Response of Alberta to Kyoto is rather radical: it ran a $1.5 million ad campaign titled Why Alberta Opposes the Kyoto Protocol. Alberta estimated a 35% economic burden as a result of reduction in gas emission and, consequently, a reduction in employment rates alongside with billions of lost revenue. Thus, Alberta even threatened to sue the federal government since federal government did not have a right to ratify Kyoto Protocol without agreement of all territories and provinces. Alberta stresses the inappropriateness of a unilateral plan applied by federal government to all provinces across Canadian territory. Going even further then this, federal government developed a plan under which a significant portion of investment will be outsourced to developing countries abroad, whereas Alberta will be realizing significant losses. Aside from showing disappointment with the solution proposed by federal government, Alberta is proposing own plan to cut greenhouse gas emission that will achieve similar results, however, will take a longer period of time.
Alberta favors a US style to voluntarily reduce the amount of greenhouse emissions. While at the present moment Albertas greenhouse gas emissions are 18% lower then that of in 1990, provinces crucial oil and gas industries are endangered with further rapid implementation of Kyoto Protocol. Alberta estimates that greenhouse gas emissions can be safely cut by 50% by 2020 and right now the province gives a promise to negotiate agreements with companies to reduce emissions, pay particular attention to harmful gases rather then regular emissions, and impose fines on companies that fail to meet the established targets, promote alternative sources of energy and encourage energy conservation.
Response of Ontario to Kyoto Accord is more dualistic. Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce recommends to reject the Kyoto protocol and much for the same reasons as Alberta does. The Chamber of Commerce stresses the need for approval of the federal decision by all territories of Canada as well as emphasizes the need for individualistic impact. The Chamber recommends rejecting any plan that might economically disadvantage Canada both on national and international levels. Similar mistakes in the plan have been identified: lack of consideration of geographic and industrial uniqueness of territories as well as inability of government to recognize the importance of the adaptation period of territories to the new style of life. The Chamber goes even further then this: provision of incentives as opposed to financial penalties is stressed.