Environment Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

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

Sure.

So when it comes to adaptation, you seem to be saying that we're not doing enough research on adaptation. We have the Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network that is being discontinued. For example, I had a group in my riding of Lac-Saint-Louis that was doing some work on adaptation in the area of water resources, and their funding has been cut.

When it comes to adaptation, can we just borrow some research that was done elsewhere, or do we have to do a lot of our own indigenous research? I can see, for example, when it comes to the St. Lawrence River, here we'll probably have to do our own indigenous research, because it's unique to Canada. To what extent can we just borrow other people's research, and to what extent do we need to forge ahead with our own research? How far behind are we in terms of doing our own research?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

John, would you like to go first?

[Prof. John Stone]

Thanks, Andrew.

Just to answer your previous question a little bit, one has to look at adaptation and mitigation--emission reductions--as working together. We need them both. Clearly the more successful we are at reducing emissions, the less adaptation we need to do, and the more adaptation we do, the less we possibly have to reduce emissions. You have to see them together. But you also have to understand that if you look at the drivers of adaptation and the drivers of mitigation, they are very closely linked to the drivers of wise development decisions. That's why I said this nexus is really important.

Now, if one wants to look at vulnerabilities, that's what it all comes down to. Mr. Warawa mentioned risk management—and climate change is the quintessential risk-management issue. If you look at vulnerabilities, those are very place-specific. It depends on the particular exposure. It depends on the particular sensitivity of the system and of the adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity depends on how wealthy you are, what sorts of sharing mechanisms you have for risk, and the like. So, yes, adaptation is very place-specific, and we are going to have to do the research to understand how best to adapt within Canada and within regions of Canada.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Dr. Stone.

I'm sorry, we're well over.

Mr. Watson, you're next.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing.

I want to pick up where the parliamentary secretary left off, with the question of whether or not we needed all major emitters on board, rowing in the same direction.

Forgive me, I want to bring this into sharper focus. We had somewhere in the midst of six minutes' worth of answers between two panellists, and I think I heard a footnote saying “yes”. I want to bring this into sharper focus by maybe proposing a hypothetical.

If Canada and the United States were to shut down, theoretically, literally shut down industry and everything else, will global carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, or would we have achieved stabilization, or, as you suggest as the next step, decarbonization?

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

I'll answer that very quickly.

Of course carbon dioxide will increase, and it will continue to increase until Canada and the U.S. come up with the clean technologies that the rest of the world want to use. Frankly, why would you burn something that's polluting your air?

I don't know whether you've been to Beijing. Walk around there and breathe the air. They don't want to burn that, but they don't have the alternatives at hand right now. Therein lies the key.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I may take exception with that, Mr. Weaver. They have a space program, they have a growing military. There are some choices their nation is making as well, so I don't necessarily agree with that.

Mr. Stone, I'd like to hear your answer.

[Prof. John Stone]

I think some of this is becoming more and more academic, if I may.

Within the United States there are significant changes in motion. You only have to look at the number of bills before the House and Senate in the U.S. You only have to look at the actions that have been taken by many of the states. You only have to look at some of the things that have already been done by large industrial conglomerates in the United States.

The tide is clearly changing in the U.S. I think if we don't pay attention to this, we could find ourselves on the wrong side.

If you look at India and China, yes, I know the rhetoric, I've heard it for 15 years. But if you go behind that and into China and into India and see what's actually happening there, they are moving as well. The Chinese are very concerned because of water availability. They understand the threats to them from climate change and they're making some changes--and the Indians, likewise, because of energy security.

My sense, just listening and reading around, and talking to colleagues in those parts of the world, is that increasingly more and more countries are saying yes, we need to be on board, we need to do something. It won't always be the same thing, and it may not be through a global regime, but I think we shouldn't worry about what is somebody else going to do. I think if we prevaricate and delay, we may find ourselves at a crucial point simply on the wrong side of this issue.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

May I add something quickly?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'd like to get to another question.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I think Mr. Watson would like to get to another question, so perhaps in a future answer, Mr. Weaver.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I want to get this down to an ownership level in terms of the micro level as an individual citizen. In reading the global report and looking at the global picture, it's a little difficult for somebody sitting in Windsor, Ontario, to be able to grasp what's happening half a world away or in polar regions, for example.

In order to bridge some of that disconnect, can you talk about what some of the effects would be, say, on the Great Lakes region, or something a little closer to home? I think when people have a sense of what's happening in their backyard they're more likely to make some changes, as well. Can you bring that a little sharper into focus for us?

[Prof. John Stone]

I'll try.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

I can add the usual stuff that at our latitude you're going to have an increased number of extreme events, an increased number of extreme precipitation, a decreased amount of snow, the likelihood of precipitation coming in snow, and so on and so forth.

