Without Canada's support, the campaign to curb the global warming that is choking our planet might well have been derailed this week. It was in deep trouble even before the World Summit on Sustainable Development that ends today.

Instead, Jean Chrétien's pledge in Johannesburg to ask Parliament to ratify the Kyoto Protocol by year's end "We cannot wait forever" has helped energize a drifting summit and raised hopes for the deal itself.

Coupled with Chrétien's pledges to open Canadian markets to products from developing countries, to hike aid and to create 10 more national parks, Ottawa is now back on the "green" side of sustainable development.

Despite fierce opposition to the accord from U.S. President George Bush, the Prime Minister's pledge means there is now a good chance Kyoto will become binding on all nations that sign on. Yesterday, Russia echoed Canada in pledging to ratify soon. That done, major polluting countries that ratify Kyoto will be obliged to take steps by 2012 to curb their appetite for fossil fuels which upset the Earth's temperature and climate, aggravating droughts, flooding and other calamities.

This is the strongest sign yet that Chrétien intends to spend his last months in office promoting the forward-looking, activist agenda that the public has been demanding.

Nor should Chrétien be deflected by constant criticism of Liberals such as MP Roy Cullen, who frets that Ottawa can't afford an "overzealous commitment" to Kyoto, or to easing child poverty, refinancing health care or aiding cities, at a time of shrinking surpluses.

To put it charitably, the ever-cautious Chrétien Liberals would have to be bigger spenders to be regarded as "overzealous" in any of this.

Support among Canadians for the Kyoto Protocol is overwhelming. Most parties in Parliament are onside. Only the Canadian Alliance seems intent on further marginalizing itself by making an anti-Kyoto stance its "battle cry," in the words of Alliance environment critic Bob Mills.

 

Yet despite Parliament's broad support, MPs must scrutinize the implications, and Ottawa must build a greater consensus. Before we can have a rational debate, Ottawa needs to clarify its terms.

The government must:

Provide a clearer sense of the costs/benefits. Alarmists moan that Kyoto will "cost" the economy $40 billion, though by 2012 our economy is likely to be worth $1.4 trillion or more. Proponents, in contrast, argue that we will actually save money. We need to see some serious number-crunching between now and year's end.

Let us know who pays what. Ottawa has put forward four potential options for cutting greenhouse gases, but any sensible policy will be a mix. Taxes on gas, hydro and home heating costs will likely have to rise, as will parking costs. Governments will have to invest more in public transit, conservation and cleaner technologies. And fossil fuel suppliers like refiners, coal mines, natural gas providers and fuel importers will have to be offered incentives and/or be taxed, to clean up. What's the right mix?

Help out affected provinces and workers. Cleaner air is a legitimate national goal, and it would be unfair to demand that a resource-rich province like Alberta or workers in the resource sector carry a disproportionate share of the cost. What mechanisms has Ottawa in mind to cushion profit shortfalls and job losses in these sectors?

Predictably, Chrétien's pledge is being greeted as a declaration of war in some quarters. But Alberta Premier Ralph Klein and his allies in Parliament can show constructive leadership in the next few months on an issue that affects the entire country.

Do they have any ideas for keeping Canada's Kyoto promise with sensible, cost-effective programs? Where can Ottawa help, and by how much?

Rather than obstruct a planet-saving policy that most Canadians support, they might recognize that we are all part of the problem, and must be part of the cleanup.