Environment committee  It speaks for itself.

Environment committee  We don't really know very much about the cost of adaptation. It hasn't been studied or assessed very much. Economists have been singularly uninterested in adaptation, compared with mitigation. That's been the flavour of the whole debate for 15 years now. One thing is clear. If we begin to adapt now and take precautionary measures in the adaptation file, the cost will be less than if we delay adapting until we are absolutely forced.

Environment committee  It's difficult to say. Part of the problem is that the list of potential adaptation measures is, frankly, enormous. Perhaps it's best not to do that in a very top-down sort of way: to facilitate, to encourage, and to enable, and where the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of the economy or the society are at risk, to provide some help--but generally speaking, to facilitate rather than to financially support adaptation.

Environment committee  I don't think we know the answer to that question. Earlier on, Mr. Godfrey asked something about recalibrating. Let me put a hypothesis on the table. Suppose we say that by some date hopefully in the near future, we would simply stabilize our emissions—not reduce them, but stabilize them.

Environment committee  We tend to assume that there is a lot of room for spontaneous adaptation. Hopefully the private sector and communities habituated to looking for their own self-interest will see the opportunities, as well as the dangers, and respond accordingly. A role for government in this is to provide the best scientific information about climate change—its variability, trends, and future scenarios—and then engage the Canadian stakeholders, public and private, in an informed debate about what they can best do to respond to the risks and opportunities, and adapt accordingly.

Environment committee  Yes. When I said there are only two, I am speaking actually in terms of the language of the climate framework convention, and that's what they use. I agree there are many different horses to ride, and I think you may be right, and I hope you are right about the accelerating or new interest in energy efficiency and diversified energy sources in the United States.

Environment committee  Canada's targets, which we agreed to under Kyoto when we signed and ratified it, were a bit of guesswork. They were not very thoroughly researched and understood. I don't think we really understood what we were committing ourselves to.

Environment committee  No, we can't meet them.

Environment committee  Do we have all the technology we need to achieve that? No. Can we develop it? Yes. Will it take us some time to develop it? Yes. Can we sooner or later wean ourselves off fossil fuel or a carbon emission economy? Yes, it will take time.

Environment committee  Half a century.

Environment committee  Yes. Mr. Godfrey, I was interested in the phrase that you used, “recalibrate the targets”. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. It seems to me that thinking into the future about the use of targets, how those are going to be calibrated or recalibrated is going to depend very much on the international negotiations.

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak to this committee. I congratulate the sponsor for introducing a bill that gives us an opportunity to think about climate change and the Kyoto Protocol in a particularly focused way. I want to direct my comments to the subject of adaptation.