Evidence of meeting #11 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was climate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I want to pursue something Professor Stone referred to, and actually Dr. Weaver did as well: the conservative nature of the exercise. One of the elements people have commented on since the fourth report came out was the fact that it has not incorporated—because of its nature, there had to be a cutoff point for information to be analyzed—information that has come in subsequent to the cutoff point, which would give us an even more dramatic picture.
Would anyone care to comment? Is that true? Would you like to give us some examples?
6:25 p.m.
School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria
I think Dr. Peltier mentioned some of the Greenland ice treatment, so perhaps—
6:25 p.m.
Department of Physics, University of Toronto
I'll comment on that again. Subsequent to the information that was reported in the AR4, we began to receive data from the GRACE satellite system, which is now in space and which is focused on both Antarctica and Greenland.
What we're seeing in Antarctica is basically what we would anticipate, based on the global warming projections; i.e., that the Antarctic is more or less stable. When global warming occurs, according to observations and the models, we see high northern latitude amplification. The action is in the northern hemisphere at high northern latitudes.
When GRACE looks at Greenland, it sees a rapidly accelerating rate of mass loss. That's one of the main new things that have appeared since the AR4 was put to bed.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Another comment has been made about the short summary document, the advice to policy-makers. Whereas the science is not negotiated, at that stage of the document, it was suggested, for example, that with the various ways in which you express likelihood or certainty—you know, “We are almost positive that...” or “It is very highly probably that...”—there was the possibility for national governments to have some degree of say. There was some suggestion that China had come in on that particular document to soften something from 100% to 90%. It's just one of those stories that gets out there and needs to be dealt with.
6:30 p.m.
Member, Adjunct Professor at Carleton University, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I can try to answer part of that, sir.
The language on uncertainty on levels of competence was determined by the scientists. It's not a matter of taste; it's a matter of statistics, more than anything else, and of scientific judgment.
I was in Paris, because I'm a member of the IPCC bureau. I don't recall any instances when governments were able to change those statements of uncertainty. What the Chinese did try to do was modify some text that had to do with the relative contributions of human factors and solar variability to the radiative forcing that we've seen. They were successful in actually removing a piece of text; nevertheless, the information is there in the graphs very clearly for anybody to read.
6:30 p.m.
School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria
Can I add to that?
I was involved in chapter 10, which is the chapter that looks at what will happen in the future, at global climate projections. Not a single one of our statements was changed.
The only differences between the Summary for Policymakers as put forward by the scientists and the one that was finally approved is that there's a bit more addition. I think that tells you.
I don't know how many of you have actually passed the Summary for Policymakers to policy-makers, but it's clearly written by scientists. Most policy-makers view this as gobbledygook.
In terms of what was added, for example, we put forward a figure that had a probability distribution function in it, showing how the probability distribution function evolved with time through the 21st century. What came out of plenary in the recent assessment in Paris was that they wanted SPM-7 to be added. That's a stick chart that is easier to understand, so that figure was added to our chapter in order to expand upon the more complicated figure. We also had a table added from some of the results that were in our chapter, but there was no substantial change.
So there was no change at all in the text in terms of anything of any scientific merit. The scientists wouldn't allow it. They would be up in arms if this were to happen.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Thank you very much, Mr. Weaver.
Mr. Jean, for five minutes, please.
February 19th, 2007 / 6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for appearing today.
I've found this quite depressing. In fact, for the last several years, I have to comment, being on the environment committee and being from northern Alberta and seeing the changes, there's no question that I believe in climate change. Something is taking place.
I want to read some information and I want comments about Canada being a global leader and about how we can make sure that as a global leader somebody actually follows us so that our lead makes a difference.
I read an article from the Ottawa Sun on the top 10 reasons why Kyoto is doomed to fail. I'm just going to go through them very quickly, and I'd like your comments.
The first was that the United States, which produces over 20% of global emissions, doesn't participate.
The second is that China, the second-greatest emitter, at 14.8%, is exempt from reducing greenhouse gases.
The third is that the European Union, which is the third-biggest emitter at 14%, is reaping the benefits of East Germany's financial and economic collapse, so it really doesn't have to meet any emission targets.
