Environment Committee on Jan. 30th, 2008

[Ian Rutherford]

It seems to me that's a bit like saying I've had my cake and you're not going to get yours.

I alluded to looking at this from the point of view of contributions to the problem per capita. If you do it that way, it's clear that the developed countries are the villains, and the underdeveloped countries, who recognize very clearly that the developed countries are the villains, say, “You've done all of this; we want to do the same thing. We're going to do it more intelligently than you, but inevitably our emissions are going to rise, because we're still in an energy-intensive phase of economic development.”

We have to somehow get away from the notion that we need to spend ridiculous amounts of energy to accomplish anything. Even in the report from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy it's clear that there are many ways we can reduce both our energy consumption and the emissions we're producing to get that energy.

There's no mystery about this. There are well-known technologies around, and there are other technologies that we haven't imagined yet that will help us get there. But we have to either determine to get there or we have to implement policy measures that force us to get there, such as those the national round table recommends—things such as a carbon tax, which will simply make the production of energy-using fossil fuels too darned expensive. People will naturally find cheaper ways of doing it, and hence emissions from fossil fuel burning will decline.

I think an equitable way to look at it is that every inhabitant of this earth ought to be treated fairly. I don't think it's fair that a citizen of Canada, Europe, or the U.S. should enjoy an energy-intensive lifestyle that produces tonnes and tonnes of carbon per year, whereas a resident of Africa is not allowed to do that—or of China, India, Brazil, or any of these economies that are developing. Equity would say that we should all try to reach a relatively uniform low level of production of carbon emissions per unit of happiness, or GDP, or whatever it is you want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Stone, I think you wanted to jump in.

[Prof. John Stone]

Thank you.

Let me look at it in a slightly different way. There are, as Ian mentioned, what might be regarded as moral questions, the fact that a large part of today's increases of temperature are due to our emissions in the past and that our emissions per capita are simply higher than those almost anywhere else.

The answer I would give as to why we should we do it is that it's because we can do it. I believe there are wonderful and marvellous opportunities available to us for Canada to grasp this nettle and seek to make our contribution to reducing emissions and to producing the sort of economy and industries that will see us into the future.

What worries me is that if I look, for example, at Denmark, they are now the world leaders in wind power. Their government took them there, and they have now a competitive advantage. Similarly, Germany is now the world's leader in solar power. The U.K. are becoming the world's leader in financial instruments. My worry is that if we do not act soon, we're going to be left behind. We will end up on the wrong side of history, and we don't have to be there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You have half a minute, Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's not much, unfortunately.

I want to ask you about a situation we've heard about. There's a professor at Dalhousie University, Dr. Anna Metaxas, who has led a study of coral in the Caribbean that found that in the year 2005, the hottest year on record, half the coral in the Caribbean died. I don't know whether that's entirely attributable to the heat, but it's certainly what one draws from that.

In view of this, is it your view that the examples of impacts in the IPCC report are alarmist, realistic, or are they in fact overly cautious? When you hear something like this, they seem even overly cautious.

[Dr. Andrew Weaver]

Let me address that. I actually know Anna very well. We were graduate students together back in the 1980s.

If you look at the assessments as to what will happen to corals, there are two effects. One is bleaching through temperature and the other is through their inability to grow because of ocean acidity.

The amount of carbon dioxide we're putting into the atmosphere is such that the acidity levels of the ocean towards the middle of the next century will reach levels that have not been reached in 300 million years of earth's history. This spells the demise—and there's not much we can do about it, unless we act now—of all the world's coral systems.

I suspect that when you see statements such as you just heard there, they are not alarmist; these are very real statements, and you haven't seen anything yet.

Look at the barrier reef. This is an ecosystem that's destined to death, and I don't think there's much we can do about stopping the death of the barrier reef because of the warming and the acidity we have in store due to emissions that have already happened.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Sauchyn.

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

I can't speak to that particular impact, although my daughter works for this professor, so I can ask my daughter.

I want to refer to your question about whether there are alarmist statements in the IPCC report. I think at least three of the panellists here today contributed to that fourth assessment, and you have to realize it represents the work of almost 4,000 scientists who had to reach a consensus. Also, bureaucrats from more than 130 countries had to approve the report. Any time you get 4,000 people to agree on something, it has to represent a compromise. The major criticism I've heard of that report is that the statements are not alarmist enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much.

I would remind all of our members that this is a science panel and to try to keep it to the science. We do have economists coming, so if we can keep it to the science, I think that would get the most out of the four witnesses we have.

Go ahead, Mr. Bigras, please.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming here to give us, as Mr. Weaver said, a realistic, rather than alarming, take on the situation.

If we have one regret about the Bali conference report, it is probably the failure to include in the “road map” a reference to the two-degree Celsius threshold. When the question is relegated to footnote status, it is difficult to establish a national and international consensus on the question of reducing greenhouse gas emission levels.

