Environment Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

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

Not quite. Certain particles are said to have the effect of cooling the air, whereas others warm it. How long have these two phenomena been linked?

[Prof. John Stone]

We've known the physics for quite a long time. That is simple molecular spectroscopy, but you have to be careful to distinguish between tropospheric ozone, which is at the ground and is associated with smog, and stratospheric ozone, which is much higher up.

Ozone itself is a greenhouse gas. It can absorb radiation. If you have a reduction of ozone in the stratosphere because of the ozone-depleting chemicals, such as the CFCs reducing the amount of ozone in the stratosphere, then you're removing that potential warming. It's getting colder. The same way, if you have pretty small events on the ground, you are in fact adding more greenhouse gas at the surface and warming up the surface much more.

I hope, Andrew and Francis, I've done justice to that. They are more active scientists than I am.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

I think so. I didn't see the figures, so it's quite difficult for me to comment.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Mr. Zwiers, would you like to comment on this?

[Prof. John Stone]

I am waiting for the graphic.

[Dr. Francis Zwiers, Director, Climate Research, Atmospheric Science and Technology, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment]

It's the graphic that indicates the forcing effects of different greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so it shows, for example, that the effect of carbon dioxide increases has been to warm, that there is a net warming contribution from ozone, that our level of scientific understanding of that contribution is medium. There are different gradations, levels of understanding: very high, in the case of carbon dioxide, medium in the case of ozone. And there are different contributions, as Dr. Stone has explained, depending upon whether there is an ozone reduction in the stratosphere, which is estimated to have resulted in a small net cooling, and increases in ozone concentrations in the lower part of the atmosphere, which has resulted in a somewhat larger net warming. So the overall effect of the change in distribution of ozone in the atmosphere is to warm, but with cooling high in the atmosphere and warming near the surface.

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

Thank you.

In the same document, on page 14, the chart shows us a number of models, A1, A2 and B1, for example, but have other intermediate models been studied?

[Prof. John Stone]

I will try to answer that.

The A1, A2, B1, B2 and the like do not refer to models. They refer to IPCC emission scenarios. Some have low emissions. Some have much larger. But the modellers, the Francis Zwiers and Andrew Weavers of the world, will then take those scenarios that are projections—there is nothing absolute in them, but they're all plausible—and go from the emissions to the concentrations in the atmosphere and then insert those concentrations into their models to see what the models project for that sort of scenario.

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

Thank you.

Dr. Stone, you mentioned that greenhouse gas production could be stabilized and that, for that purpose, we had at our disposal all the technologies for reducing the quantities of those gases. Does that mean there is no more room for research and development?

[Prof. John Stone]

Yes, of course. As I've said, there is no silver bullet. There is no one technology that will get you there. You're going to have to use a portfolio of technologies.

What I was intimating was a result of the work of a scientist at Princeton, Robert Socolow, who showed quite convincingly that we actually have technologies today that, if fully implemented, would allow us to maintain emissions at the same level as they are today for the next 50 years.

Of course that's not the end of the story. One always needs to have research into new technologies because there are always better ways of doing things, technologies that are much more efficient, technologies that have other ancillary benefits, and the like.

My belief is that we have the technologies now to start. They're not going to be sufficient, and yes, we need to continue to do the research for the new technologies that are going to follow from them.

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

Among the technologies we have, which ones do you think we could implement tomorrow or very soon, and which are the most promising? Is it electric cars, carbon sequestration? Which do you think are priorities?

[Prof. John Stone]

This is my own assessment, which is a personal one, and I think I already mentioned it: the lowest hanging fruit is simply energy conservation, that is, making do with less energy. There are many ways in which one can achieve that. We have technologies that we know can reduce fuel use in motor cars and technologies that we know can reduce energy needs of houses, and the like. And these are technologies that are available.

