Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Feb. 19th, 2007

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I think that advocating for something for us to grapple with in this country might be important.

Dr. Weaver, I have to say that many of the members around this table have listened to a lot of testimony on the effects of climate change and the predictions. Tonight I'm struck even more profoundly by the types of impacts we're talking about.

As Professor Peltier mentioned, ice is being lost at an accelerated rate in Greenland and at four times the background rate.

From a scientific view, how critical is it that we wrestle these emission rates back down to some level of normalcy? You've talked about some extremely large numbers, from 60% to 90% of 1990 levels. That's an awful lot.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

Again, we have models out there that look at the carbon cycle and what stabilization scenarios you must reach, in order to get levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide to prescribed levels. For example, you can look at emissions pathways into the future, and you'll see that if you cut emissions by about 50% and stabilize them, you'll stabilize the atmosphere with a carbon dioxide level of about three to four times the pre-industrial level, which is not good. This is very high, and there's a warming that the earth has not seen since humans have been on it, or in fact any time since mammals have been the dominant species. This is not the type of warming we want.

There's a huge amount of data—paleo-environmental as well as model data and basic physics—calling for these changes.

I don't know if I've answered the question. We know how the climate system responds to carbon dioxide.

Even Bill Nigh, the science guy, has a wonderful little experiment in which you put carbon dioxide in one and pure air in another and then look at the effect.

We know what will happen in terms of the broad effects. We don't know exactly which policy paths will take us where we'll be, but this is why we have to make decisions now.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I know you're wary of the policy commentary, but I'm looking at an article and some of the articles in some of your comments about what happened recently in British Columbia.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

I was stunned.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, I hear you were stunned, almost speechless.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

I know. It's true.

I say it again: if you want leadership, look to B.C. That throne speech is truly one of the most progressive throne speeches I've seen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

But why?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

It's not only about dealing with emissions, but it's dealing with them using the marketplace, which is the reality. We can't ask people to start living in tree huts; we can't ask people to stop watching television. It's not going to happen.

I wasn't consulted on this. I and many other people I know just got shocked. This is a very progressive policy calling for—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Let me ask a question specific to this, though. You talk about the business and about the market being able to respond. How critical is it that the market is given clear signals, and, when we talk about climate change and its impacts, that we talk about absolute reductions in emissions in a viable plan in a viable government document?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

I'm going to say that the key thing is not necessarily the path by which you get it, but the path you end up at. As has been mentioned by Dr. Stone, over the next couple of decades, regardless of which policy path we take, we'll have a certain degree of warming in store of about 0.2 degrees per decade. What really matters is where we want to end up. That is why any decision must lead to cuts on the order of 60% to 90% reductions by the middle part of this century in order for us to stabilize at acceptable levels of greenhouse gases.

So it is important to have it, but it's not necessary to say that the reduction must come tomorrow, the next day, or the day after. It's important that we reach a target that's realistic and lasts more than one or two political cycles and that will set the stage for major, dramatic reductions in emissions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay, we'll have to move on.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Warawa, you have seven minutes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you so much to the witnesses for being here.

Professor Weaver, I'm going to start with you. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your comments. Your presentation was short.

You were talking about the importance of stabilizing the CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere and saying that the impacts we see on climate change—and I think we all agree around this table that the debate is over, that climate change is occurring, and that it's being caused by human activity—of the carbon we put into the atmosphere now are going to accelerate for...how many years?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

If we today, immediately, stabilize our level of greenhouse gases, we still have half a degree of warming in store. We've had one degree of warming—it's actually slightly less—and it's half of that again. It's committed, no matter what, even if we immediately stabilized emissions.

We've looked at these experiments. Some have argued that the time scale for carbon dioxide is 50 to 200 years in the atmosphere. It turns out, actually, that as you saturate more and more in the atmosphere, that time scale becomes longer and longer. So if we were to ask the question what happens if we burn our existing known resources of carbon—where does the atmosphere stabilize, and can we draw it down, if we burn our known reserves of carbon, 5,000 petagrams of carbon—we're going to end up with CO₂ levels stabilizing at 700 to 800 parts per million, and the drawn-down time from that is on the time scale of tens of thousands of years; that is, the system becomes saturated.

So the answer to your question is, we have warming in store for centuries no matter what we do. The question becomes, what do we want the path of society to end up in? Do we want to end up in an Easter Island type of scenario, or do we want to end up in one that's more sustainable?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Well, I would think it would be sustainable. At least, I hope that's the direction we're heading in. That's the commitment of this government.

The 1990s were the warmest decade in the past century, 1998 being the warmest year. I'm also from British Columbia. We've seen the devastation in Stanley Park. Some have suggested that some of these storms are one-offs. I would suggest that it's part of a pattern in climate change.

My question is, as we see more and more severe storms, are we likely to see that pattern also accelerate, so that storms will be more common, more frequent, and more severe?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

I can address that.

John Fyfe and Steve Lambert at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria have looked at that. They found that there is evidence that over the last few decades there has been an actual decrease in the total number of mid-latitude storms, but an increase in the stronger ones. When they analyzed the models and what they say will happen in the future, every single model from every single country done by every single group said that more of the same will happen; that is, while there may be a decrease in the total number of storms at mid-latitudes, those stronger storms actually increase.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

You are aware of the situation Canada finds itself in, in that we're one of the worst among the OECD countries for our environmental record. Unfortunately, for the last 10 years not much was done, but we're committed with Bill C-30, the piece of legislation that this legislative committee is mandated to deal with.

I'm hoping I can hear from each of the witnesses recommendations on how we can strengthen this piece of legislation to truly have that end result. Bill C-30 includes short-, medium-, and long-term targets. You mentioned, Dr. Weaver, the target of 60% to 80% or 90% reduction. Our long-term target is a reduction of 45% to 65% by 2050, and heading for that goal.

You're encouraging the larger the better. Is that correct?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

That's correct. I'm not an economist, so I'm loath to comment on the economics of it, but a path that would lead to 60% to 80% reductions by 2050 using a framework such as exists in Bill C-30 may be a kind of path that is workable; I'm not sure. But the right numbers are there, 60% to 80%. And 45% to 60% I think is a little on the light side, in light of the fact that we're already substantially above 1990 levels; 60% to 80% would be more in line with what I would hope.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Just for clarification, are you talking about the benchmark as being 1990 levels? The suggested target for the long term was set by the National Round Table on the Environment here in Canada using the benchmark of 2003. You're suggesting 60% to 80% below the 1990 levels. Is that correct?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

That's correct, and it has to happen not only in Canada but everywhere in the world.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Right.

May I have a comment from Mr. Stone also, please.

[Prof. John Stone]

Sir, I'll try to answer your question. The first point I'd like to make is that the issue is climate change. This is a long-term issue. You need, as you rightly mentioned, short-, medium-, and long-term goals or targets. To strengthen this bill, you need such instruments as targets and regulations. They must be progressive. You can't suddenly change everything overnight.

That's part of the reason why you can expect the climate to continue to change. There's not only inertia in the climate system; there's inertia in our technological system. You're not going to overnight change all the coal-fired power plants into something else; you're not going to get everybody to change to driving a Prius within the next week or so. So there's a time element to this.

My feeling is that the one commodity we need above all others, short of political will, is imagination. It's the imagination to imagine the new technologies; it's the imagination to imagine other lifestyles, to have other aspirations; the imagination to actually strive. I think, more than anything else, what we have to have to tackle this is imagination, and you can't legislate that, of course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

The time is up. I'm sorry.

Mr. Godfrey, you have seven minutes, please.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Oh, seven?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Let me rephrase that: five.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

You're the soul of generosity.