Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the various comments. I want to make it very clear that I believe climate change is occurring and I believe the earth is round. I think the demand side is important. I have talked about the technology being important and about science being important. As I said, an hour and a half ago I visited an ethanol plant here in Ottawa. I saw that technology and what its future might be.
As well, I talked to some people in the transportation industry from Ballard Power this afternoon. Interestingly enough, while the first bus ran in Vancouver on a power cell, the second set ran in Chicago under Canadian control. The third set is in Los Angeles under U.S. control. They are now taking advantage of it and taking credit for it. That is the kind of thing that worries me.
Also the whole area of sinks is poorly understood and a lot of people would question the science. With respect to emissions trading, I do not think that is helping the air; it is just changing where we put the pollution. This is a most important issue.
The Kyoto protocol is terribly flawed and must be rejected. We must start over again, not stop, not deny that it is occurring, but do something better.
I have been an environmentalist for most of my life. I have worked as a conservation biologist and I have worked to educate people about energy efficiency and resource conservation.
Some might say that Kyoto is a good first step. I find that because Kyoto is the way it is, it is not a good first step. Good first steps in environmental policy are defined by getting the best bang for the buck. Kyoto does not come close to achieving this. It is not cost effective and the hard earned dollars of Canadians are being wasted.
It is an agreement that will achieve almost nothing for the environment while severely hurting Canada's economy. It also hurts Canada's ability to continue to be a healthy and secure place and the best place in the world to live.
If Kyoto is accepted, billions of dollars will be taken from health and environmental programs. Billions of dollars taken from the Canadian economy will lead to massive underemployment and even unemployment.
What will it achieve? By 2100 it will have achieved less than a .2 degree Celsius change in projected temperature increases, a redistribution of pollution to other parts of the world, increasing pollution from developing nations and little planning to effectively aid these nations to reduce their own growing air pollution. We must let them leapfrog from the 1950s into the 21st century.
As well, it does not build confidence in technology. I have just mentioned the example of Ballard. That is in California now. Canada has lost those buses.
We are presently in a vulnerable position. We are engaged in a war. We are tightening our borders. We are spending new money on security. We are in an economic slowdown. We agree that climate change is occurring, but are we truly willing to commit to an international agreement that achieves almost nothing environmentally and no doubt will lead us into a considerable economic recession if not a true depression?
We must move on now with meaningful words. We must come up with a new protocol that involves all countries, that is realistic, is based on solid science and has realistic goals that all countries can achieve.