 2030 - business as usual with no attempts to cut.
So what possible effect could any action taken by Canada have?
As for my detractors (including The Citizen) notice that I am not denying climate change. If you disagree with what I've written, I welcome the criticism. That would be a welcome change from the usual response.