I think all observers, pro and con, were waiting for the GOC to issue an impact analysis of the economic effects of meeting Kyoto targets.
Interestingly, one of the reports showing the potential costs was issued by the Chief Economist of the TD Bank, who was previously famous for being Paul Martin's Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance. He succeeded Grit mouthpiece John MacCallum in the TD job.
Both The Sun and The Post hammered both Baird and Harper for revealing what the ultimate economic downside might be of complying with the program.
Not surprisingly, Kooky Suzuki blasted the report, saying "the government is ignoring the cost of ignoring climate change. First of all, let's stop listening to the goddamn economists," he said.
We'll forgive the fact that Suzuki, as a socialist, likely never has had respect for those who deal in the science of resources. So that's not a surprise.
But these critics of the critics, the deniers of the deniers have never made any attempt to rationalize their arguments as far as the perceived cost to the environment of not implementing a climate change strategy. They continue to spout off that sea levels will increase by 20 feet, that Manhattan will be come a scuba diver's paradise, and that "Dune" will become a documentary. None of Al Gore's public presentations have ever reflected the much more likely effects, nor on any possible beneficial effects of Global Warming, nor any consideration on economic costs.
This should be appreciated as basic dialectic. Thesis and Antithesis. Baird and his people have no responsibility to argue Suzuki's position for him. The climate freaks went nutty with their climate forecasts so they're getting nutty stuff thrown back at them. They started it.
This case is different than most arguments, though - usually the truth is in the middle. The danger here is that either extreme bears unacceptable costs and there is likely not a middle ground upon which both sides of the argument can stand.