Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will focus my comments on how Canada's current climate change efforts and commitments fit into the evolving international global climate change regime.
I think one of the first things that struck me in looking at the summit declaration...and I would urge all members to not just look at the climate change section part. I think this is one of the big mistakes we often fall into, where we see climate change as some kind of discrete environmental issue out there. We really have to see it in the context of overall economic development and investment patterns.
I was quite struck by the title of the summit declaration, Growth and Responsibility in the World Economy. It's a well-chosen title. It captures the central challenge that faces us over this century.
On the one hand, there is no doubt that economic growth will continue to be a critical factor in helping alleviate the circumstances of the world's poor, who, at last count, still number more than two billion people. On the other hand, we are coming face to face with the fact that development has its limits, and that first through climate change, but only first, are we directly experiencing the global limits of unrequited growth.
Unfortunately, the declaration doesn't explicitly address that central tension. In fact, if anything, it papers it over, implying that somehow the two goals of economic growth and environmental protection are naturally complementary. In fact, as we all know, they are not, and to make them complementary calls for hard, innovative thinking, of which we are only beginning to scratch the surface.
Successfully addressing climate change requires a serious rethinking of how we approach policy development and implementation towards more integrated, adaptive models. In that respect—and again I ask members that they take a look at the entire statement—it was disappointing to see that the G8 section on investment spent so little attention on the implications of investment on climate change.
One of the critical instruments in setting a sustainable future is through global investment patterns. Legend has it that when Chairman Mao was asked if the French Revolution was a success or failure, he replied that it was too early to tell. I would suggest the same thing in regard to evaluating the Kyoto Protocol. Its success should not be so much judged according to how many countries actually met their specific targets, but more as to how effectively it served as a platform for launching a radical redirection of foreign direct investment in clean energy globally.
I'm in complete agreement with Dr. Jaccard. The major achievement of Kyoto was setting an international value on carbon. The challenge that faces us for post-2012 is setting a price high enough and broad enough to seriously influence investment decisions by the private sector.
One thing I would definitely commend the authors of the G8 summit and the agreement on, and Germany for originating it, was for integrating the issues of climate change, energy efficiency, and energy security. I'm afraid to say that Canada is far from achieving such an integrated national response. We have been for the last 30 years...and I would argue that it is probably more incumbent on Canada than almost any other major G8 country. given that we continue to rely so extensively on fossil fuel exports for our economic prosperity and we continue to plan to do so over the next half of this century. Yet Canadians also want their governments to be global leaders in addressing climate change, and politicians of all stripes and jurisdictions insist on Canada becoming a global clean energy leader.
I'm not saying there aren't solutions out there. There are, but they need careful development and management on a national scale. In that respect, I would strongly and humbly urge the Prime Minister to convene a federal, provincial, and territorial meeting of energy ministers to launch a national dialogue on Canada's sustainable energy future that will actively engage industry and civil society. We must not allow the energy policies, misguided or otherwise, of a government of 35 years ago now to determine a lack of direction on so critical an issue today.
I certainly commend the summit declaration's focus on energy efficiency, and the same can be said on energy security. I do, however, caution that we be careful when we're trying to find complementarity between energy security and climate change.
I was, in particular, a lead author with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change specifically looking at the issue of energy security and climate change, and it is clear that the literature shows that while there may be some similarities and some aligned interest between the two issues, this is far from assured. For example, energy security issues in the U.S. vis-à-vis not relying on Middle East oil are not only working to increase investments in renewables; they are also, of course, working to increase reliance on non-conventional fossil fuel sources, such as the oil sands and gasified coal.
Now to the issue that probably is foremost in everyone's mind, and that's the issue of the long-term targets identified in the G8 summit declaration and Canada's place in that discussion. The question that needs answering on emission targets is twofold: what will it achieve environmentally, and what will be the impact to the economy of such measures?
There is growing pressure originating in Europe, but building around the globe, that anything greater than a 2° centigrade change from pre-industrial levels would represent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the global climate system. This would require global emissions levelling off within the next 15 years and 50% reductions in global emissions by 2050.
In that respect, the long-term global target supported by Canada is 50% reductions by 2050, seemingly consistent with both the EU and Japan. However, is it? Remember that the declaration also reconfirms very explicitly the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities among all countries. This principle in reality then implies to much of the outside world, particularly in the EU, that in order to reach a 50% global reduction, developed countries, including Canada, would need to reduce their emissions at a much higher level than 50% by 2050. Many estimate a level as high as 80% to 90% for OECD nations.
Is such a target achievable, let alone feasible, for Canada? In my estimation, yes, but it will require at least two strong policy initiatives. First of all, there must be a nationwide commitment to clean energy initiatives, including energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage, and a clean east-west energy grid. And setting a value on carbon is the first mechanism to make that happen.
Secondly, at that rate of reduction, it is simply unrealistic to expect Canada to reach such reduction targets through domestic measures alone. The Canadian private sector must become an active player in the global carbon market, and the Government of Canada needs to provide much clearer signals and incentives for Canadian industry to do so.
In that respect, I was very pleasantly surprised at the prominence of carbon markets in the declaration. Ironically enough, it was Canada and the United States, along with Australia and New Zealand, that were the original champions of emissions trading. Hopefully we will soon see them come fully aboard again. Let's not forget the message of the Stern report, that a global carbon market is absolutely crucial in ensuring that the transition to a clean energy future is as cost-effective as possible.
During my travels over the last few years to Europe, Asia, and Africa, I heard a couple of common messages regarding climate change in Canada. On the negative side, there was a growing concern with Canada's credibility gap. We talk the talk, but we have a very difficult time walking the walk. However, on the opportunities side, there is also a keen awareness that Canada is not too dissimilar from rapidly growing major economies in developing countries, and that it is precisely countries like Canada that must be amongst the first to show that one can break the link between greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth. If Canada, with its relatively mature economic and social support networks in place, can't pull it off, how in heaven's name can we expect China or India to deliver?
Mr. Chairman, I have a final comment on the overall tone of the post-Kyoto negotiations. On the one hand, I am heartened by the joint statement of the G8+5, and in particular its recognition of the seriousness and urgency of the issue, and I'm quite relieved to see a major recommitment to the UN process, including by the U.S. in its offer to host a meeting of major emitters later this fall. Still, we are a long way off from any sort of rapprochement. Major developing countries are still resistant to any reduction commitments, and small wonder if you look at it from their perspective. I remind the members that the UNFCC reported that only six industrialized countries are actually on track in meeting their Kyoto reduction commitments, and so we could hardly say at this point that we're showing tremendous leadership.
While we in the developed world can certainly do much more, we also need to keep in mind that we live in a very different world from that of the framework convention of 1992 or even the protocol of 1997. So while we still have prevalent poverty in countries like China and India, there is no doubt they are also becoming our major economic competitors, and how we address that situation is going to be extremely critical.
I have one last thought on the dynamics of this particular G8 summit. One of the more striking things was the fact that those leaders among the most active in supporting strong actions and targets to address climate change, leaders such as Angela Merkel of Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy of France, hailed from conservative parties. In the U.K. the Conservative opposition leader is, if anything, more proactive on climate change than his Labour counterpart. In the United States it is Republican governors, not only in California but also in New York, and Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate, such as Senator McCain of Arizona, who are leading the charge in addressing climate change.
I think there is an important lesson here for the Canadian political process. Climate change is rapidly evolving into an issue beyond partisan politics in most OECD countries, and frankly, I think it is high time in this country that we took to heart some lessons from that policy maturation experience.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.