Environment Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

[Prof. John Stone]

Yes. I've almost finished.

The IPCC fourth assessment gives a lot of information on what countries can do to reduce emissions. Perhaps most interestingly, it seems that after conservation--which everybody understands because it's the lowest-hanging fruit--looking at making buildings more energy-efficient can produce tremendous reductions in emissions at fairly low cost.

I should say a few words about adaptation. Because the impacts are now inevitable, adaptation is becoming more and more an imperative. We have a lot of experience in adapting to today's climate variability; however, the IPCC's conclusion is that many more additional adaptation measures will be required in order to avoid some of the worst impacts. That's regardless of the scale of mitigation over the next two to three decades.

Finally, the point I made at the beginning from the working group two report is that if there are benefits in looking at climate change in terms of development, there's growing evidence that decisions regarding macro-economic policy, agricultural policy, multilateral development, bank lending, insurance practices, electricity market reforms, energy security, and forest conservation--which are often treated as being apart from climate policy--can significantly reduce emissions.

Vulnerability to climate change can be exacerbated by other stresses, and if we look at them and tackle some of these non-climate stresses, such as poverty, unequal access to resources, food insecurity, trends in economic globalization, conflict, and disease, they can also reduce vulnerability and increase our capacity to address the threat of climate change.

In my view, adaptive capacity is intimately connected to social and economic development. Of course development is not even, but the problem is that climate change is likely to increase the disparity between the rich and the poor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Dr. Stone. That was very interesting.

As I introduce Dr. Weaver, I'm not sure how the congratulations are in order, but congratulations on your contribution to the IPCC's winning the recent Nobel Peace Prize.

Dr. Weaver, are you ready to go?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

Yes.

I did not prepare a presentation. I was asked to be on the committee and I said I would be prepared to answer questions that were posed to me, so I don't have a formal presentation.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Wonderful. Thanks very much.

We'll move to questions, then, and I'll start with Mr. Godfrey for ten minutes.

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

We'll figure out a protocol for bringing Dr. Weaver in, and between Dr. Stone and Dr. Weaver they can sort out who answers what.

Since the third assessment report, what have been the biggest breakthroughs, if you like, or what are the biggest scientific understandings that have developed from the third to the fourth report? What are the things that strike you the most?

Maybe I'll start with Dr. Weaver just to give him a chance to get in, and then perhaps Dr. Stone.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

Personally, I think the sheer amount of evidence being built that has been added to our body of knowledge over time has just allowed a much stronger statement.

In terms of key advances in the report, I think Francis Zwiers, who is at the table there, as the lead author of the climate change detection attribution chapter, would be able to attest to the fact that there is a lot more knowledge and a lot more evidence now that we've seen a signal of climate change emerging from the background of natural variability, and there are much stronger attribution statements that can be made where evidence and observations are beginning to really stand out. There is just so much more evidence available now.

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

Based on this report, what are the most pressing areas that need further research where we need to move from likely to highly likely, or the various gradations of certainties that characterize the various reports? Where are the most pressing challenges right now for the next research?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

I can add a little bit there, and maybe John could pick up after.

To me, there are two key areas. Area number one is the area of impacts and adaptation. It's really a new field in terms of trying to understand, taking the scale of projections that are done on core scales by the big climate models and trying to bring them down to the scale that affects everyday people--the scale of subcontinents and regions.

The second area is the fundamental physics still involved in the climate projections. When you try to do impact and adaptation studies, they're only as good as the information you get. And as you start to try to provide higher and higher resolution information, you're going to have to start to resolve more and more physical processes. These include, and do not exclude, things like permafrost and the carbon that is contained in the frozen soils of our north. There are no climate models out there that incorporate frozen soils and the bio-geochemistry of those frozen soils into a potential positive feedback to warming that may or may not occur. These are the kinds of areas that need to be continued.

Maybe John could add on that.

[Prof. John Stone]

Thank you, Andrew.

Yes, there are two big scientific unknowns, and Andrew mentioned them. One is the carbon cycle, which will actually tell you how emissions translate into atmospheric concentrations. The other one is how do ice sheets behave? Both of them will have feedbacks on the climate system. Both of them could lead to an acceleration of the climate system.

