We all agree that the environment is important - obviously. But we seem to be having a very difficult time coming to an agreement as to what should be done to protect it.

Should we leave it to industry, for example, to monitor its own carbon emissions Should we impose an environmental tax on individuals or businesses Should we offer up "incentives" to encourage people to modify their behavior And just who, exactly, is going to pay for any or all of these ideas And don't be deceived - environmental policy changes will cost money.

With cost in mind, then, the province of Alberta recently unveiled the skeleton of an action plan to reduce green house gases. At first blush it seems to be on the right track, offering up voluntary, technology-driven solutions to the problem of rising emission levels. That's certainly a more thoughtful approach than what seems to be Ottawa's recurrent favored plan of attack - a carbon tax.

A carbon tax is probably the worst of all possible scenarios for dealing with gas emissions. Why Well, first and foremost it wouldn't work. We know that because we already have a carbon tax - it's called the excise tax on gasoline. Emerging out of the fear of fuel shortages and price shocks in the early 1970s, the excise tax was supposed to reduce fuel consumption. Yeah, right. After 25 years of growing fuel taxes consumption has not declined one little bit. That's because the price of fuel is highly inelastic. In other words, people consume fuel in the same quantities regardless of the price simply because they need it. If taxes went up on lava lamps, pushing up the price, you might not buy one. After all, who really needs a lava lamp But you do need fuel - to get to work, to put in your semi to haul goods, to power your factory, etc. etc. Higher taxes are not a deterrent to fuel consumption.

Neither are they conducive to economic growth. A carbon tax would: reduce consumer spending, owing to a drop in disposable income; result in a decline in business investment, reflecting a reduction in investment by utilities; lower exports; increase unemployment; and, quite possibly, lower total tax revenues as GDP goes into a free-fall. This is not just the opinion of a bunch of crusading anti-tax radicals - it's also the opinion given by the government's own economists.

So avoiding a carbon tax is a no-brainer. But are Alberta's proposals any better Some of the ideas thrown out, like lowering provincial speed limits or introducing an annual target for government purchases of electrical power might not be that expensive. Other proposals, however, such as offering "financial incentives" for the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles, or the building of "eco-efficient" industrial parks could get a little pricey.

The bottom-line is that anything the provincial or federal governments do to rein in emissions is going to cost money. Fair enough. But that should not translate into an overall cost increase for consumers or taxpayers. If, for example, the cost of the province's plan amounts to the rumored $30 million, Klein and company have an obligation to take that money out of existing revenues and re-prioritize their spending. Taxes cannot be allowed to increase to pay for yet another government program, no matter how well intentioned it might be. We simply can't afford it.