Bali lies

It really angers me to hear Canada being bashed in Bali at the climate change talks by people who shouldn't be preaching or who should at least try to see world problems from a broader perspective.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071210.wbalicanada1210/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20071210.wbalicanada1210

If the UN honchos bothered to look into the Throne Speech a little deeper than the Liberals want them to, it is crystal clear that while Kyoto was botched up, new targets have to be set and they have to be binding right from the start, so one can't procrastinate on them for years only to end up like Canada did: having to curb 10-years worth of emissions in just a few years. That's obviously impossible unless you're high on something new and potent. The current government is realistic, not hypocritical. Kyoto's mostly gone, and one can only save what can be saved. If you want real government action, make it a resolution with balls. Canada's asking just that, what's unreasonable or hypocritical in its stance?

Which leads me onto the fact that one of the critics is China. Erm, do I need to comment further? The country thrives on coal and hydro among others, with mines blasting up and dams built where they shouldn't really be built. The smog in the big Chinese metropolitan areas isn't Canadian. They should clean up their own act before lecturing Canada or anyone else.

Thirdly, all the honchos are on about government intervention. Government here, legislation there, targets to the left, quotas to the right and whatever. Ontario's and Quebec's distancing is just another sign of the solution we should be embracing: point to the local governments and the individuals if you want to reduce emissions and pollution in general. What might be feasible for Ontario possibly won't be feasible for Alberta and vice versa. A system of carbon credits and an efficient price system for these is the perfect solution, especially if placed within an international trading framework. The more I read around the subject the more I'm persuaded that government intervention through direct legislation and quotas is either inefficient or completely dictatorial, distorting the free market or blowing the country's coffers.

Bali has to be told the truth: emissions will be cut when it will be worth cutting them, and scaremongering tactics predicting the apocalypse will not achieve this aim. If I am the owner of a polluting factory the potential death of all polar bears won't affect my thinking in the slightest. What affects my factory's profits, instead, will grab my attention the second it comes on my desk.

Carbon credits, incentives for efficiency, rewards for other kinds of pollutant reduction. Local community involvement, individual responsibility, individual decision and choice power. Research and education. That's what's needed for countering climate change. The government can only be a responsible umpire and no-one should ask it to do more.