Environment Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

My opinion is exactly the same. What are we going to say in Copenhagen? We have absolutely no power, no clout, no.... We're not in the game in Copenhagen, as long as we haven't ratified or developed a bill like that to force Canada to take some action.

It's impossible, but suppose we adopted Bill C-311 before Copenhagen. We could then walk into the meetings with something to say: Yes, we caved. We are going to participate. We are going to move ahead with that. This is what we think should be done.

Then we would have a voice. Until then, we don't have a voice in those meetings.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

I have a couple of specific questions for Dr. Sauchyn.

I want to advise you that I have taken the time to read the report you led.

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

Thank you.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's an excellent report. It's an invaluable resource for government decision-makers. I very much want to thank you for that.

I have noted your testimony today, saying that there seem to be even stronger indicators. I, being from the prairies, paid particular attention to the chapter that, as I understand, you led yourself, which is the impact of climate change on the prairies.

I would like to get your impression of some things that have occurred in Alberta only this past summer. The Agricultural Financial Services Corporation, which is the agency that assesses crop insurance, has stated that they faced 1,400 claims by early August, when they normally only receive a dozen, for extreme drought for zero-yield crops. They've declared entire areas of Alberta so dry that they don't even send out the adjusters. They're saying that they anticipate several decades of similar drought based on the science studies. I'm presuming that some of those studies are the ones you've done yourself. Researchers at the University of Alberta, in the area of health, have expressed extreme concern about the impact on the health of the farm community by the drought on the prairies, and the high evidence of stress and even suicide.

Dr. Klaver-Kibria has expressed frustration at the failure of the government agencies to recognize and consider the health implications, in addition to the other science impacts, and is calling for more investment and bringing together.

I'm wondering if you could comment on whether or not you think we have actually fully assessed the cost of not acting early on addressing climate change. In fact, are there potential additional costs, as those two avenues have identified this past summer?

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

I'd like to say that if you think responding to climate change is costly, try the alternative. Try doing nothing and discover what the cost will be like.

I'm glad you mentioned the work of Justine Klaver-Kibria. We had her write a chapter for a book on climate change in western Canada that we just sent to the publisher. She documents suicides during periods of drought when, according to the Government of Canada, drought is not a natural hazard because it doesn't kill people. But if you're a prairie person, you know that it does.

You identified some specific weather events and their impacts from this summer, but we can't attribute those to global warming, simply because global warming is a change in the climate and you've described weather. However, the weather events of this past year in Alberta are very much consistent with the expected climate with global warming. That is, we had the most serious drought on record in the spring. There were also some extreme rainstorms. And then in mid-September, temperatures reached 36°C in Alberta and Saskatchewan. That's not only the warmest September ever, it's the warmest temperature ever recorded for Edmonton.

Those kinds of extreme weather events are weather, as I said, and not climate. But they are consistent with the type of weather we expect with global warming.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Your time has expired, Ms. Duncan.

Mr. Warawa, the floor is yours.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I also want to thank each of the witnesses for being here.

It's important to have good input on Bill C-311. I have concerns about the bill in that it sets aggressive targets but there are no mechanisms built in to help us achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. That's going to be the focus of my questioning--namely, how effective Bill C-311 will be, if it becomes legislation, at actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Zwiers. How are global climate change scenarios prepared, and how does the consensus process work?

[Dr. Francis Zwiers]

The word “scenarios” refers to a number of different things. It could refer to emission scenarios; it could refer to resulting estimations of how the climate will change in response to those scenarios. Emission scenarios are developed to cover a range of possibilities. They start with current atmospheric concentration and rates of emission and build from there, proposing a range of possibilities.

The new IPCC report will use a new set of emission scenarios rather than the so-called SRES emission scenarios, where concentration pathways will be specified starting with today's concentrations, either increasing or eventually decreasing concentrations, and stabilizing at some level. These span a large range of possible atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, eventually stabilizing at very low levels or at levels that are much above today's levels.

These are specified to climate models. Climate models are then run to translate these changes in atmospheric composition into changes in climate. Very often when you hear of a projection of a 4°C rise in global mean temperature by 2100 that's an estimated response to a change in greenhouse gas concentrations built up over a period of time. This kind of information is then used to conduct impacts and adaptation research to understand what the impacts will be.

I hope that goes part of the way toward answering your question.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It does.

What is the scientific consensus on the potential impacts for the 2°C global temperature warming?

