Margaret,

You are correct in your title, you have provided a “no-brainer”.  In this, as with most of your columns on this topic, you are substantially, if not completely, wrong.

As any economist will be pleased to explain to you, increasing the price of goods that cause harm (whether they are cigarettes, alcohol or gasoline) will tend to reduce consumption, and in the case of fossil fuels, GHG emissions. This is a fundamental and unassailable economic fact of life. The program will therefore result in reduced GHG emissions (which is its purpose).

While you may or may not agree with any particular program to which the funds applied, the government has committed to spend the cap and trade proceeds on projects and programs which further reduce GHG emissions. Most of which would appear to have substantial merit.  Eg, a program to facilitate bicycling to Go Transit stations, would provide health benefits to the participants, while reducing air pollution and easing traffic congestion.