The problem, in my view, is that even if you're convinced of them and you want to install them or buy them, it's not always easy to find out where to get them or to find the technicians and engineers who know how to install them. But more importantly, there are not sufficient incentives, from whatever level of government, to encourage people to actually go out there and buy them and implement them and use them.

So it's not just having the technologies there somewhere. There needs to be what we call an enabling environment that allows for individuals, for companies, and for governments to pick them up and use them.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

Could I add to that?

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

Yes.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

Thank you.

Eventually, society will have to go to carbon neutrality if we wish to stabilize the greenhouse gases that are all in the atmosphere. The reason, of course, is that the natural removal mechanisms operate on a much longer time scale than the mechanisms for putting them into the atmosphere. So conservation and measures like that assist you in initially getting towards the path of turning the corner. Unfortunately, conservation measures by themselves are not sufficient to actually move down the path toward decarbonization, which must occur this century.

What is required is real legislation, legislation with teeth, using the powers the government has at hand. They can use taxation or just law. For example, in the province of British Columbia it is now illegal--or it will be introduced shortly--to get electricity through the combustion of coal without having 100% capture of emissions. I recognize the difficulty with national energy policies, but such a policy should be in place in Canada.

In terms of transportation, we are driving around cars that basically have technology that is more than 100 years old. The only reason we have such technology is not because we don't know how to make better cars. It's simply because we're afraid of change, and we're sustaining an end-use marketplace for a commodity that has a lot of vested interest in ensuring that the marketplace is sustained. What I mean by that is that if you had stringent tailpipe emission standards, again, as is happening in B.C. and California, and if you actually got people to buy in, you could see change. There's no reason why most of the cars on our roads are not electric.

We should have the widespread introduction of things like nuclear power in areas that don't have access to renewables like wind and hydro.

So there are many things in place. What we need is legislation. We need government regulation, and we need people to take the bull by the horns on this issue, because nobody, frankly, is doing anything in Ottawa. And that's not the case with this government only; it's been over the last decade.

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

Mr. Weaver, is nuclear energy clean energy?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

The quick answer is yes. There are two differences between nuclear and carbon. First of all, you have to realize that people have concerns about nuclear energy because of the waste. It's a very important concern. The time scale for the reduction of that waste is on the order of thousands of years. It's no different from the time scale associated with the natural processes that draw down carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide we put in today, as we saturate the system, will last thousands of years.

So there's a difference, but there's a fundamental difference between the two problems. Nuclear power gives you energy locally, and the waste byproduct of it is local. It's a local storage issue. Carbon burning, through coal and things like that, uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, a trash can, which then distributes the waste globally. So your problem is global with the burning of coal, and it's local with the creation of energy from nuclear.

Generally, the problem with what we've done is that society has treated the atmosphere as a trash that we can put anything into at no cost. This is why many people fought for the introduction of a carbon tax, because it recognizes that if you go to the dump and throw your waste away, you have to pay a cost for that waste. The atmosphere is a dumping ground that has no cost associated with it, and that has to change.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Dr. Weaver.

Merci, Monsieur Lussier.

I'll start the clock on my own questions, and trust our able clerk to be a third-party control.

My first question goes back to you, Dr. Weaver. With respect to the numbers being presented in this fourth report by the IPCC, I'm wondering if you're sensing a certain numbing within the public about what is being described in these reports. I'm referencing this in regard to the first, second, and other reports by the IPCC, in terms of the reaction within both the media and the general public.

Do you feel that is the direction we are headed in, that people are getting more accustomed and in a sense are adapting their expectations to what the greenhouse gas reality is for the planet?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

I think it depends on where you are. Again, I'm in the province of British Columbia, and in the province of British Columbia, where I encounter people the most, I get a real sense that people want to do something but they don't know what to do as individuals. And that's one of the things that's so empowering about global warming: everybody can contribute.

So I guess they're looking for guidance. There is some numbing there. People have no idea of the extent to which the scientific community was stunned by the recent sea ice retreat in September of this year; it was far beyond the most dramatic projection from the most dramatic model in the most dramatic scenario.

