Prime Minister Chretien's recent announcement in Johannesburg that he expects Parliament to give him the green light by Christmas to sign onto the Kyoto Protocol brings this whole five-year debacle full-circle. Yet so many questions about the Kyoto Protocol remain unanswered, or worse still, they've never been asked.

From the very start, Kyoto was the posterchild for 'policy on the fly.' Back in December 1997, Canada signed on to the Kyoto Protocol along with 160 other countries. Was this an election issue back in June 1997 No. Do you recall any public debate about this leading up to the December 1997 meeting in Kyoto, Japan Bet the farm you didn't. Well surely then the newspapers must have some historic record of Canada's negotiating position going into that December meeting. Sorry, that's three strikes, you're out.

While the papers reveal no record of Canada's position, there were plenty of articles written by stakeholders (the environmental lobby, industry associations, provincial governments and taxpayer groups) asking for details on Canada's position. It appears that this position was decided amongst a few ministers and senior bureaucrats during the flight -- policy on the fly - across the Pacific Ocean to Japan.

Fast-forward to the present and the litany of unanswered and unposed questions grows. Polls state that 70% of Canadians support the Kyoto Protocol. But how many Canadians can even rhyme off one condition of this Protocol Probably zero to three percent at best.

In a nutshell, Canada has agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. This represents a reduction between of 30% of projected 2012 levels. It is
still unclear whether Canada will receive credit for its swaths of green space, known as "carbon sinks" and further, whether emissions trading (where we could purchase unused 'credits' from other countries) will be allowed.

Popular sentiment these days suggests if you oppose you are aiding and abetting industrial polluters, greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, the melting of the polar ice caps, drought, famine, disease and the end of life as we know it. Just look at the summer we had - record heat, little rain, surely the end is nigh!

Uh, no. What we experienced this summer in Canada is called weather, not climate change, global warming or the apocalypse. And as for global warming and climate change, scientific evidence is far from conclusive. As Edmonton Journal columnist Lorne Gunter notes, ninety-five (95%) percent of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere occurs naturally, from geothermal activity to CO2 from decomposing trees and other fauna.

As for the earth heating up like a fireball, a real disconnect exists between the data yielded from surface measurements (saying we're getting warmer) as opposed to weather satellites (which say we're not). And then there's the fact that the earth has been heating and cooling itself for thousands of years. In fact, the earth has been warmer than it is today on several occasions throughout the millennia.

Turning to the politics of Kyoto, still other questions arise. How can the federal government negotiate an international treaty on resource use when resources are a provincial jurisdiction A good question indeed. Here is where federalism is put to the test and where one answers a question with another question. Why has the Prime Minister refused to meet with all premiers to discuss this important issue

Will Canada's adherence to the Kyoto protocol make a difference This is debatable. Canada only produces 2% of the world's greenhouse gases while nations like the United States (25%) and Australia refuse to sign on.