Environment committee  In addition to that, it's just math. It's really just math in the end. To get to 50% by 2050, you make a policy decision about who bears the biggest burden, at least initially, and then you have to have the balance from the others. It has to add up to 100% on that 50% carbon.

Environment committee  If you notice, the little nuclear slice actually ends at a certain point. There are nuclear plans in place. What the modelling took into account was that they're there, but they will not be replaced. So moving out to 2050, we can still accomplish the seven-gigatonne budget. The

Environment committee  I find it interesting that former Premier Lougheed is able to make pronouncements about pace and scale of development without blinking an eye. You have to read the situation, look at the overheated state of it, look at the public opinion in Alberta, and make a rational decision.

Environment committee  One of the slides in my presentation is this very complicated little graph with many wedges. Those are solution wedges. What World Wildlife Fund did was ask the question: can we live within a seven-gigatonne budget, which is a 50% global reduction from the projected business as

Environment committee  On the tar sands and the role of carbon capture and storage, I don't see that anybody is seeing a future in which we can actually meet deep reduction targets without some significant investment in carbon capture and storage. As the panel that just reported has pointed out, we do

Environment committee  From an environmental perspective, all greenhouse gas emissions reduced are good greenhouse gas emissions reduced. We should be doing the best to reduce our own, and we should be doing the best possible to make sure that other countries do as well.

Environment committee  World Wildlife Fund does not support nuclear as an option. It's neither necessary nor desirable from an environmental perspective.

Environment committee  Part of your question has to do with what's called elasticity. You don't have very much choice in how much energy you use to heat your home; it depends on how cold it is. You don't have that much choice if you have to commute to work and there isn't a public transit system. This

Environment committee  In principle, we absolutely should have regulated requirements.

Environment committee  On the efficiency side of things, there is no study in the entire world on greenhouse gas reductions that does not put energy efficiency at the top of the list. First, energy efficiency is fast. These targets seem ambiguous in their timeframe. To protect the climate, you actuall

Environment committee  First of all, it's not necessarily tax we are talking about but price. You can create a price by various methods, either through a tax or through a constraint. If you constrain carbon through a cap or a regulated target, the price will go up because carbon becomes a commodity. So

Environment committee  I'm not quite clear on what you mean by costing. Is your main focus here what it would cost to actually achieve the targets that would be set out in the bill?

Environment committee  Is your point with regard to what it would actually cost to implement the targets set out in the bill?

Environment committee  The World Wildlife Fund works with what we consider to be change-ready, leading-edge companies. Actually, we see a lot of willingness to act within the business community that we're dealing with. But there is also a recognition that it would be (a) a lot easier, (b) a lot more mo

Environment committee  From my perspective, getting the targets entrenched sets the level of ambition. You then have the opportunity to design programs from year to year, on a three-year rolling average, or for 10 years, as long as they are working. Regarding the whole issue of impacts, part of the re