The Kyoto accord on climate change may be one of the most poorly crafted pieces legislative incompetence in recent times. 

First, the science of climate change, the treaty's fundamental foundation, is not even remotely settled There is even strong evidence that human activity is not causing serious global warming.

And, Kyoto could actually hurt the global environment by causing energy intensive industries to move to developing countries which are exempt from Kyoto emission limits and do not control harmful forms of pollution.

The Canadian government wants to meet its Kyoto targets by paying billions of dollars a year for CO2 credits to the former Soviet Union. For decades, the region has been the world's greatest waster of energy. Yet, it will receive billions in free CO2 credits because of the flawed structure of Kyoto. No possible good can come to the environment by this transfer of wealth from Canadians to Russia and its neighbours.

Kyoto would be ineffective even if the pro-Kyoto science is correct, reducing projected warming by a mere 0.06 degrees Celsius over the next half-century. We would need at least 10 Kyotos to stop alleged global warming. This would require a virtual elimination of fossil fuels from our energy system.

What would the economic impact of 10 Kyotos be? Think in terms of 10 times the devastating impact of the oil crisis of the 1970S (remember high unemployment and 20 per cent mortgage rates) or IO times the impact of Canada's destructive and wasteful National Energy Program. Be prepared for some huge and unpleasant changes in the way you live.

Fossil fuels account for 87 per cent of the world's primary energy consumption, with 13 per cent coming from nuclear and hydroelectricity.

Is it even possible to replace such an enormous quantity of fossil fuels?

Hydrogen is not an answer - it is a clean secondary energy like electricity, but it's made from primary energy like fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro.

Kyoto advocates want expanded renewable energy such as geothermal, wind, solar power and biomass to provide our future needs. Is this possible?

In 2001, there was a total global installed capacity of eight gigawatts of geothermal power and 25 gigawatts of wind power. Even assuming the wind blows all the time, this equals only one quarter of one percent of worldwide primary energy consumption. The contribution of solar electrical power generation is so small as to be inconsequential. To replace fossil fuels, we would need to increase all these renewables by a staggering 33,000 per cent.

Of course, wind doesn't blow all the time. Wind power works best as a small part of an electrical distribution system, where other sources provide base and peak power. Although wind power has 
made gains, it will probably remain a small contributor to our overall energy needs.

What about solar power? The electricity generated by a photovoltaic solar cell in its entire lifetime does not add up to the energy used to manufacture it, not to mention the requirement for vast 
areas for solar farms.

Hydroelectric power is another renewable resource, but environmental activists don't want more hydro because it dams rivers.
What about biomass solutions such as ethanol? Canada, the United States and a few other countries may have available crop land for ethanol to partially meet our local needs, but it is clearly not a global solution.

Conventional nuclear fission or, someday, fusion are the only two prospects that could conceivably replace fossil fuels.

Conservation is a good solution, and Canada has been improving its energy efficiency for decades, in response to rising energy prices. However, Canadians still live in a cold climate and our country is vast. There are practical limits to what we can achieve through energy conservation. " So, where will all the energy come from? Kyoto supporters have provided no practical answers.

If we implement Kyoto, we will have " two choices - destroy our economy and suffer massive job losses and power blackouts, or break the terms of Kyoto, which will be international law.

Instead, a new global anti-pollution initiative should be drafted by people who have a better understanding of science, industry and the environment.

It should focus, not on global warming and CO2, but on real atmospheric pollutants and particulates as well as pollutants in the water and soil and no country should be exempt.

Then, there might be a chance to actually improve the environment.