My hope is that with the fourth assessment we've been able to put a line under the scientific debate about whether climate change is real or not. I think we have to move from science that's been useful in defining the problem to science that's going to be useful in defining the solutions.

This doesn't mean to say that we have done all the science necessary, and there are many reasons for that. Let me just add one. That is because we don't know yet what we've missed. There may be some things in the climate system that we've missed up to now. We won't know them until we do the research, and we don't really want those sorts of surprises.

But I think Andrew is right. We've got to understand better how we adapt, and that's not just a matter for the natural scientists. Surely we do need better regional scale climate models, but we need to know how societies work, how societies have adapted to today's variability, and how they can adapt to the increasing variability in the future.

Thank you.

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

If there are these pressing areas, and they obviously have a huge impact on Canada, particularly in the north, what has been the story—maybe I'll go to Dr. Weaver here—on new federal funding over the last two years to support these areas of research in any of the things you've talked about? Whether it's impact and adaptation, the permafrost, ice sheets or carbon cycle, has there been new funding forthcoming over the last couple of years to do these things?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

I'm actually on record saying that in fact the existing funding has been cut. The Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network was cut. The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences has repeatedly tried to make appointments to actually be able to say what they're doing. They are not even acknowledged by ministry officials.

NSERC, our national funding organization, has had the climate and atmospheric sciences taken out as a strategic area. In fact, in Canada right now, today, there is less climate-related funding than ever in my history as a scientist in Canada. I say this, having worked through several governments. Whether it be Mulroney through Chrétien through others, there's always been a strong level of support for the basic science of atmospheric and climate science.

I think it's not only true in our area, it's more generally true that there has been a real lack of willingness to understand the need for scientific research in this area.

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

Do you have any idea why that would be so?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

You're asking me to speculate. I cannot speculate, with my expertise. This is not my expertise. I would suspect that often people don't understand what the research is doing. There's probably a perception that this was put forward by a previous administration and we're a new government, so we're going to do things differently.

Sometimes you throw the baby out with the bathwater when you blindly cut everything that has been done before. So I would have thought some caution would have been a better way to approach. That's probably what's going on. There's still time to fix all that, and hopefully we'll see change in the future.

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

John.

[Prof. John Stone]

Let me say something that is somewhat ancillary to that.

Canada and Canadian scientists have made remarkable contributions to the IPCC over the twenty years of its existence. We've produced some of the best model results, we've done some of the best process studies, we've collected some of the best data. That has really served Canada extraordinarily well in the past, and I think it would be to our interest to ensure that science is funded appropriately so that Canada's science can still hold its head high in these negotiations on an issue that simply will not go away.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

You have a little less than a few minutes, Mr. Godfrey.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

Could I add to that?

Again, I want to emphasize the non-partisan nature of the science. Coming back to what really got the whole climate research network going in Canada, it came out of the green plan done by the Mulroney government back in the late 1980s. It was not a Liberal plan; it was dealing with the issue of the time. It was followed through by successive Liberal governments, expanded upon, modified, but it was fundamentally there. What has happened in the last year and a half is that these have all been cut.

Again, it's a non-partisan issue of funding basic research that has essentially been cut in a very partisan fashion in the last year.

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

Thank you.

I guess the question is, given the direction of the fourth report, is this a time when changes to Canada's shorelines and landscapes and weather patterns in fact would suggest that we need more rather than less research, the kinds of things that are being alluded to both on a regional basis in the report and more generally across the planet?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

Yes. That's an easy answer.

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

Easy answer, okay.

John, did you want to add?

[Prof. John Stone]

As I said, a lot of the impacts are now inevitable, but how we respond will require more information, more knowledge, the sorts of things that we can get through systematic observations and good solid research. I think it's in our national interest to ensure that we've got the science necessary so we can make the best policy decisions.

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

Fortunately, we have the minister appearing before us to discuss things like cuts to research, so we'll be able to follow up on those questions on your behalf. Thank you.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Lussier.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Stone, in one of your documents, in the chart in Figure SPM-2, you link greenhouse gases with aerosols and other products affecting the ozone layer. This is the first time I have seen a connection between the warming caused by greenhouse gases and products that have a cooling effect on the air and that attack the ozone.

Has this theory or equation been around for a number of years or is it recent?

[Prof. John Stone]

Allow me to answer in English.

As I understand it, your question is on the role of ozone in the climate system.