Rona's Folly -

Rona's Folly - by Rolf Lockwood
12/11/2006

Despite my statement a few issues ago that I'd grown a new concern for the environment -- and might even give up my much-loved V8 the next time I switch rides -- I'm no rabid tree-hugger. I'm first and very foremost a pragmatist. I'll always opt for what works. Most of the time I think there's no room for absolutes -- nothing is 100-percent clear, and almost nothing is completely right or completely wrong.

The operative word in there is 'almost' of course.

And so I'll drop my pragmatic approach to life and ideas when it comes to the federal government's ironically entitled 'Clean Air Act' and its complete abandonment of our Kyoto Protocol commitments. Sure, the original Kyoto goals were probably unreachable. And sure, the previous Liberal government accomplished very little in environmental terms. Maybe nothing at all, I suppose. But the Clean Air Act tabled in October… well, it's gotta be a joke, right?

More to the point, it's just plain wrong. Approximately 100-percent wrong. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

And Environment Minister Rona Ambrose? A jokester of the first order, acting as if she actually knows something about the subject -- and cares.

Apparently just a puppet anyway, with her strings pulled by our Stephen, she tabled a bill that plainly insults Canadians. With no chance of becoming law in the present Parliament, it will undoubtedly be an issue in the federal election we're bound to suffer some time next year. And that gives us a chance to repudiate the government's approach to the environment and its impact on our collective future.

No, I don't want another Liberal government of the sort we had for too long. Frankly, I don't care which party holds sway. I just want a government that responds to us. And this one has missed the mood of Canadians in a very big way. Ordinary Canadians, I mean, because it seems fine with big business.

The Clean Air Act actually mirrors legislation of the same name that's now law in the U.S. In many cases it makes sense to do that -- truck brake rules and regs, for instance, not that either country goes far enough on that front -- but in this case, Ottawa is proposing to take us backwards in lock step with a country whose environmental policy is itself a joke. Neither Ottawa nor Washington has any vision whatsoever.

Honestly, I'm embarrassed to be a Canadian. How come? Well, let me count the ways…

First, it won't set new regulations for vehicle fuel consumption until 2011. And much as I love my big Dodge V8, I have to think that long delay is just silly. The truth is, we've been dealing with automotive fuel economy since 1973 and we know rather a lot about it. As we also know, and only too well, the Environmental Protection Agency has dealt with truck diesels very effectively. I question the means and the speed and the fact that fuel-saving measures weren't employed as a means to cut emissions, but it can't be argued that present and future EPA rules haven't had the intended effect. Why not deal with light vehicles the same way? And let's not even talk about trains, whose huge diesels live pleasant, unrestricted lives -- and will continue to do so.

But we should definitely talk about hybrid powertrains. I've written about them again in this issue ('Hybrids are Coming', pg. 35, and 'Hybrids, Hybrids Everywhere' on pg. 40 of our November magazine) and the more I learn about what's possible, the more convinced I become that we should be busting our hind quarters to commercialize them. Yet the woman with the responsibility to pave that highway doesn't mention them, and in fact her government has suspended support for fuel-saving efforts at large.

Washington is no different, supporting all of this with tiny dollars at best, if at all. I heard rumors at the IAA show in Germany a couple of months back that Ottawa would in fact announce tax breaks or some other incentives for hybrid trucks in dear Rona's October statement of intent, but no such luck.

The other thing that bugs me a ton about the deceptively labeled 'Clean' Air Act is that Harper and Ambrose won't set federal targets for smog and ozone levels until 2025. Whaaaat? We have the science to do that now, and God knows we have the need.

In general, the bill says we'll cut emissions 45 to 65 percent from 2003 levels by 2050. Hell, my teenaged kids will have grandchildren by then. And China will probably have cleaner air.

Truth is, Rona and Stephen are practising the dangerous ­politics of denial. And we all know that's not good enough. Not even close.

That bitterness aside, let me wish you all a great Christmas. You deserve it.