Merci.
Mr. Woodworth, the floor is yours.
Evidence of meeting #32 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ipcc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
I want to thank all of the witnesses who have come to appear before us today. I want to say at the outset that I appreciate the sincerity with which each of you has made your case. I would never for a moment question that sincerity, although, in all honesty, I have to tell you that I find your presentations to be lacking in a singular respect. I accept for myself, at least, that you have raised the alarm well and truly. There's no doubt in my mind about the problem of global warming and the fact that we have to do something about it. And I am on the search and on the lookout for practical and achievable solutions.
Once again, today, I've heard very little about achievable solutions. Simply setting targets, as Bill C-311 does, achieves absolutely nothing in itself. There's evidence of the awful cost of not taking some steps, but there's virtually no evidence on the cost of competing solutions. In one respect I find that rather odd, but I think I understand it.
When I ask the government for what solutions it proposes, I hear about progress in tailpipe emissions, extending hydroelectric grids, investments in renewable energy programs, research in carbon capture and sequestration, literally billions of dollars in green energy investments, improvements in resource extraction techniques, money to the provinces to close down coal-fired generators, biofuel incentives, automotive innovation grants, home retrofit incentives, and persuading international emitters like the U.S.A. that it's economically feasible.
Bill C-311 contains absolutely no plan whatsoever.
I would like to begin by asking Dr. Stone, what specific scientific measures would you put in a bill that would have the effect of actually reducing greenhouse gases in Canada? And could you tell me, for each of those measures, how many dollars would be required to devote to that particular solution?
12:30 p.m.
Prof. John Stone
Thank you.
I'm afraid that I'm only going to be able to give you a partial solution, limited by my own expertise.
I think you're right in your implication that Bill C-311, in itself, will not achieve what we want to achieve. But to my view it is an essential first ingredient, that if we are going to set this country on a path to addressing climate change, then the first place to start is by setting an ambitious goal, an ambitious target, a target that will galvanize Canadians as individuals, Canadian industry, and Canadian governments at all levels.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Dr. Stone, it didn't work with Kyoto. So what I really need to hear from you and from other scientists are measures that we can implement. If you have something specific to tell me, now's your chance, please.
12:35 p.m.
Prof. John Stone
What did not work with Kyoto was that we did not have the legislation in place that, for example, would cap emissions of the big emitters and allow them to enter the global carbon market. We didn't have the legislation that would allow us to achieve what we committed to under Kyoto.
Now, there are, as Professor Fortier has mentioned, several technologies that we can take advantage of. My concern is that if we do not take advantage of these soon, Canada is going to be left on the wrong side of history.
As just one example, China now is the second-largest producer of photovoltaic cells. I don't want to look at a future in which I'm going to go to Wal-Mart to buy the photoelectric cell to put on my roof. I would prefer that it was engineered and developed in Canada. I think we have the expertise and the ability to do it. But unless you start with an ambitious target and then put in place the legislation, put a price on carbon, then I think all of those technologies, which are there and we know we can harness, simply will not be realized in this country.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Dr. Stone, if this bill put a price on carbon, at least we'd have something to talk about, but the reality is this bill doesn't do anything, like Kyoto.
I'm interested in your idea about photovoltaic cells, but I need to know what kind of investment you're proposing the government make in the production of photovoltaic cells.
12:35 p.m.
Prof. John Stone
Let me give a very short but more direct answer.
We know we have done the calculations. They are in a recent report produced by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. They have analyzed what it would take for Canada to reach such ambitious targets, and their bottom line is, yes, it is possible.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Unfortunately, time has expired. I know it goes by fast when you're in an in-depth discussion.
Mr. Scarpaleggia, you have the floor.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think whenever we talk about the severity of the problem of climate change and the impact of climate change, we're really preaching to the converted. I think everyone at this table understands that it's a real problem and that it's having ravaging consequences--drought, declining water levels, and so on and so forth.
I think that discussion is a bit of a red herring, to be honest. We're here more to establish whether the targets in the bill that we're studying are realistic for Canada to achieve, given the constraints that we have presently.
I would like to ask the scientists here a political question. And you may say, well, that's off-base, but you are scientists engagés. You're involved in the political process, and you've made political statements about the dynamics of the Copenhagen process.
Dr. Stone, you said we need ambitious targets above all to galvanize the Canadian public. That's a political statement. Those are the kinds of statements that politicians make. So I think this is a fair question.
Do you believe, if this bill were to be passed on December 11 by the House of Commons, that this government, especially a government that has a fairly stubborn reputation when it comes to environmental issues, in fact all issues, would change its negotiating position at Copenhagen because a day prior or a week prior or a month prior the House of Commons passed Bill C-311?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Gentlemen, who wants to respond?
Dr. Stone, do you want to start off?
12:35 p.m.
Prof. John Stone
You've noted that I made some statements that you regard as political.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Prof. John Stone
But they are more personal. They're derived from having been engaged in this topic for 20 years and being convinced of the seriousness of it and the urgency of taking action. I think scientists do have a responsibility to warn. It's on that basis that I made my comments.
