It was far from a united voice, but Alberta communities were virtually the lone opponents of the Kyoto Protocol in a prickly debate Saturday that saw some opponents to the plan suffer the slings and arrows of their colleagues in civic governments across the country.
And with a groundswell of support for the controversial greenhouse gas reduction plan known from the outset, it kept some council members, including Calgary's mayor, from going to bat on the issue.
"They actually booed me," Ald. Ric McIver said, chuckling as he left Saturday's discussion.
"They feel good because they voted for it, but it's meaningless unless it's done right."
The membership of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents about 1,000 cities, towns and villages from across the country, voted overwhelmingly to call for Ottawa to ratify Kyoto, as long as it includes several "made in Canada" conditions ensuring provinces don't suffer economic ruin.
The 1997 Kyoto protocol calls for the industrialized countries that signed the agreement to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to six per cent less than they produced in 1990 by 2012.
Alberta's environment minister has said the province won't comply with any federal move to foist the accord on the province's energy industry.
Lorne Taylor, along with many of the province's business leaders, believes the accord would threaten some $57 billion in planned oilsands developments and force higher costs on existing petroleum, electricity and coal producers. Most emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases thought to cause global warming come from burning fossil fuels, such as oil or coal.
The outcome of Saturday's vote was a fait d'accompli to most, including Mayor Dave Bronconnier who was absent, choosing to attend closed-door meetings with other mayors and federal officials instead of debating Kyoto.
Debate on the Kyoto accord turned into the most heated out of more than a dozen resolutions considered by the federation on everything from expressing outrage about softwood lumber tariffs to calling for stiffer penalties for convicted marijuana growers.
Queues formed quickly behind microphones in the ballroom as civic politicians rallied for and against the resolution that contains strict "made in Canada" conditions to the accord that provinces such as Alberta aren't unfairly penalized by the agreement.
While many expected fierce opposition from oil-rich Alberta's municipal leaders, a definite split emerged among representatives from Wild Rose Country and from within Calgary council.
Some praised the federation's plan while others, like McIver, said Canada shouldn't risk hurting its economy when the United States isn't on board.
"We're all for reducing emissions, but why decimate industry for a negligible effect?" he told the convention.
The resolution calls for Ottawa to sign the accord as long as no region in the country bears an "unreasonable cost" for reducing greenhouse gases and that areas that consume more oil, gas and electricity account for carbon dioxide emitted from energy producing regions.
The first glimmer of division within Calgary council, which hasn't taken an official stand on the protocol, cropped up during the debate as several aldermen raised their hands in favour.
"We need to have targets for reductions because it keeps us all accountable," Ald. Bob Hawkesworth said.
Ald. Druh Farrell also supported the resolution, noting the City of Calgary already has its corporate gas emissions below Kyoto levels.
Bronconnier said the federation's conditions help "soften the blow" of Kyoto, but he still supports Klein's position.
"It's fine for people in other parts of Canada to enjoy cheap energy, but they forget 40 per cent of it comes from Alberta."
The Alberta government, meantime, is considering mandatory vehicle emission testing and cash incentives for vehicle trade-ins in an effort to remove polluting vehicles.
"We know that vehicles contribute a fair amount to our greenhouse gases," said Taylor.
"We also know that the worst offenders are vehicles over 10 years old that haven't been maintained."
Options being proposed include regular emission tests on vehicles, remote road-side exhaust testers similar to photo radar, and simply paying motorists to junk their old heaps.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.