Environment Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

Well, from a purely scientific perspective, the only solution to the anthropogenic global warming is to completely eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. The residence time of carbon dioxide is so long that at some point we have to stop using fossil fuels, but of course that's not feasible at all.

So in terms of the targets we set, it's not a scientific question. It's really a social-technological-political question. They need to be as aggressive as possible, as aggressive as our technologies and our infrastructure and our political will.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Do you think, then, that 3% above 1990 levels is as aggressive as we are capable of reaching for?

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

I can't say, because I'm not an expert in terms of the technology or the economics of the problem, but to me it doesn't seem very aggressive at all.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you.

Now, Dr. Zwiers, I know you're in a difficult position, but if you'd like to comment on the 2006 level baseline, I'd be open to hearing about it.

[Dr. Francis Zwiers]

I won't pass judgment on what is a tough target or what is not a tough target.

Recent research that has looked at this question of what total cumulative emissions are consistent with a limit of 2°, or a limit of whatever you would choose to set—that again is a policy question, not a scientific question—indicates that the choice of baseline is actually not that important. So a 1990 baseline allows you to construct emissions pathways that would get you to 2°C with reasonable likelihood. A 2006 baseline also lets you construct pathways that allow you to get to 2°C with reasonable likelihood.

All emissions scenarios are constrained by the emissions that we have already produced and the fact that we cannot go back in time and reduce emissions or the pathway we have been on in the past. That is really what constrains what these pathways would look like. All of them would require peaking relatively soon and then substantial reductions in greenhouse gas concentrations and emissions in the atmosphere.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Braid, you have four minutes.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses appearing before us this afternoon.

I'll start with Mr. Zwiers, if I could.

Mr. Zwiers, is the Department of the Environment preparing for negotiations at Copenhagen?

[Dr. Francis Zwiers]

We have a negotiating team. I'm not privy to the work of that negotiating team. I work in a different part of the Department of the Environment.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Do you have any reason to doubt that officials at the Department of the Environment are focused on negotiations and working very hard preparing for them?

[Dr. Francis Zwiers]

I'm sure they are working very hard on their preparations. The only evidence I can provide you is that I am a member of the science working group that briefs the negotiating team at their request, and we do get requests from them.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

Professor Stone, which countries currently are most responsible for total global greenhouse gas emissions?

[Prof. John Stone]

There is a basket of countries in the industrialized world.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Which are the top two or three?

[Prof. John Stone]

The United States...but it depends how far back you actually go. If you go back to the Industrial Revolution times, the United States and United Kingdom certainly are among the top two. They're now being followed by some developing countries—for example, China and the like.

I'm not sure one should focus on the totals. I think more interesting is the per capita contributions to emissions. If you look at it that way, then the average North American is responsible for twice as much emissions as the typical European and about ten times as much as the typical Indian.

If you try to split out algebraically the various components, it is more important to focus on the per capita emissions rather than the total.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

What is the current American target for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020?

[Prof. John Stone]

I think it depends upon who you ask. President Obama has one, the House bill has one, and the Senate has one. These are different. They have yet to be resolved. In the view of many, they aren't ambitious enough.

Certainly there has been an enormous sea change in Washington, and that has been reflected in the negotiations that have been going on almost continuously and have led many to believe that indeed we are going to go into an era in which the United States will take an appropriate role in the global solution.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Very good.

Professor Stone, how would you describe the current state or status of international discussions and negotiations moving into Copenhagen?

[Prof. John Stone]

This is a very personal opinion: I'm not encouraged.

I have been following it very closely. You can do that without spending the jet fuel and going there. There is enough on the web. I feel for some of these people, because they've been in almost continuous negotiations now for two years. I used to be part of that process, and I know how quickly you become almost brain dead from it. You don't eat properly or sleep properly or drink properly.

If you look at the status of the negotiations at the moment, you'll see they're certainly not that encouraging. There have been some interventions recently that have been encouraging. I mentioned the one by the Chinese premier in New York a couple of weeks ago. Japan has increased its level of ambition. Norway has done likewise, and so have many of the European countries. So you're actually seeing some countries now raising their level of ambition. But there are still some very tough issues that need to be agreed upon, and as they say in the U.S., for the negotiators, it's way outside their pay bracket. These are issues that can be resolved only by national leaders. They are such things as the level of ambition of the industrialized world, and the level of financing for developing countries to address climate change.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Monsieur Ouellet, s'il vous plaît.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I would like to thank our witnesses. It is very important that we hear from you today. You are all independent people. Even though Mr. Fortier sang the praises of renewable energy, I am sure that you don't own a factory and that you will not be making profits when you're home again. However, I am astonished that your witness from the Department of the Environment is not on the team of negotiators who will be in Denmark next month. It affects the credibility of the testimony.

Mr. Fortier, I would like to revisit the economic aspect of this situation because you talked about it the most. These days, the government is always telling us that we are prosperous, and that if we begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we will become less prosperous. In fact, the government says that the consequences of reducing greenhouse gases would be disastrous. Perhaps what the government is trying to say is that the traditional economy will change. You seem to leave the door open when you said that we would still be prosperous and that we would develop a new economy.

I trust you: as a scientist, your job is to stay abreast of developments in renewable energies and their potential. Could you expound on that? To what extent could renewable energy influence or replace our economy while ensuring that we indeed remain prosperous?

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

That's an excellent question. Please don't think that scientists are calling for an immediate halt to the production of fossil fuels. We have to begin by decreasing the use of fossil fuels. A country as rich and prosperous as Canada can make that transition. It would not be an abrupt change, but a slow transition towards an economy which is increasingly unreliant on fossil fuels. This might mean that for a period of time, people will have two cars, one of which runs on gas and the other being electric. People have to change their attitude and the government has to encourage that.

That's how we will get through this. There are some fabulous examples of this in Europe, in the Scandinavian countries in particular, where this kind of thing is actually happening. The Europeans have realized that making these changes has been extremely profitable. What I meant to say in my presentation is that those countries which develop these new technologies first will become economic leaders in 20 or 30 years, and not in 100 years.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

As Mr. Stone was saying, do you think that we need to look at per person greenhouse gas emissions? If we choose to go ahead with renewable energy, would it be easier to decrease greenhouse gas emissions on a per person basis?

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

Absolutely. Take Quebec, where 97% of power comes from hydroelectricity. As in most of the rest of Canada, most emissions come from cars, gas and jet fuel. We have made progress with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in every sector, except for transportation. That's really where we have to make progress. We have technologies which we sell to other countries rather than using them ourselves. I cannot understand why Canada has not developed an electric car. India is doing it. Such a development would really help us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Why can't we develop a technology, which we, in fact, already have, to help us process the oil sands in a manner which is clean and less polluting? Emission levels are the same for refining as they are for driving a vehicle. Finding a way to extract oil from the Athabasca oil sands using clean technology would be a wonderful challenge for society. The development of the oil sands represent 47% of our greenhouse gas emissions since 2000. What are we waiting for to use our technological capacity, our engineering knowledge and our know-how? The idea is not to get rid of everything from one day to the next, but to transit towards a much cleaner and more efficient economy.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Could the fact that the largest emitter is based in western Canada be the reason why the government is not taking quick and strong decisions with regard to greenhouse gas emissions?

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

There is no doubt a connection. The problem is political; let's not pretend otherwise. What I want the current government and any Canadian government to understand is that it is extremely profitable to make this transition. We will not be losing jobs or become less prosperous. However, if we do not go ahead, we will become poorer and head towards a Soviet-era economy which will not be competitive.