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

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

Do you have a comment to make, Mr. Weaver?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

I do believe that the accommodation of all three is necessary. I look at technology as an example. As a society, can we not do any better than the internal combustion engine? We put people on the moon, we put satellites in space, we build computers, we can replace hearts, but can't we do better than the internal combustion engine? There must be other reasons why we haven't moved beyond it.

There is technology that's necessary; adaptation is absolutely necessary; and mitigation is necessary, as Dr. Peltier said.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Stone, do you share Mr. Stern's view that an investment of one percent of GDP would make it possible to reduce the impact of the catastrophe anticipated in the 2050s by five percent?

[Prof. John Stone]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to duck that question, since I'm not an economist. The Stern report is 750 pages long, and I haven't been able to obtain a copy yet.

I've read the report's executive summaries. Basically he says that it will probably be more costly to do nothing, than if in fact we tackle the issue and the threat of climate change.

There is already a debate among economists. I saw some of it in the Financial Times last week in an article by Martin Wolf. The conclusion of many of these economists is that it's folly to ignore the issue and not do anything, simply because we can't do the economics perfectly.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

In your projection of the rise in sea levels, which may be up to 0.6 metre, what portion is attributable to melting glaciers, as compared to expanding warm water in the oceans?

Do you or Mr. Peltier have any ideas on the subject?

[Prof. Richard Peltier]

The question of sea levels rising is a very interesting and important one, but it requires some subtlety of thought. For example, Canada, which was covered by ice until around 12,000 years ago up to a thickness of four kilometres through most regions, is experiencing a very strong rebound of its crust out of the sea. For example, in the Hudson Bay region, the land is rising out of the sea at a rate of around 1.5 centimetres per year.

In many of the regions in eastern Canada and the western Cordillera, the land is still rebounding out of the sea. So sea level rising is not so much of a problem for these regions, because of the post-glacial crust rebound.

However, in the high Arctic, there are regions that were not covered so heavily by ice, where sea level rise could have a substantial impact, especially along the coast of Russia, but not so much the coast of Canada, which mostly was covered heavily by ice.

The issue of global sea level rise is of enormous importance in many parts of the world, but each region can expect to experience different impacts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Mr. Paradis for five minutes.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Stone, earlier you were asked a few questions about adaptation to climate change. We're definitely not going to ask you to look into a crystal ball. However, you raised an interesting point. You said that we would need imagination to address that situation. Can you clarify your thinking?

Currently, under suggested policies and approaches — they were mentioned earlier — we're trying to limit our dependence on fossil fuels by turning to renewable energies; we're examining energy efficiency options and looking for new technologies such as carbon capture, and so on.

You don't think that's enough. Does that mean we have to do more? Should we invest in research? How do you see the challenge, not in order to make the transition, but in order to really turn the page on upcoming challenges?

[Prof. John Stone]

Thank you. I'll do my best. It's a very good question.

As my colleagues have said, there's no getting away from the fact that over time we are going to have to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, perhaps by as much as 60% and maybe even more. That depends very much on our carbon-cycle models and lots of other things. Because of the inertia in the climate system, because of the inertia in our socio-economic systems, the fact is that certain impacts are going to happen anyway, and we can't ignore those.

Those impacts will differ depending on who you are, where you live, and what you do with living. There are certain regions--for example, in the Arctic--where, as Dr. Peltier was saying, climate change is exacerbated and where the impacts can already be seen. The people who live in the Arctic are very aware of climate change and what they've seen, and of the threat to their health and their livelihoods. In some such places it makes some sense that one needs to think about adaptation.

Other places, because they may be rich or because of other factors, are perhaps not so vulnerable. Africa, for example, is argued to be very vulnerable. I have the pleasure of being associated with the program run by the International Development Research Council, with funding from Canada and the U.K., that looks at adaptation in Africa, because it's understood that Africa is one of the most vulnerable places. I would argue that if they're vulnerable, then their security is our security, and that Canada has a vested interest in actually trying to help those vulnerable countries to cope with climate change, because if we don't, I think there will inevitably be repercussions for Canada.

Thank you.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Would Mr. Peltier or Mr. Weaver have any comments on that point? Otherwise I can ask my second question.

You discuss the various regions of the world from a scientific standpoint. What would your advice be for setting viable international targets for viewing the situation as a whole? From a scientific standpoint, what do you think would be viable?

