Unsustainable

It's no great secret that farmers and the environment have both fared extremely poorly under the Cons so far. But the damage to both is all the more clear in the Cons' refusal to establish the planned emissions-trading scheme:

Players in the new Kyoto-inspired emissions trading industry say they've moved up to $1 billion in Canadian investments and technology out of the country because Ottawa is stalling on a plan to reduce greenhouse gases...

"Our own budget requests have probably been reduced by 90 to 95 per cent because of the uncertainty. We still intend to spend some money in Canada, but it's a small fraction of what we would have otherwise," (said Len Eddy, managing director of AgCert Canada).

AgCert Canada is one of several companies operating in Alberta that were prepared to invest hundreds of millions into Canadian farms to help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In turn, the farms could benefit from lower energy and operating costs, while also having the option of generating new revenues by selling credits for emission reductions to large companies.

Another firm, Icecap Limited, was expected to invest up to $500 million in the Canadian economy, but they shut down their Calgary office several weeks ago, and moved back to the United Kingdom.

"You can either keep farming running by paying them subsidies, or you can give them other methods that allow them to do transactions that would make them profitable," said cattle farmer Peter Morrison, who estimates he's losing about $900,000 a year in potential sales on the emissions trading market.

Even looking only at dollars and cents, it would seem fairly obvious that driving substantial investments out of the country for the sake of nothing but inertia must be a fairly poor strategy. But it's all the more so when the effect is to prevent farmers from operating in a more environmentally-friendly manner, and from becoming more profitable in the process.

It could well be that the Cons (as they seem so eager to claim) will do an about-face by this fall. But even if so, the effect of their government would be to delay a positive action which was already in progress, and probably to cast uncertainty over the developing market as well. And surely the image of a ditherer who can't be bothered to ensure progress on a policy with so many obvious positive effects isn't one that Harper should want to take on.