When you're one of the biggest economies in the world, you can bend the rules at will.

In the 70's, the U.S. approved a tough car-crash policy that required builders to create cars so their passengers could survive a 45mph frontal crash and a 75mph rollover. Detroit lobbying made the rules change to a lower standard few years later arguing that those goals were impossible to achieve... but Volvo and Fiat produced cars that approved those brilliantly.

So, "impossible is nothing"... unless it means a lot of money to be spent. Nothing new under the sun.

Lloyd -

I realize that pretty much any Conservative government is going to cause Canadian-based TreeHuggers fits, but how, exactly, is this Harper's fault?

Canada has been a Kyoto signatory for 10 years. Harper's Conservatives have been in power for less than two, and have existed as a unified party for only four.

If you want to lay blame on a specific party, blame the Liberals for talking the talk but not walking the walk. They had eight years with a solid majority, much of that time dealing with a hugely fractured opposition, none of which survives today in their original forms.

Perhaps you would feel better if the Conservatives acted like the Liberals, telling comforting lies while doing little to actually change the way Canada deals with carbon. I think it is much worse to tell baldfaced lies about what you are willing or capable of doing, than to face up to reality and tell the truth about what's really happening and trying to come to terms with that.

Neither political party is going to do what would be needed to be done to hit the Kyoto targets - radically downsize the economy. The few countries that are on target to hit Kyoto either killed off entire obsolete industries (the Germans shutting down East German production), switched fuel blends for entirely economic reasons (England moving from coal to natural gas) or outsourced their pollution to India and China. All the other signatories are way above target and will never hit their Kyoto targets - something that most governments knew at the time of ratification, but only the liberal ones lied about.

I would say that's much worse - because it made people complacent. How many more individual and private initiatives might have bloomed (and how much more political pressure may have grown) if not for the fiction that Kyoto was going to work, and that only US and "conservative" intransigence were to blame.

Give me an honest government that only promises to do the possible, not a dishonest one that promises the world.

Im canadian, and I really am saddened by the conduct of our government. Whats even sadder is that so many Canadians love and care for the environment, but do nothing to get our $$$$ obsessed PM out of office!! :

Give me an honest government that promises the world and fails in the trying rather than a dishonest government that promises to do absolutely as little as possible and succeeds brilliantly at achieving insignificant promises. You aim high and the arrow will travel far, even if it misses the mark. You aim low and the arrow will travel little and still probably miss the mark.

I'm not a Canadian. But if I were I would have been condeming the Liberals whenever and wherever they advocated and implemented policies that would be environmentally irresponsible. However, it is not the Liberals who control government and policy now. It is Harper and his party. I would not condemn the Conservatives for the environmental folly committed by the Canadian govt. during the Liberals stint in power. But you seem to be laying the blame for the environmentally irresponsible policies now being advocated and implemented by Harper on the Liberals. The Conservatives are the ones in power now. They are the ones who decide whether to make the needed sacrifices to do the socially responsible thing or whether not to. The party in power doesn't get to shirk its responsibility by crying that the previous party was irresponsible so that entitles them to be irresponsible - which is exactly the argument you made: 'They didn't fix the problem so the Conservatives shouldn't have to either.' Is this your idea of responsible government? It is quite true that a govt. that says it will do little to solve a problem will be more likely to achieve little and thereby be successful in its stated goals of achieving little (making it in your unique perspective more 'honest'). But is that really the kind of govt. you think most people want? I prefer a govt. that seriously wants to and seriously tries to fix important social problems. And such a govt. makes ambitious goals to fix those problems - not pithy ones.

Give me a govt. that promises the world and fails in the trying rather than a govt. that promises next to nothing and achieves next to nothing. They will both end up with my scorn. But one will have it from beginning to end with double the intensity.

Oh, and what is this nonsense about 'radically downsize the economy'? Are you one of those individuals that likes to argue using discrediting scare tactics rather than grounded argumentation? Like those who say nonsense such as that greens are communists, greens don't believe in freedom, or my perennial favorite: greens advocate the destruction of the economy. What is required for meeting Kyoto is a significant restructuring of the economy, which in my opinion and that of many others, would lead to a significant net increase in economic development and output. You would be more accurate in saying that it would lead to a radical downsizing of certain segments of the economy (and a radical increase in other segments) - and it just so happens that many of the industries that would take a hit from the necessary restructuring have more control over (and a great deal of money in the pockets of) a large swathe of politicians of both political parties than do civil society and green NGOs. And you yourself presented information which supports this basic restructuring (rather than economic downsizing) argument: Germany restructured its economy by closing and transforming a huge portion of the old inefficient polluting eastern German industries. UK restructured by basically ditching the coal industry and substituting gas for coal. As far as I know, these radical restructurings didn't lead to a net decrease in economic development, much less a RADICAL decrease - in truth, both countries have seen continued expansion. There has been a radical decrease in certain segments of these economies which has led to much pain for people involved in those segments, but the continued growth has led to new jobs which have helped to absorb a number of these displaced workers. This however is a normal part of creative destruction - new and better technologies and industris kill off old ones. Now it is time for green technologies and industries to destroy a number of the old ones. So please lay off the bogey tactics.

Re: “Governor General Michaëlle Jean ...”

The Governor General of Canada is a “corporation sole”, according to Elizabeth II in this document. A “corporation sole” is defined and recognized as being a corporation.

It is a fiction that a corporation is a person.

“A corporation is a fiction, by definition, ...”, according to Patrick Healy in a statement found in evidence provided to Parliament's Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2002.

“A corporation is a ‘fiction’ as it has n separate existence, no physical body and no ‘mind’”, according to Joanne Klineberg in a presentation to the Canadian Aviation Safety Seminar in 2004.

Is your faith such that you believe a corporation is real? Who would be a defender of faith like that?

The Canadian Environment minister and his cabinet didn't even care to respond to a simple request I had in May 2007.

I sent the email to the proper address, the email did not bounce. Zero response.

I ended up contacting the local provincial Liberal MNA, got through immediately. Had Yolande James been available in my timeframe for my son's project, my son would have gotten his interview (5 minutes).

However Yolande's right-hand, she gave us a wonderful interview.

So go figure - the Quebec Liberal party is "greener" than their federal counterparts, and greener than the other provinces.

Still points to one major point in Canada - for the pollution per capita to be that high, with our rather limited population, it's the Corporations that are to Blame.

Things must be getting very ugly in Alberta too.