[Prof. Richard Peltier]

I think the new regime into which we have to be moving is going to stress all of us--not only our corporations, but also us as individuals. I think Canada cannot afford to hold back on this problem and do nothing and wait for the rest of the world to solve our problem for us, because what's at stake here, as I commented before, is not only the problem of climate change; it's also the problem of innovation; it's the problem of leadership; it's the problem of creativity. We need to create a regime in this country that will foster those things. That's what we're lacking on this issue at present, and many of us are hoping that this committee and this country's governments going forward will help to lead us in the right direction.

I think we have to show leadership on this issue, and we have to show it in the short term, not the long term.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

We will go to Mr. Scarpaleggia for five minutes.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Stone, you mentioned something was progressing in a linear way and something was progressing in an exponential way. Was it the melting of the Greenland ice sheet that was progressing in an exponential way? Could you clarify that, please?

[Prof. John Stone]

There are several indicators we have that if plotted on a graph over time do not give a linear slope. Dr. Peltier and Dr. Weaver mentioned the acceleration of the Greenland and Arctic ice shields. I talked about the decline of the Arctic sea ice. If you look even at something as simple as temperatures, the rate of increase of temperature is actually faster than it has been. That is not linear. If you look at sea level rise, that again is not linear. In many places you look, it seems as though climate change is actually accelerating and that the impacts we're seeing are happening at a faster rate than we had anticipated in the IPCC's third assessment report.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I misunderstood, then. Nothing is linear; it's all exponential.

[Prof. John Stone]

That's my view.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I have a theoretical question. With the last report it became crystal clear that the debate over science is--well, it's not over, but basically the conclusion is clear that there is a major human component to creating global warming and climate change. At what point over the years would a moderate individual--not someone on the left or totally on the right, but a moderate, open-minded individual--conclude that the evidence that we had a problem was clear enough?

It seems to me that many politicians waited until two weeks ago to say that the science was in and they agreed. As a matter of fact, many MPs in the House were apparently not allowed to comment on the science until three weeks ago. Given your experience, at what point would an enlightened, moderate political leader say that we had a problem and we had to do something about it?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

May I address that?

I would like to point out that politically one of the most outspoken and visionary leaders in the world on the issue of climate change was Margaret Thatcher, when she was Conservative Prime Minister in Britain. She's the one who set up the Hadley Centre in Britain, the leading climate research group. She's the one who argued internationally that there was an urgent need, and this was back in the 1980s. She's fundamentally a chemist by training.

We've known about the greenhouse effect for 200 years. We've known about the specific role of carbon dioxide for over 100 years. In fact, Arrhenius and his colleagues and others have been making the calculations about a warming world for over a century. It's not new science; it's been around for a long time. International leaders have been speaking out on this for a long time. It's true there's more action being taken recently, at least in some countries, because of the latest report, but the scientific community has been pretty strong on this and has been saying the same thing for a very long time.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

A good moderate leader would have known in the late 1980s or early 1990s that this was a problem.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

Lucien Bouchard, under the Mulroney government, knew it was a problem and set up Canada's Green Plan, which was a progressive action at the time, on the issue of climate change. It has been going on for a very long time in Canada.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Yes, except that our Prime Minister, as far back as only a few years ago, said while he was leader of the opposition that the science was tentative and contradictory—

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

Well, I agree with that too.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

He was late in coming to the realization.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Mr. Manning for five minutes.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd certainly like to welcome our guests and thank them for their presentations here today.

Dr. Stone, in your presentation you made a comment about striving to meet the levels, but levels that are not dangerous to our livelihood, if I took you correctly. Because greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for decades, as you have said, we are already committed to additional climate change even after emissions have been reduced. It's there and it's facing us, and we have to develop the necessary measures to adapt to those changes.

I wonder if you would care to comment on what you believe—and anybody can answer—are the keys to creating an environmentally sustainable economy, trying to mix the concerns we have with the environment and the concerns we have with being able to live and work in this country.

It seems that most of the people who have made presentations to us are either on one side of this or the other. But in listening to you people this evening, I've found that you're in the middle of it. You're concerned about climate change, but at least you can elaborate on that somewhat. It seems to be a major concern for Canadians.

I'll just close, if I could, with the fact that when you ask Canadians today, the number one concern they have is the environment. Right behind that, though, they're very concerned about their livelihood.