[Dr. Francis Zwiers]

The impacts research community is a very large community. It's multidisciplinary and includes biologists, physical scientists, and people undertaking social science. So it's a community where consensus is not the easiest thing to obtain. But there is, by and large, a broad understanding that as temperatures rise, the impacts will become more widespread and more severe, and that these will then start to be felt increasingly as you go from 1.5°C to 2.5°C to 3.5°C. These impacts tend to become quite broad at about 2°C.

Take, for the example, species extinctions linked to climate change. It's estimated that 20% to 30% of species will become susceptible to extinction with an increase in temperature of 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

Also, if temperatures are sustained at that level for a very long period of time, then we risk substantially increasing sea levels. That's not just by centimetres or fractions of a metre, as had been projected by the IPCC for the year 2100, but by many metres—perhaps 10 metres—as a result of the melting of large parts of large ice sheets.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to focus specifically on Bill C-311. My question would be for all of you.

Mr. Fortier, I like Rex Murphy. I don't agree with him on everything, but I think we....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Anyway, with regard to Bill C-311, in our consideration of this bill, which the Liberals call a “twiddlywink” bill--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Tiddlywink.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, tiddlywink bill, thank you, Mr. McGuinty.

So we know that the previous Liberal government set random targets and then did nothing, and we ended up with the environmental mess.

It's very easy for the NDP to come up with unrealistic targets that may not achieve anything.

What Canada right now...is we've set tough targets: 20% reduction by 2020, and 60% to 70% reduction by 2050. We are on the pathway toward that. But Canada by itself cannot achieve a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We are taking a continental approach with the United States through the clean energy dialogue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and a North American commitment, as we head toward Copenhagen.

First, is it important that Canada be part of a continental approach, again, looking at the practical? Also, should there be a balance where you are protecting the environment but also providing economic prosperity?

We need these practical considerations: North American, and a balance between economic and environment.

I'll start with Mr. Zwiers, please.

[Dr. Francis Zwiers]

I think these are questions that I'll defer to others. These are questions that consider policy choices as opposed to questions that are purely scientific.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

If one wanted to be cynical, since Canada is emitting less than 3% of overall global emissions we could do nothing about it and it wouldn't have much impact globally. But that would be extremely cynical. It would also be a huge mistake economically.

If we don't do anything now, if we don't transform or metamorphose our economy towards a renewable energy economy, then we'll be the poor cousin of the world. We hardly are part of the G7 or G8. We wish we were at the top of the G20, but we won't even be part of G20 if we don't make that revolution that is needed in our economy and our industry in the way we do things.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Is it important to do it in a continental—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Warawa, unfortunately, we are out of time. I think Mr. Fortier answered the question, so we'll continue on.

We're going to start the five-minute round.

Mr. Trudeau, you're going to kick us off.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you.

Dr. Stone, you brought forward the comments that the target we're looking at for 2020, according to the international climate change panel, is 25% to 40% below 1990 levels. That's a reasonable target, according to you.

I'm not asking for a policy opinion, and I would like a response from everyone else as well.

In your scientific assessment, if that is the kind of target that I think universally we're talking about, at a minimum about 20% with as much as 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, is it your assessment, as scientists, that, to quote Mr. Warawa, 20% below 2020 from 2006 levels would consist of a “tough” target? Is 20% below 2006 levels by 2020 qualifiable, in your scientific opinion, as a “tough” target?

[Prof. John Stone]

Thank you very much.

There are lots of elements to your question, but let me take the last part. The current government's target, which as you say is a 20% reduction by 2020 based on 2006 levels, translates into roughly a 2% to 3% increase from 1990 levels. That is not even what we proposed to do under Kyoto. So my assessment of that target is that it's not very ambitious at all.

The numbers that are referred to were taken from this BRIC that the IPCC Working Group III put together. They're based clearly on some assumptions. One may debate some of those assumptions, but we have said in the IPCC for several years that if we are going to avoid dangerous interference with the climate and stabilize emissions at a level that achieves that, then emissions are going to have to decline significantly from what they are now, to perhaps as much as 10% of what they are now.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you.

I'd like to hear comments from the others on whether or not you consider the 2006 baseline to be adequate.

Monsieur Fortier.

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

No, it's not adequate at all. Certainly, it would be hard to hit that target, but it is actually the wrong target. We should have a target which is much more ambitious. That is why we need a very tough bill.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Okay.

Dr. Sauchyn, do you consider it a tough target to reduce below 2006 levels by 20% by 2020?