It’s called ‘global’ warming for a reason
By MPP Toby Barrett

It’s called ‘global” warming for a reason – however the McGuinty Government has presented a “provincial” approach, obviously, whereas a ‘global’ approach is imperative.

On our return to Queens Park instead of debating the issues Ontarians are talking about, we find ourselves discussing Bill 185 - , theEnvironmental Protection Amendment Act (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading), 2009 Act. In what's become a trademark strategy for the McGuinty team, this government has come forward with its local response to a worldwide issue - when in doubt grab ‘green’ headlines with ineffective, costly environmental legislation .

With respect to climate change I advocate – ‘think global – act global’

Our first clue to the ineffectiveness of Bill185 came when the bill arrived at a whopping page and a half. Just by comparison, the recent US legislation - Bill HR 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 – came in at 1200 pages long with at least one 309 page amendment. And that's to be expected for a national and international response to a problem on which literally millions of pages and electronic blogs have been written, and requires solutions on a world stage to be effective.

It's called ‘global’ warming for a reason - a reason that requires a global response.

To be clear, Bill 185 is cap and trade legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions through setting emission limits for business and industry – with those unable to meet those limits having to buy carbon dioxide credits from those who emit less.

It’s an extention of Stephan Dion’s ‘Green Shift’ although it’s not strictly a green tax –of the Dion school. but it is an extension of this. Basically, as costs are downloaded, it becomes an extension of Dion’s ‘green shift’ in the form of an indirect tax – a hidden tax.
Hence the moniker, ‘cap and tax’.

The concept is far from new - Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney successfully addressed sulphur dioxide and acid rain through an emissions trading program - so cap-and-trade did work with respect to these kinds of emissions within North America. I question why Ontario would expose business and industry to an unlevel playing field, unfair trade and competition at both the out-of-province and international levels. And this at a time when we have lost 330,000 manufacturing jobs in this province, with an economy that continues to sputter under further government hurdles – like Bill 185 – that impede recovery.

My main concern with this legislation revolves around the inadequacy of a local provincial response to a global question. Quite simply, if some of the main producers of carbon are not going to be involved in cap and trade – China, and India – how can Mr. McGuinty change the climate? And how do we compete with their imports? Hence the monicker, ‘cap and trade jobs to China’

When you consider that China, at 1.3 billion people, is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, you realize the true nature of the carbon question on a global scale. Encouragingly, India, at 1.15 billion people, and the fourth-largest emitter of carbon dioxide has recently announced a cap and trade plan of their own..
   
Instead of spending time chasing “Green” headlines for environmental lip-service while handcuffing industry and business – as is the case with Bill 185 – this government would do better to rethink its approach to ‘cap and tax’ and ensure Ontario does not ‘cap and trade jobs to China’