If this bill were passed before Copenhagen, then undoubtedly it should change Canada's approach to the negotiations. That would seem a no-brainer, as I think they say.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
My next question is for Dr. Fortier.
You spoke about carbon capture and storage as being a solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, as a tool that would help us achieve the ambitious targets in this bill. But what I hear about carbon capture and storage is that it's scientifically unproven. Even the government, in its press releases.... Jeffrey Simpson this morning says that in the press releases of the government, which are touting carbon capture and storage as a panacea, the language is always hedged with words like “could” achieve, or “as much as” in terms of reduction.
You know, the science is not there on carbon capture and storage. I don't know how we can say we should pass this bill with these particular targets—maybe we should, and that's why we're debating it—because we have carbon capture and storage, which is like a magic bullet.
Another statement you made, Dr. Fortier, which I found interesting, was that it's better to have ambitious targets like 80% reduction by 2050 than 50%, because when you put everything else aside—the moral reasons for aiming high and so on—you said it's good for the economy.
But I have not seen any scientific evidence, or economic analysis, to show that if you choose a target of 80% versus 50%, the economy would grow by Y%. We talk about science and we all buy into the science, but we're here to discuss whether the targets are realistic.
I'd like to read something from this month's Foreign Affairs magazine, which you've probably read. It's an article by Michael Levi, called “Copenhagen's Inconvenient Truth”. It says here:
There is an emerging consensus among negotiators that the world’s governments should aim to cut emissions in half, ideally from 1990 levels, by 2050. This basic goal, endorsed by the G-8 (the group of highly industrialized states) at its 2008 summit, should frame U.S. calculations.
Maybe 80% is the best target. Maybe this is the kind of target we should adopt in the House of Commons. But we're here to debate whether it's the right target. We can't simply say let's choose the most ambitious target because it makes better headlines or motivates the population. We have responsibilities as legislators, and that's why we want to take our time to really examine this bill, not because we doubt the science or because we don't think we should be taking aggressive action.
The other thing that I think we have to keep in mind is that, yes, with proper investments we can achieve some very drastic reductions, but the government has tied our hands with a $60-billion deficit. It's making investments in carbon capture and storage that amounts to a price on carbon of $760 per tonne of reduction. What we're trying to answer here is given our context, are these the right targets we should be going ahead with? That's what I'm saying. If you have any comments—
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Scarpaleggia's time has expired, so I'll ask that you respond very briefly to this question.
Dr. Sauchyn.
12:40 p.m.
Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual
Thank you.
I want to comment on the remark about unproven technologies. From the boardroom here, I'm looking directly at the International Test Centre for Carbon Dioxide Research. This is a world-class research facility where researchers have developed that technology. It's proven. It exists. It's been operational in southern Saskatchewan for more than a decade. They have an extreme sense of frustration here in that it's not required. These innovations and this new economy will not exist until the targets are established, because who's going to invest in these technologies, and what small business is going to pursue this kind of research and development, unless it's legislated?
I've spoken to engineers in the energy sector in western Canada. They have told me that they have developed technologies to make energy use and production much more efficient, but it's not required. Therefore, they will use the status quo. They will use the least efficient but cheapest approach until it's required, until it's legislated that they implement these new technologies.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you.
Time has expired. We have to move on.
Mr. Watson, the floor is yours.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to our witnesses for appearing.
The orders of the day suggest that we're looking at a science panel. First, when it comes to emissions reductions, we hear the warning not to look at it from an intensity perspective but from an absolute perspective. Yet, when quantifying global emissions, we're told not to look at major emitters for the absolute emissions that they give off, but rather, to look at the issue by intensity. I think that's illogical.
Secondly, I think it's illogical to argue that this is a global problem that affects everyone, but then, when it comes to apportioning targets, to hear that the problem is, globally, more the responsibility of some than of others. This is a values judgment, and I don't find that logical.
Mr. Stone, you said something to the effect that science is back in Washington, D.C. The Obama administration has adopted a target that is virtually identical to Canada's for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Is the U.S. target, in your opinion, scientific or not scientific?
12:45 p.m.
Prof. John Stone
It depends where you look. There are three numbers at least.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Prof. John Stone
My feeling is that it is not ambitious enough but has been sufficient to change the tone of the negotiations on the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I have a question on the IPCC's fourth assessment report targets. We've heard a lot in discussion, both on Bill C-311 and Bill C-377, its prior incarnation in the debate. Particularly the New Democrats will call them scientific targets. Greenhouse gases know no political boundaries. Science has been able to quantify the aggregate problem. It's global in nature. But in proportioning the targets, a choice was made to divide target responsibilities between developed and developing countries using something called, I think, an equity interpretation.
First, to the panel, are you familiar with what an equity interpretation is? Secondly, is that a standard scientific judgment, or is that a values or policy judgment?
I'll start with Mr. Zwiers.
October 20th, 2009 / 12:45 p.m.
Director, Climate Research Division, Department of the Environment
I do not know what an equity allocation is, but if we are talking about equity, this would seem to be a political policy judgment rather than a scientific one. The climate cares about the total amount of carbon dioxide that's in the atmosphere.
12:45 p.m.
Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual
I agree entirely with Dr. Zwiers.