The good the bad and the ugly of climate change legislation

Two points of interest:

1) Liberals and environmentalists in Canada have nothing but harsh criticism for Stephen Harper's Conservative government's plans to reduce so-called greenhouse gas emissions because they say his plan doesn't go far enough.

1) Small-l liberals (mostly Democrats) and environmentalists in the U.S. are pushing for climate change legislation, the Lieberman-Warner bill a.k.a. America's Climate Security Act which has been costed at about $6 Trillion as the solution to saving the planet.

Got that? liberal plan in the US is good, Conservative plan in Canada bad.

Now take note of this excerpt from an article today by Lorrie Goldstein called Cap and trade? The devil's in the details

In fact, the U.S. bill's goal of cutting carbon emissions by 18% below 2005 levels by 2020, mirrors that of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government to lower Canada's emissions by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020.

How can two plans that are practically identical, as far as emissions reductions targets are concerned, be viewed so differently?

Here's the ugly part: One is seen negatively because it's proposed by conservatives, the other is seen positively because it is promoted by liberals. Both will obviously lead to more government intervention in our respective economies, but the US version is also full of good old pork barrel spending.

Here's an even uglier truth: Neither one of these plans, even if completely successful in reaching their targets, will have any effect whatsoever on our climate. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Now do a cost-benefit analysis on that.

Big government and expansion of the power of the state* is what climate change legislation is all about. It has nothing to do with the climate. Nothing at all.