Left Overs lain Reeve, OP Assistant Editor Developed countries, focusing on America, the EU, Britain, Russia, and Japan mostly, have deen locked for the past couple years in a struggle to halt nuclear proliferation. Their efforts have focused primarily on Iran, who denies having the weapons, and North Korea, who flaunt their program at every possible opportunity. Oddly, the non-proliferation powers have focused much more on Iran than on North Korea, leaving the latter mostly to the diplomacy of their fegional neighbours like China, Japan, and South Korea. There are, of course, reasons for this, put more importantly this is just one of many mixed signals the powers are sending which have soured any hopes they have of limiting proliferation. There was, however, a recent instance that North Korea got the lion’s share of attention. Last week, North Korea announced that they were going to test a nuclear weapon. This gar- hered the usual official statements of concern and worry about the usual things like regional tability. And, like most other cases of similar nuclear showboating, concessions were made. For the first time, the U.S. has agreed to unilateral talks with the “rogue state,” on the condi- ion that they also enter multi-lateral talks with regional powers. This confirms a suspicion I have long held, the only thing more diplomatically useful than having nuclear weapons, is fhreatening to obtain them. There are two uses for nuclear weapons. The first is obvious; deterrence, the act of pre- pnting other countries from attacking you by demonstrating that you can inflict losses they ill not be willing to accept. From the perspective of North Korea and perhaps Iran, the best ay to ensure that other countries will never attack them is to have weapons that could obliter- ite whole cities of potential attackers. It is the second use, however, that is most important ere. Nuclear weapons provide political capital. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council represent five of nine countries SHIA Matters David Suzuki, David Suzuki Bee to Task ecently, Canada’s Environment Commissioner released a report detailing the successes and pilures of federal environment programs, especially those dealing with global warming. Let’s just say the part on successes was a little thin. Neither federal government has come p with a plan to change the fact that Canada’s environmental record is now among the worst the industrialized world, or that Canada has thus far failed miserably to meet our Kyoto tar- ets to reduce the pollution that causes global warming. The Liberal’s environment plan failed because it relied too much on voluntary measures by dustry to reduce pollution. It failed because it focused on expensive subsidies. It failed ecause it focused on individual responsibility rather than market mechanisms. And it failed lecause of bureaucratic infighting. The Conservatives’ upcoming plan will also fail, unless it es a different tack. Voluntary agreements between industry and government should be the first to go. These e often spun as an effective alternative to real regulations. Government and industry meet; ee on voluntary targets and then industry promises to see what it can do. When industry ost invariably doesn’t meet the targets, there’s no recourse for government, or the people it epresents. As the Liberals discovered the hard way, voluntary measures don’t work. Canada has a vol- tary agreement with automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehi- les. Yet these emissions are still rising. California, meanwhile, has enacted regulations to psure automakers comply with the targets. Individuals need to take responsibility for their own actions, but currently Canadians are ied by a lack of options or confusion around the “greener” options that are available. ket-based mechanisms, including financial incentives and disincentives on the purchase of bnsumer goods are far more effective at changing behaviors, as they directly tie individual pinionsubmit@hotmail.com with nuclear weapons; Israel, who are always represented by the US in the council, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. If you want prime negotiating power, the unparalleled power of nuclear weapons is essential. Even the threat of developing weapons leads to talks, negotia- tions, and concessions led by those who wish to remain exclusive members of the nuclear club. So we have three mixed messages. First, those who have the weapons are the first ones to jump up and attest to their terror and abhorrence, all the while sitting on the largest stockpiles in the world. Secondly, negotiations are not made between equals; those developing weapons are always at a disadvantage. While there are other reasons, much of the reason for this disad- vantage is their lack of nuclear weapons. And lastly, those developing weapons are insulted, threatened, and scolded, but in the end, offers of massive economic and developmental con- cessions are made. So, while development is discouraged, in the end it is awarded as long as the countries in question play their cards right. In fact, the example of India has shown that you can have both. India developed nuclear weapons in 1974, much to the chagrin of world pow- ers. However, in modern times, they have struck lucrative development deals with the US who now fully recognizes India’s program. The only way the latent hypocrisy which exists in nuclear negotiations will ever sub- side is if the countries opposing development take significant steps to dismantle their own nuclear arsenals. Until then, it will be obvious that they are merely trying to retain their opti- mum power positions. While they may insist that “rogue states” like Iran and North Korea would be more likely, due to their. substandard political systems, it should be noted that the only use of nuclear weapons on people was by a democracy. The possession of these weapons means there are circumstances under which they would be used by their owners, and no popu- lation, regardless of if they exist in a “rogue state,” should be subjected to those horror again. Environment Commissione Takes Feds actions to societal and environmental outcomes. In other words, goods that cause more pollution should cost more than goods that cause ‘less pollution. The federal government will be much more effective at getting consumers to purchase greener alternatives if it gives them a reason to do so, such as through a variable rate GST. From cars to appliances, market-based mechanisms maintain consumer options while putting a price on pollution. Any credible plan to flight global warming also has to have targets and timelines. The tar- gets have to be firm and the timelines have to include short-term targets, so the end goals are not so far in the future that they become practically meaningless. Timelines that do not set any targets until 2020 or beyond are practically useless. Targets based on “intensity” are also extremely weak because they allow actual emissions to keep going up. Right now, the only clear international framework to reduce the heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming is the Kyoto Protocol. Staying within this process is vital if Canada is to take advantage mechanisms within the Accord to help us reach our targets. For a plan to be effective, there also has to be clear accountability. What department is responsible for what and to whom? Bureaucratic squabblings between ministries must be cleared up and roles and responsibilities clearly assigned, otherwise the buck will always be passed and pollution will continue to increase. Canada desperately needs environmental leadership. But Canadians have had their fill of feel-good spin, fuzzy, vague programs with no clear targets or timelines, voluntary measures and bureaucratic bafflegab. Canadians want and deserve action on the most pressing environ- mental challenges facing our country today. The Environment Commissioner has set the chal- lenge. Now it’s up to the Prime Minister to act on it. Take the Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org. t