Environment Committee on Feb. 4th, 2008

[Kenneth Ogilvie]

Just to sneak something in here, I'm not aware of the analysis for developing countries and what it should say, but it strikes me that it seems to be reasonable that when we're putting a cost on ourselves, a price on carbon, that may affect our competitiveness and just shift production somewhere else where somebody's not paying. We need to even the scale somehow. We should truly lose business if we're not competitive. If somebody's a better producer, a more efficient producer, for good reasons, that's fine. But where we're imposing a greenhouse gas constraint, there should be some way of evening the scales on that so that at least we're not introducing that as a factor to shift, as you say, production to the less environmentally friendly.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Would you be recommending an import tax, then, perhaps? What draws the question to mind is that while you're introducing a regulation on fuel efficiency to suggest, say, greater than 35 miles per gallon, as I think the Bush standard was, then we should worry about what fuel efficiency is coming in on Korean vehicles, for example, which is one of the developing countries, or China, with their $10,000 vehicle--who knows what their fuel efficiency is going to be on that?

Is that what you're talking about?

[Kenneth Ogilvie]

I'm very much in favour of that type of analysis. The goal here is not to destroy Canadian industry. The goal is to make it efficient and to make the world efficient too. I think we should be looking at those sides of our policy.

[Dale Marshall]

And ensuring that every country takes responsibility for its emissions, which is exactly what the international discussions are about.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

Last week we had some of the IPCC scientists here--Dr. Stone, for one. He and I had an interesting conversation.

I asked him about the target of 25% to 40% by 2020 and the 80% to 95% target. I asked him very specifically whether it was policy-makers or bureaucrats who made that decision, or whether it was scientists. He said that scientists had made that decision.

In his presentation there was no target for developing countries. I asked him whether that was because it wasn't scientifically quantifiable, and he said no. I asked him whether it was a decision by IPCC scientists not to quantify and he said yes.

My question to him, as a follow-up in our conversation, was whether that implied a bias on targets by scientists that wasn't necessarily scientific. He hedged at first before agreeing.

That concerns me. Have scientists ventured beyond the scientific now into the realm of policy-makers and decision-makers? As we're looking at targets that mirror the IPCC's own targets set by scientists, that is a question we have to consider, and whether or not the Chinas and the Indias and South Koreas and others take on absolute targets. That's the policy question now. And the decision not to do that modelling.... I guess science should have compelled--since it's aggregate emissions into the atmosphere--that some modelling should be done on that.

Would you agree that is somewhere the scientists have to go, as well as the policy-makers?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Very briefly.

[Dale Marshall]

The policy-makers internationally have decided that in the next round of negotiations developed countries will continue to reduce their emissions, and developing countries will take on commitments. That means that their emissions track will bend downward and eventually peak. But there wasn't an expectation for them to have absolute emission reductions in the next phase, which is, not surprisingly, what the IPCC picked up on. So it didn't look at 2020 emission reductions for the developing world because it's not part of the play; it's not being considered. And for good reason, because it would be completely unfair at this stage to be saying that India, with the average Indian having one-twelfth the emissions, and having hundreds of millions of people in poverty who are not responsible for climate change—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That's not scientific; that's a policy decision.

[Dale Marshall]

It is.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That's my point.

[Dale Marshall]

Thank you.

[Julia Langer]

In addition to that, it's just math. It's really just math in the end. To get to 50% by 2050, you make a policy decision about who bears the biggest burden, at least initially, and then you have to have the balance from the others. It has to add up to 100% on that 50% carbon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson, perhaps we'll just go to Mr. Godfrey for one minute and to Mr. Harvey for one minute. And I would like one minute.

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

I have two quick questions.

Ms. Langer, I notice that on page 8, where you have the slices, there still a reference to nuclear. Maybe you could tell us why that's still there.

The second question to the panel is whether you favour the idea of carbon standards that are embedded in the manufacturing process such that when you sell a good in Canada, you recognize the energy that went into it in China, the United States, or any other place, so that you're not closing down Canadian industry.

[Julia Langer]

If you notice, the little nuclear slice actually ends at a certain point. There are nuclear plans in place. What the modelling took into account was that they're there, but they will not be replaced. So moving out to 2050, we can still accomplish the seven-gigatonne budget.

The whole life-cycle analysis and the embedded carbon is a fantastic idea. I think it's being taken up by some supermarket chains in the U.K. because of consumer demand. So let's build on that and really make this a global project so that we can all make decisions in the right direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

[Dale Marshall]

Emissions standards have a place and would be complementary to some of the things we've talked about today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Great.

Mr. Harvey, be very brief, please.

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

Earlier, we talked about the Chinese. At present, they are under no obligation whatsoever to reduce their emission levels. You stated that if we were to bring in a carbon tax, China would have to do likewise, to balance the equation. However, if China refuses to do so, what then?

[Dale Marshall]

Canada has been refusing way more than China. We have no moral authority to be pointing at the Chinese. None. We have zero.

We signed on to the Kyoto Protocol and then completely reneged on our commitments. Now we're pointing at the Chinese as people who have to take them on, and the Indians, which is even more ridiculous in terms of their development stage.

Once we get back in the game and make real commitments and actually meet them, then we can start pointing at the developing world to take on responsibility.

And I will be there with you, sir. As soon as Canada takes responsibility, I will be there pointing at others. But before that, I don't think it's responsible, and I don't think it's fair for us to be pointing at South Africa, Brazil, and India as countries that need to do something, when we've reneged on our commitments internationally.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

I'd like to thank our guests for being here. I know as you've been following this issue for a number of years, as I have, how the level of discussion has improved. I know when I talked about carbon capture and storage in 2001, most people just looked skyward and thought it was a dream, but now of course everybody here is talking about that sort of solution. In my constituency, Nova and Dow, have been capturing all their CO₂ and sequestering it for the last 10 years. So it's not that it's not being done. And it's fine to say Dubai and so on are doing it, but it's being done in Canada as well, and of course in Norway.

The thing that frustrates me somewhat is when we talk about the EU always doing everything right. Germany has commissioned four coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and storage in them, and I find that a real concern when they talk one way and in fact do something different. So I don't think we should always hold them up as the great white saviours, because they have their problems too. And of course how do we get China, with its huge number of coal-fired power plants, to put in carbon capture and storage so that it at least can be done, rather than a total retrofit, which is very expensive? I think those are the steps we have to take with these kinds of countries.

Finally, I want to tell you, because I'm the only one from Alberta, that I do have to defend it somewhat. In Alberta, 13% of the electricity produced is from renewables, which is the highest per capita of any province in Canada for renewables. Just today there was an announcement about small producers. They're encouraging everybody to produce electricity on their roofs and with their windmills, and they will be subsidized. That announcement was made today.

I'm particularly pleased, because today, this very minute, I'm installing 28 solar panels on my roof. That's the kind of exciting future I think we have.

I thank you for being here. I think you've enlightened us all.

Thank you, members. I think it was a very good session.

The meeting is adjourned.