Environment Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

A number of representatives of Canadian municipalities were here in Ottawa this week. Some of the questions being raised by those municipalities, particularly those on the coasts or living in the far north, were around their ability to understand what needs to be done in terms of adapting their planning and their infrastructure to a climate change reality.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

Absolutely. Take the simplest thing, the storm drain system in a community. It's designed for a flood event once in a hundred years. As that once-in-a-hundred-years flood event becomes once in 75 years and perhaps even once in 50 years, the infrastructure starts to adapt.

There are Canadian standards for everything. All these standards are based historically on a normal climate, which up until recently was 1961 to 1990 average conditions. The reality is that's not normal any more, and it's going to change in the future, so you really need to be getting a handle on it.

I get personally consulted all the time by engineers trying to look at storm drain systems and watershed availability management. They are asking me just as a random person for my input into this. I'm one person; I have no time. What they should be doing is to be able to have access to a research consortium out there, or to people who can deliver the information they require in their planning. It's just not there in Canada; it was just getting under way when it was closed.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Go ahead, Mr. Stone.

[Prof. John Stone]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of small points.

This document, the summary for policy-makers of working group two, which looks at impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, also contains something called the technical summary. In there is a condensation of the anticipated impacts in North America. It was written by two outstanding scientists, one of them a Canadian lady, Linda Mortsch, and I encourage you to read it. You get some sense of where Canada is vulnerable.

One of the loud messages is actually in water, particularly for those who depend on water from, for example, the Rockies, where there's going to be more precipitation that falls as rain in the winter than as snow, you're going to have less snowpack, and we're going to have melting of the glaciers. It's going to put a threat to water availability in the prairies.

I'll be very quick with the second point I want to make. As I mentioned already, we need to understand better what the impacts will be, but we also need to understand how we can adapt. That's a social and human science question. There's no use just having the natural sciences, important though that is; we also have to understand how society will behave and can behave.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I was talking this past year with residents in Calgary and other communities in Alberta, and they are very concerned with the amount and quality of water coming off the Rockies.

Mr. Warawa, would you like to begin questioning?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair. You're doing a good job.

I too have a copy of the summary for policy-makers. I appreciate it. I also want to again congratulate each of you on the success and the recognition that you've received globally. It's well deserved.

I found the summary very interesting. It was broken into four categories. The first, observing the changes in the climate and the effects, recognized that there is an urgent situation that requires a policy imperative, and Dr. Stone, you've talked to that. As a government we strongly agree and recognize that this is a tremendous issue we need to deal with, not only here in Canada, but globally. The second chapter was on causals; the third, on projected climate change and its impacts; the fourth, on adaptation and mitigation measures.

I want to go to Dr. Weaver. I'm from British Columbia

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

Whereabouts?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm from Langley.

Dr. Weaver, you talked about the loss of funding. You're the Canada research chair on climate modelling and analysis at the University of Victoria. Was your funding affected?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

I did not receive funding, so no, it was not. I did not receive funding from that organization.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

My background is in risk management. When you see a problem, you look for the causes of the problem and fix it. I like to use analogies. If I had a leaking roof, I would look to see where the leak is coming from. I would see if it's something that needs to be fixed by something I can do, or if I need a professional. Basically I would fix it so that I don't have further damage.

My background was working with engineers and police and finding out where vehicle crashes were happening. It would often require professionals to take a look to show the reasons and the causes of a problem we were having at a specific intersection, and if we do this, it will likely solve the problem. Of course, we would try that and do those improvements and hopefully we wouldn't have the crashes.

I'd like to focus, and I encourage members at the committee to focus, on the solutions. I think all around the table we acknowledge that there is an urgent situation. We need to address this. Rather than getting into the specific technologies at this point, I'd like to get that in the second half of my questioning time.

How important is it for us to deal with this globally and for every major emitter to participate in reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

When I was at the Globe G8+5 conference in Berlin, and some of the people here at the committee were there with me, we heard from a legislator from India. He shared that there are a thousand villages there that have no electrical power. The quick and easy way for them to provide electrical power to improve the quality of life for those thousand villages is to burn coal, which causes not only pollutants to enter the air but also greenhouse gas emissions.

In the summary for policy-makers—I think it was in chapter 3 or 4—it talked about how important it is to change our lifestyles. I think the encouragement is for us to realize that the industry has to clean up and we have to use technologies to clean that up. We also individually have responsibilities to change the kinds of vehicles we drive, the amount of energy we use for vehicles, transportation, also improving our homes. Maybe it means a new furnace, new hot water tank, or changing to energy-efficient light bulbs, or whatever. That's one side of the equation.

The other side of the equation concerns the demands of people globally who want a better standard of living. If we become more efficient, and we need to, and it's actually fun to do...the other part of the equation are the people globally who want a better quality of life. That means more energy, more greenhouse gas emissions, and more pollutants.

I guess the first question I have--and hopefully I'm making sense here--is how important is it that we have not only Canada, with our policies and our government committed that we are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 or more, but also that we have countries like India, China, and the United States also buying in, committing that they are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that they commit to targets and goals to reduce? I believe it's these major emitters that have to be part of the solution. Otherwise we're not going to be able to globally achieve reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr. Weaver, could you and Dr. Stone comment on that?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

First of all, I'm glad you raised India, because in fact Canada's emissions are the same as India's, even though India has 34 times our population. It's very easy to blame India, but in fact between 1900 and 2002 Canada emitted 22,600 million metric tonnes of carbon, which is almost exactly the same as India has done.