The question you raise is precisely the point I raised earlier, that this is exactly what the people want, and that's exactly what the Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network was designed to provide, but there is no information available on that scale being done in Canada now because of cuts.

So you're right that people want this information, but who's going to give it to them? The IPCC is not tasked with doing new research, it's tasked with testing what has been done. It has assessed what's been done, and now it's back to doing research.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Dr. Weaver, that will have to be it.

Mr. Watson, did you want one last comment, or are you okay?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

No, that's fine.

[Prof. John Stone]

I'll just to try to answer your question to be helpful.

We're going to see the potential for lower levels in the Great Lakes. We already do. I think we understand some of the reasons for that, and it has to do with evaporation, particularly the evaporation in winter. When you don't have ice cover like you used to, but you still have the winds going over the water, which is warmer than normal, and evaporation, you see lakes like Lake Superior with significantly lower levels than they've had. Now, it may be natural variability, but it may not be. That gets back to the risk management issue. This is a risk management issue.

If the Great Lakes are lower, you have, of course, big problems for industry and the population. You also have problems for navigation within the Great Lakes. We know that in the past, when the Great Lakes levels and the St. Lawrence levels have been lower, it's had an enormous impact, for example, on traffic at the port of Montreal. You simply couldn't get the big ships in there that they used to; there was not enough draft.

So for the area of the Great Lakes, you can certainly expect lower levels, and that will have significant environmental, ecological, and economic impacts.

[The Acting Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Dr. Stone and Mr. Watson.

We'll move on to Monsieur Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your testimony.

I'm particularly sensitive to the matter of agriculture since I'm responsible for it within my party. I've read an enormous number of doomsday scenarios attributable to climate change. Global warming is a proven fact. So when we read these scenarios, we feel that Quebec and Canadian agriculture might have to face catastrophic situations. For example, there could be more hours of sunshine, but more rain and parasites. To my knowledge, no farmer has shown any intention of becoming a banana or coconut farmer in Quebec.

Could you tell me whether you have any projections describing respectively the physical and economic consequences of global warming for agriculture?

[Prof. John Stone]

It would be preferable for me to answer you in English. I hope I clearly understood your question.

Agriculture is actually a very difficult case for knowing what the impact is going to be. I've seen estimates on both one side and the other. It really depends on where you are. Canada is a large country with tremendous possibilities, adaptive possibilities. If you can't grow something here, then you perhaps can grow it in other parts of the country, and if you can't grow this crop, then you perhaps can grow a different crop.

Without giving a long answer, it seems that for North America, up to a global mean average temperature increase of two degrees, there probably could be net benefits. If you go past that, everything then starts going downhill. I'm sure you understand. With warmer temperatures, you have a longer growing season. You have more CO₂ in the atmosphere, and that's a natural fertilizer. There's the problem of whether we're going to have enough water, necessarily, and that's a big question. But the adaptive capacities of agriculture in Canada, in North America, are quite significant, so there really is a question of whether the impact will be negative or positive, and when.

I can't be more precise, I think, than that at the moment.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

That means that, for a certain types of production at least, there could be benefits for a certain period of time, but, if there is not enough political will to slow down global warming, it is clear that temperatures will eventually rise. While an extra degree or two may bring some benefits for a certain period of time, they will be lost.

[Prof. John Stone]

Undoubtedly.

What I said was more appropriate to the part of the country you are from.

I think the prairies are going to have specific problems because of water. As I said earlier, because more of the precipitation in winter will fall as rain and not snow, you won't get the snowpack building up. You're going to have melting of the glaciers. You already do have that, and that's a big reservoir. You're going to have differences in the timing of runoff and the like. And you already have prairies that are semi-desert, where agriculture is sometimes a little marginal. So if you have these additional water stresses--and we've seen droughts in the past--then for agriculture in the prairies there could be consequences sooner than you might see in eastern Canada.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I also talked about the possibility that we might have to face rising numbers of parasites that are not found here for the moment.

Have you considered that issue?

[Prof. John Stone]

Absolutely. A good case in point is the mountain pine beetle that we have in British Columbia and Alberta. We used to be able to deal with it because winters were cold enough that most of the population was killed off. They're not now, so they can reproduce. That's going to be true of lots of parasites and other things that we sort of take for granted, like the migration of birds and butterflies that are essential for pollinating plants. So it gets a bit complicated.

[Prof. Andrew Weaver]

It's an emerging issue. For example, on Vancouver Island, where I am, there is cryptococcus gattii, which is more typically tropical, and It has emerged on Vancouver Island because of our increased likelihood of drought. It requires becoming an aerosol to infect people.

The evidence is all anecdotal, at least in terms of medical parasites or viruses.