The Kyoto Protocol on global warming is a flawed agreement that may have a bigger impact on Canada than any other country. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's decision to push ratification through Parliament means Canadians are being asked to make a leap of faith.

The science of climate change is widely accepted. Every freakish weather event isn't caused by rising levels of greenhouse-gas emissions, but there is global recognition that the threat to the world's environment is real and that the time for action is upon us.

But Canadians should have few illusions about the challenge that faces the country or the international blueprint that will govern the country's efforts. The Kyoto pact is a first brush with a serious issue and ultimately deserves Canada's support. But one hopes that more effective and equitable agreements are built upon it in coming decades.

The 1997 deal that Mr. Chrétien pledged to implement at the United Nations Earth summit last weekend is usually described as global, but it really isn't. About 160 countries negotiated it, but only about 40 developed countries agreed to reduce emissions of the gases that cause global warming, such as carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

International agreements often assist poorer countries by giving them time to phase in reforms -- in areas such as trade, for example. But their eventual responsibilities usually are clear.

In this case, the UN hopes countries such as China and India will sign on to reductions after the Kyoto process is finished in 2012 and a new deal is to begin. Until then, developing countries -- which produce roughly 45 per cent of greenhouse-gas emissions -- need do nothing.

Emissions are growing fastest in the developing world, which is not surprising considering the industrialization process. The UN estimates that the 1997 pact would only slow increases of the gases that cause global warming, and that worldwide production still will be 30-per-cent higher in 2010 than in 1990.

The Liberal government arrived at the Kyoto summit five years ago expecting to agree to cut emissions by 2012 to 3 per cent below 1990 levels. But the Clinton administration, prodded by Vice-President Al Gore, went further and pledged a 7-per-cent cut. Canada then agreed to 6 per cent; it didn't want to look half-hearted, and Washington was concerned that its neighbour not get a competitive boost by taking on less responsibility.

Now, the Bush administration has decided against ratification. Mr. Chrétien, meanwhile, is sticking to his guns. (The emissions reduction required, based on present levels and projected growth, likely will be about 30 per cent.) Much of the business community, particularly the energy sector, believes it will face a disadvantage against U.S. competitors. Canada will be the only country in the Western hemisphere to agree to cut emissions.

Some details of the 1997 agreement work against Canada's interests. The pact sets a future ceiling without accounting for population growth. Greenhouse-gas emissions are caused by individuals heating homes and driving cars. More people; more emissions. Europe's population, unlike Canada's, is barely growing. That will help the European Union meet its 8-per-cent reduction pledge.

On a per capita basis, Canadians may be responsible for more greenhouse-gas emissions than any other nation. But that is primarily because the country is big and has a cold-weather climate, and because the general economy remains resource-based. One country that is roughly similar is Australia. It pledged at Kyoto that emissions in 2012 would be no more than 8-per-cent greater than in 1990. The government announced recently that it won't ratify, although it will seek to meet its target independently.

Mr. Chrétien's implementation strategy is not as unclear as is suggested by some provinces, particularly Alberta, and by some industry organizations.

Canadian negotiators may have rushed into the accord in 1997, but they have made significant progress since then in fleshing out details of the pact, which will work to Canada's advantage -- such as winning credits for reforestation and soil-enhancement projects that absorb carbon dioxide. They're known as carbon sinks.

Ottawa's key goal now is to get the most out of a system in which countries essentially can buy smaller emission-reduction requirements. They do this by financing clean-energy projects in developing countries or by expanding exports of clean-burning electricity.

This remains controversial among some Kyoto signatories. But it should get Canada partway toward its target, perhaps one third of the way. That has been a significant factor in Ottawa's estimates that Kyoto can be implemented without major harm to economic growth. Still, it is only part of a plan.

"We must ensure that each country makes the bulk of its reductions through its domestic energy, industry and transport sectors, and not abroad via the international emissions trading system and other flexibility provisions," the UN stated in announcing the Kyoto pact in 1997.

Mr. Chrétien's ratification announcement caught Kyoto critics off-guard. But Ottawa has been moving in this direction for months, even if some suggested that Canada pursue a North American strategy with the United States instead.

Still, what does Ottawa intend to do to ensure real reductions in pollutants? The price will be paid primarily by consumers, but it remains unclear how. Measures such as an environmental tax on gasoline are viewed as unlikely, but rising costs to generate electricity and extract crude oil would be passed along to users.

In particular, how will Canada's Kyoto requirements be squared with policies to build the resource sector, especially through exports? Alberta's massive tar sands can cut U.S. dependence on oil from the Middle East. But it's a pollution-laden process.

Before a meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush at June's Group of Eight summit in Kananaskis, Alta., Mr. Chrétien was heard to mention that they were in the province that has more oil than does Saudi Arabia. Mr. Bush responded that he'd heard Mr. Chrétien's plug often. Now, Alberta's energy industry fears that Mr. Chrétien is turning from export pitchman to megaproject hitman.

It is up to the Prime Minister, having made this international commitment, to show it can be carried out fairly and with the least possible economic impact.

Canada's environmental-technology industry will help. (More on that tomorrow.) But, for now, one can only hope that Canada's Kyoto decision turns out to be one of those remarkable occurrences when doing good eventually translates into doing well.