For more than two decades, industrialized governments have stumbled over the issue of runaway climate change. It seems the more scientists say about the warmest temperatures in 12,000 years, severe hurricanes, and a 20 percent reduction in the Arctic ice cap since 1979, the less our politicians want to listen. But British economist Nicholas Stern may have just changed all that.

When the former chief economist for the World Bank unveiled his ominous climate change report to the U.K. government, he managed to mute all skeptics for a moment and speak louder than any leading scientist in the past 10 years. Such is the power of money and the economic threat he levied. Stern equated the cost of inaction to a sum greater than both World Wars and the Great Depression combined.

The take-home lesson, as he stated, is that “We have the time and knowledge to act but only if we act internationally, strongly and urgently.”

This message couldn’t come at a better, or more prophetic, time. As Stern made his announcement, the Canadian government, a signed upholder of the Kyoto Protocol and its timetable to reduce international greenhouse gases, was in the midst of hearing conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s “Made-In-Canada” alternative.

New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton has called the legislation “a Xerox copy of a made-in-Washington solution,” while Canadian scientist and environmentalist David Suzuki likened it to “George W. Bush-style rhetoric” that uses language “designed to confuse.”

Much like President Bush’s ineptly named “Clear Skies Initiative,” Canada’s proposed and officially titled “Clean Air Act” is filled with industry incentives, lax timetables, and no mention of the Kyoto commitments.

Since taking office last spring after the defeat of the liberal and scandal-ridden Paul Martin government, Harper has done little to make good on the treaty Canada ratified in 2002. His Conservative government tabled Martin’s federal budget plans for honoring the Kyoto commitment and cut 40 percent of this year’s budget for climate change programs.

Harper’s main agenda has been developing the oil sands in Northern Alberta, which are second only to Saudi Arabia in reserves. Until the recent spike in oil prices, the process of withdrawing the Canadian oil had always been considered prohibitively expensive. Now, the prime minister, an Albertan himself, is touting Canada as an “energy superpower.”

The result of this shift in interest was reflected in a September announcement by Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, who officially declared that Canada would not meet its Kyoto targets. Whereas it should be nearing 6 percent below 1990 levels, greenhouse gas emissions are currently more than 30 percent above Kyoto. Ambrose blamed the previous Liberal government for wasting money and setting an “unachievable” goal.

Canada’s story of public deception and the courtship of Big Oil may seem like a tragic downfall, but it’s no more shameful than the complete failure of the world’s most potent emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States, to take any action at all. As one of just two major industrialized countries to fail to join the Kyoto Protocol, America left the vital task of saving our planet’s future to a handful of nations willing to take up the cause.

The U.S. National Air and Space Agency’s leading climatologist, Dr. James Hansen, has given the world just 10 years to take decisive action against climate change and minimize the damage already under way. But the key, as Nicholas Stern said, is an international effort. And the Kyoto experience proves that it must also be a concerted and unanimous effort.

When countries are left to pick and choose their own methods of implementation, or whether to participate at all, business will always get more than their its fair say. It’s time governments make an investment in our future, instead of in an industry that’s already destroying it.