Environment Minister Jim Prentice ain't happy:
Ottawa will have to lead a massive restructuring of the Canadian economy, with wealth flowing from the West to the rest of the country, if it is to meet its climate-change targets, a landmark report has concluded.
The Conservative government's goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 can be achieved, but only by limiting growth in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
“The conclusions [the report] draws are irresponsible,” said Mr. PrenticeStill, the fact that the federal government appears to believe the ever more clearly dubious AGW hypothesis and continues making plans to waste huge gobs of money chasing that hypothesis is disturbing enough. And so is the fact that the
A Globe poll today is somewhat encouraging:
And, coincidentally, here's Mark Steyn's timely column in Maclean's today: "Gullible eager-beaver planet savers". It's brilliant in it's exposé of statist Big Brotherism in the name of environmentalism. And good for Maclean's for publishing it. The TD Bank could use some of the same kind of intelligence and moxie.
Updates: Kevin Libin's "Carbon report’s bloody portent" [h/t Wilson in the comments].
Also see Peter Foster's "Muddled models":
... [the Pemina-Suzuki] report was leaked to The Globe and Mail, and ... the thrust of coverage appeared to contradict the smiley-faced conclusions of the report, which was titled “Climate leadership, economic prosperity.” Or, please hobble us so that we can run faster!
Under reasons for draconian action, the report quotes the widely discredited report from British economist and climate extremist Nicholas Stern....
Lord Stern is increasingly becoming a figure of ridicule. This week, he suggested that vegetarianism might save the world, and projected that attitudes towards meat eating might become like those towards drunk driving. He has also predicted climate change would turn Europe into a desert and turn the world back in time by 30-million years....
... The TD’s Mr. Drummond apparently doesn’t “endorse” the report. He told me he just wanted people to have “something to shoot at.”
But such a study, while an inviting target, should hardly be the starting point for rational analysis of the greatest policy threat to freedom and prosperity in living memory.
What it does confirm is how far the policy “debate” has been taken over by activists, supported by Big Corporate money.