So there is some sense it's coming, but it's not there within the scientific....

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Dr. Stone, I want to go back to a comment you made in your presentation about how these reports are drafted. There have been some who have attempted to discredit the work of the IPCC by suggesting that it's just a small group of scientists and that there's.... You mention in your presentation a certain endorsement of it from government. I want to better understand that relationship between the scientists who write and contribute to the reports, compile the information, and the role of governments in allowing them out. I'm imagining that official Ottawa or Washington didn't sign off on this.

So perhaps you can illuminate me a little bit better on what the process is like with this interface between government and science.

[Prof. John Stone]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Could you allow me just to add a little bit to an answer from the previous question?

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Absolutely.

[Prof. John Stone]

It's not my assessment that the public in general is becoming inured to this. Certainly that's not the case in Europe, and certainly not if you go to Africa. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

I think science and the scientists have done a marvellous job raising awareness of this issue and putting it on the public policy agenda. And I think the scientists have provided a lot of information.

The problem seems to be that although people are often aware of it and know it, it's been difficult for them to internalize it and realize that in fact this is not an abstract problem, but they're in fact part of the problem and can be part of the solution. I think that's where we're going to have to work hard in the future.

Now, on the process of the IPCC, as I said, behind each of these reports there is a 600-page scientific document. It's more like a graduate textbook. It's really not accessible to many policy-makers, so the IPCC has developed this idea of producing summaries for policy-makers. I think this is unique within the UN intergovernmental process.

The summaries are drafted by the scientists, and then they're presented to governments. There are several review stages, involving both governments and experts, to make sure that what's written is accurate and useful and, more than anything else, is balanced.

Then we come to a plenary session of the IPCC, where many of these summaries for policy-makers are worked on; in fact, it's a form of negotiation. We start with what the scientists have written, and then governments will ask questions or suggest slightly different interpretations of what's been drafted. Of course different governments look at science in different ways; that's to be understood. But my assessment is that most governments, with occasional lapses, have actually been very constructive in this process.

I really am sorry if I embarrass Dr. Gray here, but certainly in Valencia last week the Canadian delegation was extraordinarily constructive and very helpful in the process.

But the end point is that when the gavel comes down on the final words of this document, then all the governments who are present in the room at the plenary session essentially own the document; they buy into it and say yes, this is accurate, valuable, usable, and we pay attention to it.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

It's interesting to me, because there's been somewhat of a turn. The current Minister of the Environment has talked lots about believing in the science. You talked in your presentation, Dr. Stone, about moving from the science identifying the problem to starting to talk about the policy implications, and I only wish we could get him onto that second belief cycle.

Dr. Weaver, in terms of the question of adaptation--which I think has been a long-overdue conversation, particularly for a country like Canada--just speak economically for a moment. You've done some of this already, but can you give an assessment of the basic funding available for Canada in understanding the implications of climate change to our economy? What research have you seen done? What support have you seen from the federal government to understand a critical question like this?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

There was a Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network. It was a very young organization that was just getting going, and their goal was to look specifically at this question--to look at the impacts of climate change, assess the vulnerabilities of communities, and define methods of adaptation.

Historically the impacts in adaptation follow the science. That is one of the reasons it was such a young community: the assessments they were doing were based on earlier models, earlier reproductions, when the state of the science was still emerging in terms of the representation of some of the physical processes.

Now this IPCC scientific process is gone. We've got volumes of information out there, and essentially it's being canned in Canada. It was closed because.... The words were something like “It's fulfilled its federal mandate”. That was unbeknownst to anybody who was actually part of that network. I wasn't, so I'm not complaining about losing funding. I was not formally part of that, but it was unbeknownst to anyone who was in the impacts and adaptation research network that the federal mandate had ended because, quite frankly, it had only just started.

So there is no funding right now looking at these, at least within the university sector. I'm sure that within some government ministries there will be people who are looking at it, but I suspect they're scrambling as well.