And this is the point. The key issue here is that it's not what's happening today: the atmosphere knows about cumulative carbon emissions. It's all very well talking about today, but we really have to talk about the cumulative emissions that a country has made, and in that respect Canada and India are on a par.

That's number one. Number two is—you've raised a good question, and now we're talking about ethical issues, in terms of who has the development and who has not—that what's going on in Alberta in terms of electricity production is no different from what's going on in India. Sure, they don't have electricity in India, and it's easy to get it from coal, and they do, but it's no different in Alberta.

The thing we have to realize is that if society—that's global society—wants to sustain itself, we'll have to go towards carbon neutrality. We're pushing climate to a regime that simply is unparalleled in the quaternary.

In order to reach carbon neutrality, we will need new technologies. The key issue here is that you want to be the leader in developing those new technologies, because the leaders will be able to sell those technologies to the world, and every person in the world is a consumer of energy. Rather than going into this kicking and screaming, which frankly is what I see as happening at the national level—and that's not partisan, but it's at all levels of government—is that we should be viewing this as an opportunity, as the province of British Columbia has done.

I'm seeing leadership in Canada, but it's not coming from a federal level; it's coming from a provincial level, where they see that there are economic opportunities and they want to be building those widgets first. It's just a shame that it's not happening at the national level in Canada.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Doctor Weaver, thank you for your comments. I don't think you answered my question. I'm going to try Dr. Stone.

How important is it to have the major emitters, all of them—and I believe 70% of the countries are not part of Kyoto, and Canada is—in the boat rowing in the same direction?

[Prof. John Stone]

Thank you.

Climate change is a global issue. It's a global issue, as Andrew Weaver said, because the CO₂ that we emit stays in the atmosphere for a long time. It is well-mixed, and it doesn't matter where it comes from.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, when it was finalized in 1995, recognized that. The wording of the convention talks about common but differentiated responsibilities, and these depend on a country's per capita emission. China's emissions as a total are the same as those of the U.S., but the per capita emissions are far less. In other words, China per capita still has lesser emissions than the U.S.

A notion of common and differentiated responsibilities also looks at questions of wealth. There are some countries that, through technological wealth, economic wealth, human wealth, or whatever, actually have the ability to reduce the emissions more than others. You talked about some countries that, like India, are still in poverty.

The third reason, and there are probably more, happens to do with history: that it is we in the industrialized world who are responsible for most of the emissions in the atmosphere at the moment, and therefore it is we in the industrialized world who are responsible for many of the impacts we are already seeing and are going to see in the future.

Yes, we do need to have everybody on board, but we have to understand that different countries have different abilities to contribute. I think that what the developing world is looking for is for us in the developed world, the industrialized world, to show an example—to lead—and that means Canada. I think it's in all of our interests to make sure that the development paths of these developing countries don't necessarily repeat our development paths; that we somehow provide them with the technologies, the wisdom, and the know-how.

The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that, true as all those arguments may be—and I think you posed a very important question—we have to start, and we have to start now. If we continue to prevaricate and say “No, after you, Alphonse”, etc., we'll never get the action that we absolutely need.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Dr. Stone, and thank you, Mr. Warawa.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, you have five minutes.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you. And I concur that you're doing a very good job.

Dr. Weaver and Dr. Stone, we understand that George Bush has invited all U.S. members of the IPCC panel to the White House to celebrate their work and the Nobel Peace Prize that they're sharing with former vice-president Gore. Has either of you received an invitation to celebrate from Prime Minister Harper?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

No, but that's okay, because there would be some irony to flying in a plane from Victoria to Ottawa, and all the emissions that you would incur accordingly, just to accept such congratulations. I'm not expecting it, and that's perfectly fine.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

The sound here is terrible. I didn't understand what you said.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

What I said was that there would be some irony to getting in a plane to fly all the way to Ottawa with the emissions that one would entail, just to go to such a meeting. I haven't. I don't know if John has.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Maybe your assistant neglected to show you the letter?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

I never got a letter, but again, we don't do what we do for congratulations after the fact. So I'm not holding that against him.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I understand.

I'd like to move on to a more serious question. It's the issue of adaptation. Is adaptation distinct from conservation or measures that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions? I'd like to understand the difference. Adaptation is saying we have a problem: there are going to be these changes to water flows, or to shorelines, and we have to adapt so that we can continue living, and so on, with the effects of climate change. But is there a point at which adaptation and conservation intersect? Do you understand what I'm getting at?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

Yes. John very eloquently put the two pieces together.

Adaptation is a necessary requirement. We have climate change in store as we try to adjust climate to the emissions we've already created. No matter what we do, we have climate in store. It will change the statistics of weather or climate down the road. We need to know how those changes will occur, and how they will impact us, and what we can do about it. That's adaptation.

Mitigation means saying we as a society have to stand up and ask what we deem to be acceptable. Do we deem it to be acceptable to take us past 2.1 degrees, or whatever it is that will be the point of no return, beyond which we've committed to Greenland melting, and we've committed ourselves to sea level rising seven metres, no matter what we do?' Do we believe that? Frankly, I don't. But mitigation comes in when you try to cut your emissions so you don't pass that. So you have to do them in parallel.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Now, how much—

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Mr. Scarpaleggia, I think Dr. Stone may have had an intervention.

[Prof. John Stone]

I perhaps should intervene and let you continue first, and then I'll come back with some of my own thoughts.