Russia, the fourth biggest, at 5.7%, had economic collapse, so they're more or less in the same position.
India, the fifth, is exempt for many targets because it's a developing country.
Australia is not involved in it. It has the highest per capita emissions of carbon dioxide on the planet, due to its reliance on coal. But still, it would be able to actually increase its emissions.
The most disturbing was that 850 coal-fired energy plants are planned over the next few years: 562 in China, 213 in India, 72 in the United States. None of these is covered by Kyoto. In essence, just these 850 coal-fired plants are estimated to pump five times more carbon dioxide into the air than Kyoto would remove, even if every other country hit its 2012 emissions.
The eighth reason is that.... Canada, of course, is only 2% of global emissions, so even if we hit our targets, to do which this article suggests the only way we could is to buy hot air....
In essence, gentlemen, they're saying Kyoto is mainly about transferring wealth from first-world countries to third-world countries. And this seems to be the only effective mechanism that's out there, except maybe for APAC 6.
I'm wondering what your comments are in relation to Kyoto and Canada's being a global leader instead of a follower.
6:35 p.m.
Department of Physics, University of Toronto
Could I comment on this point? I think it's a very important one.
All of the points you've listed are fair enough. But what we're talking about here, and what I think is required, is a major change in the way our economic system operates. In my view, we are challenged by global climate change to basically reinvent the way we operate.
Current legislative circumstances mitigate, in my view, against innovation. Our companies, our corporations, because of the regulatory environment they do not face, feel no incentive to innovate. We have allowed them, because of the lack of legislative drive, to become Luddites, to live in the past. We've given them no incentive to create.
As my colleague John Stone has said, what we're after here, and what we should be trying to do in our legislative regime, is to have our country lead. And we're not going to do this without producing the incentives that only legislation can deliver. We don't want Luddites; we want creative companies that are world leaders, leading a society that also aspires to world leadership.
It's your job, in my view, as legislative people to produce the kind of legislative regime that will lead the country forward and have our companies create and innovate, rather than rest on their laurels, which is what many of our companies have been doing for far too long.
6:35 p.m.
Member, Adjunct Professor at Carleton University, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
First, as I've already said, the issue is climate change; it's not Kyoto. Kyoto is certainly a challenge for Canada, but it's a first step. I look at Kyoto as a direction, as an experiment to allow us to try different policy measures, an experiment to put in place certain incentives, to put in place new technologies. And I believe we should aim to meet our Kyoto commitment.
The thing I'm always reminded of is Pascal's Wager, which in this context would go a little like this. If we try hard to meet the challenge of climate change and it turns out that it's not so severe, we have lost nothing. We will have a stronger economy; we'll have greater energy security; we will have cleaner air. If we do not try to meet the challenges of climate change and it turns out to be a reality, then we may have lost everything.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Thank you very much.
We'll move on to Monsieur Lussier pour cinq minutes, s'il vous plaît.
6:35 p.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Peltier, you're a physicist by profession, and you belong to the university world.
Of the following three urgent situations, I'd like to know which one the university world thinks should be resolved first. Is urgent action first required to discover and master technical solutions for capturing CO2, to reduce our dependence on fossil energies, or should we focus first on adaptation, that is changing all our building codes as regards engineering and architecture?
In your view, what is the current thinking among academics?
6:35 p.m.
Department of Physics, University of Toronto
Pardon me if I speak in English, but that's my mother tongue.
6:40 p.m.
Department of Physics, University of Toronto
From my perspective as an academic, I live in the world of physics, and particularly in the world of climate change. First, I would be very hard-pressed to find any of my colleagues who did not feel very strongly about the critical situation we're facing now.
We all believe very strongly in the predictions that our best models are making, and we believe that on all the issues you've raised, we have to move forward simultaneously. There is no one issue that can be singled out as more important than the others.
6:40 p.m.
Member, Adjunct Professor at Carleton University, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I'll add one small thing.
About two or three years ago, Robert Socolow, a Princeton academic, wrote a paper arguing that we have the moment, that all the technologies we need to stabilize our emissions at today's levels to the middle of the century are at hand. What's required is putting those technologies into place. We don't necessarily need any new technologies; we should implement the ones that are available.