Mr. Sauchyn, you indicated in your presentation that Bill C-337 was a decisive initiative in the quest to stop climate change from reaching devastating proportions. Mr. Stone talked about the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions anywhere from 20% and 40% by the year 2020 as compared to 1990 levels. This is one target that was proposed by certain countries in Bali. The range mentioned is between 20% and 40%, while the bill proposes a 25% cut in greenhouse gas emissions.

Fundamentally, reducing emission levels by 25% by 2020 over 1990 levels is not a conservative objective. Some countries, Germany in particular, are calling for a 40% reduction in emission levels; Europe is proposing a 30% reduction, provided industrialized nations come on board.

Is the 25% target high enough to prevent the potentially catastrophic situation that Mr. Sauchyn alluded to?Should we not amend the bill and set even more ambitious targets?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Who wants to jump in?

Mr. Stone.

[Prof. John Stone]

With your permission, Mr. Bigras, I will answer that question in English.

One of the things I was trying to say in my opening remarks is whatever level you choose to stabilize and whatever pathways you choose and whatever contribution you choose, it's informed by science, but it has also to be as a result of a political process. There are political decisions to make, political decisions because it depends on values, what you value and, among what you value, what you do not wish to see disappear as a result of climate change.

It's also a matter of our values when one talks about the level of ambition. What level of ambition does Canada want to display internationally? That's as a result of how we are regarded internationally, but also, as I said earlier, as a result of what we want to achieve as an economy. So although you can go through scientific arguments and say yes, as I think all four of us have said, we need globally to reduce emissions by 2050 by at least 50%, you have to think of what part of that 50% is Canada going to contribute. And that is partly scientific, but it's going to be partly political.

My own view is that you need a level that is going to unleash the innovative strengths of Canadians and be a real challenge. It needs to be ambitious. So in that argument, one might say that the stronger the level of ambition, the better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Lussier.

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

Mr. Stone, you spoke of reducing emissions by anywhere from 60% to 95% by 2050. As I see it, cutting emissions by 95% would mean no longer using any oil. Correct?

[Prof. John Stone]

The figures I mentioned are in Working Group III of the IPCC report. I wasn't part of that, so I'm not intimately familiar with all of the arguments.

In the end, the IPCC chose to set a range. That's because there's a whole lot of assumptions in the models about what individual countries could do. That's why the range for the strongest levels is somewhere between about 40% and 95%.

You're right that if we're going to do that--I think Dr. Weaver mentioned something similar--we will certainly need to de-carbonize our economy. We'll need to reduce the amount of carbon in the fuels we use, which means using less and less coal, oil, and gas, and using more and more renewable energy sources such as biofuels, solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy, and the like, in addition to conserving.

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

Thank you.

[Dr. Andrew Weaver]

May I add something?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Dr. Weaver, go ahead.

[Dr. Andrew Weaver]

I would like to clarify that it's 40% to 95% of emissions. It doesn't mean you can't use oil; it means that if you're going to burn oil, the emissions must be captured and sequestered or stored. There's a very important difference between the two: one is no fossil fuels and one is no fossil fuel emissions. I think it's the latter that we care about.

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

Mr. Sauchyn, since you mainly represent organizations in Western Canada, I am particularly interested in the water issue. In your analysis, you talked about surface water. However, I believe Alberta faces a different dilemma: the drilling of one million wells to extract methane, an undertaking that will adversely affect groundwater sources that feed the rivers and lakes in Western Canada.

Has the problem of groundwater in Western Canada been addressed in your analyses or in the 3,000 studies conducted?

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

I can speak about groundwater as it relates to climate change; I can't speak to the methane problem because it's not really an issue of climate change. I assume you're speaking about coal-bed methane and contamination of groundwater.

Groundwater is a solution in terms of water supply, because presently a relatively small proportion of the water supply in the Canadian prairies is derived from groundwater. As surface water supplies become less available, groundwater represents an opportunity to supplement the water supply. However, there are some serious limitations in our knowledge of the availability of groundwater and its quality.

There's also the opportunity to store water underground. The climate change scenarios indicate that we can expect drought of greater severity and length on the Canadian prairies, but we can also expect some unusually wet years as the climate becomes more variable. As the range of climate extremes increases, there will be some unusually wet years and some unusually wet winters. There's an opportunity to store that excess water under the ground and make it available during the drier years.

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

Mr. Sauchyn, since you are well acquainted with the natural resources secretariat, can you tell us if Natural Resources Canada representatives speak to Environment Canada representatives?

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

Sorry, that's a political question I'm not willing to speak to. We do work with both federal agencies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rutherford, did you want to venture there?

[Ian Rutherford]

No, not at all.

Obviously, the two departments are communicating with each other, but not all the time and not often enough, in my experience.