Policies that hit some parts of the country harder than others are political non-starters.

How much are you willing to pay to see Canada reduce its greenhouse gas emissions? Depending on who you ask, the answer will vary from nothing to a lot.

And then there are those who claim that this is a false dichotomy – that we can meet aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets and still grow the economy.

Sounds great! Unfortunately, it is more complicated than this. While the economy may indeed grow while we reduce emissions, it will grow less. This means that there will be less prosperity than there otherwise would be, especially in regions that rely on coal-fired electricity and the fossil fuel industry.

Imagine if someone said they would pay you $5,000 to do a job for them. Then they tell you that, upon reflection, they are only willing to give you $3,000. You are still $3,000 ahead, but that could have been $2,000 more.

Big oil is an easy target in the climate change debate. But the image of oil barons lighting cigars with thousand dollar bills is not the reality. The conventional energy sector in Canada directly and indirectly employs real people with real families and real bills.

According to estimates by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation, the Alberta economy will grow by 38 per cent between now and 2020 if the country adopts their recommendations for reducing green house gas emissions, compared to 57 per cent growth if we stay the course. The difference between these two numbers translates into tens of billions of dollars of lost economic output every year for Alberta. This, in turn, translates into fewer jobs, lower salaries, less tax revenue, and reduced investment for the future.

Is it worth it? Does the need to address climate change trump these concerns? Are we fiddling while Rome burns (or at least warms considerably)? Some say yes; others no. There is, however, a better question to ask: Are there alternatives that would reduce the economic costs and avoid the adverse regional effects?

Let’s hope so, because if an alternative approach is not found, national climate policy is doomed to fail. Whatever the good intentions, a policy that hits some parts of the country harder than others will get bogged down in the realities of intergovernmental politics. Like it or not, if a policy does not proactively address differential regional effects, it will not work.

Instead of ignoring the realities of regional politics in Canada, we need a true national dialogue about energy and climate policy. While the outcome of this is not guaranteed, it has a better chance than trying to sell the evaporation of billions upon billions of dollars of economic output as “good news.”

You may be saying to yourself, “What do I care? I don’t live in Alberta or Saskatchewan.” This line of reasoning, however, fails to take into account how a strong western economy drives the economy in other parts of the country (not to mention supplying the federal revenue that pays for things like equalization). If the West suffers, so does Canada.

If we don’t want to see Canada fall short on reducing emissions, we need a realistic approach.