Perhaps the only educated people resisting the call for environmental responsibility are: a) managing an oil, gas, or coal company; b) working down the food chain from a) or; c) holding government office in Ottawa.

The scientific community long ago proved beyond a doubt what casual observation already revealed: we are eroding the natural systems that sustain us. Anyone who argues otherwise is either a member of a, b, or c above or clinically impaired (or perhaps a combination of them all?). So, when our newly elected minority government backs out of Kyoto, vacating the moral heights Canada was once applauded for, we have to wonder about the motives of the people who represent us.

Canadian Environment Minister Rona Ambrose deflected criticism of her government's Kyoto decision by deferring to Stephen Harper who said, "if an international consensus emerges ... Canada will take on new commitments." If a first world country like Canada cannot take the lead in a cause that is clearly in its own best interest, how can we expect poorer nations with populations much larger than ours to make similarly difficult decisions? To justify a lack of leadership by saying we will do it if "all our international partners do it," should, in the information-rich 21st-Century, be an act of political suicide. Who wants or needs leaders adrift with such an errant moral and ethical compass?

The challenge of energy sustainability offers Canada opportunities to develop strong political leadership and innovative business practices. But one won't evolve without the other. Ottawa, where are you?