Environment Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

[Ken Ogilvie]

This is a global issue, and it makes sense to have some capacity to work globally on it. So the answer is yes. From an environmentalist point of view, we'd like to see maximizing, capturing the benefits, and the co-benefits in Canada, as opposed to environmentally and economically. It is a question of balance. But this is a global issue. It would not be good policy to forego a flexibility tool, in my opinion.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

No, I understand that we shouldn't deprive ourselves. CO2 can come from China or Russia; I understand that perfectly well, except that, in the short or medium term, we should perhaps solve the problem here before handing money over to other countries. Is that what I am to understand?

Mr. Bruce?

[James Bruce]

I think it's preferable to do the emission reductions at home, because we get a lot of co-benefits.

But the whole idea of emissions trading and credits abroad is that greenhouse gases don't respect borders; they're globally well mixed. Whatever people put out in Indonesia has as much effect on Canada as what we put out in Canada. If we can reduce emissions somewhere else, and we can do it at a much lower cost, there's benefit to the globe and to ourselves.

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

The problem is that, as a modeller, I believe it's very hard to confirm that the emissions rate has really been changed in other countries. You can subsidize this or that gas-fired station, but you can never be sure a gas-fired station has been built, and not a coal-fired power station. It's hard to know for sure if the emissions trend has really been changed.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Jaccard, the next question is for you. As we know, there are major industrial sectors, including power production, that emit a lot of CO2. Earlier you talked about nuclear power stations.

Do you believe that should be one of the preferred options for power production?

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

In fact, I have no preference between renewable energy, fossil fuels and nuclear energy. That in a way is what I tried to say earlier in giving my answer. I don't have any preference. It's more up to the people of the countries concerned to decide on the benefits that each...

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

But, in all three cases, whether it be fossil, renewable or nuclear energy, these are three viable technologies the production and operating costs of which will be appreciably the same within two years.

[Prof. Mark Jaccard]

Based on my calculations, within 50 years, fossil fuel clean-up will have the largest market share. That's what I'm talking about in the book I mentioned to you.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I understand perfectly well.

Mr. Page, you say we should anticipate a period of approximately 50 years to recycle an industry, that is to say that it takes about 50 years of use of a technology or a process from the moment it is put in place until it becomes obsolete. Is that correct? Would there be any way for that to be done more quickly?

[Dr. Bob Page]

We can do it more quickly by starting the incentives today. If we were to give technology credits, as opposed to buying international credits, for instance, the domestic technology credits would kick-start today our movement toward clean coal and CO₂ sequestration.

I like to look at the thing as short-term, medium-term, and long-term, but the signals have to be given today, so we can be ready for those long-term goals we're after. That's the main concern I have here.

Second, there has to be an investment context. It's the scale of investment we're talking about here, and the important thing to remember with CO₂ is that you cannot retrofit CO₂. You have to have fundamental new combustion systems, and that's why it's much more difficult and much more costly than SO₂ and NOx and mercury.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

I want to particularly thank our witnesses. I know it was difficult for you to get here. We appreciate it a lot. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.