My next question is for Dr. Fortier.
You spoke about carbon capture and storage as being a solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, as a tool that would help us achieve the ambitious targets in this bill. But what I hear about carbon capture and storage is that it's scientifically unproven. Even the government, in its press releases.... Jeffrey Simpson this morning says that in the press releases of the government, which are touting carbon capture and storage as a panacea, the language is always hedged with words like “could” achieve, or “as much as” in terms of reduction.
You know, the science is not there on carbon capture and storage. I don't know how we can say we should pass this bill with these particular targets—maybe we should, and that's why we're debating it—because we have carbon capture and storage, which is like a magic bullet.
Another statement you made, Dr. Fortier, which I found interesting, was that it's better to have ambitious targets like 80% reduction by 2050 than 50%, because when you put everything else aside—the moral reasons for aiming high and so on—you said it's good for the economy.
But I have not seen any scientific evidence, or economic analysis, to show that if you choose a target of 80% versus 50%, the economy would grow by Y%. We talk about science and we all buy into the science, but we're here to discuss whether the targets are realistic.
I'd like to read something from this month's Foreign Affairs magazine, which you've probably read. It's an article by Michael Levi, called “Copenhagen's Inconvenient Truth”. It says here:
There is an emerging consensus among negotiators that the world’s governments should aim to cut emissions in half, ideally from 1990 levels, by 2050. This basic goal, endorsed by the G-8 (the group of highly industrialized states) at its 2008 summit, should frame U.S. calculations.
Maybe 80% is the best target. Maybe this is the kind of target we should adopt in the House of Commons. But we're here to debate whether it's the right target. We can't simply say let's choose the most ambitious target because it makes better headlines or motivates the population. We have responsibilities as legislators, and that's why we want to take our time to really examine this bill, not because we doubt the science or because we don't think we should be taking aggressive action.
The other thing that I think we have to keep in mind is that, yes, with proper investments we can achieve some very drastic reductions, but the government has tied our hands with a $60-billion deficit. It's making investments in carbon capture and storage that amounts to a price on carbon of $760 per tonne of reduction. What we're trying to answer here is given our context, are these the right targets we should be going ahead with? That's what I'm saying. If you have any comments—