Environment Committee on Nov. 8th, 2018

[The Chair, Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)]

We're back and in public.

The purpose of this next portion of the meeting is to look at the IPCC report that was recently produced and shared.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. We have set aside an hour for testimony and discussion, and at that point, we'll see where we're at.

I want to welcome Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Shipley to our meeting as guests today.

I'll invite you, presenters, to take just a moment to introduce yourselves and your role, and then we'll move right into the comments. I think we have 10 minutes of opening comments that will be shared between two persons.

It is nice to see some familiar faces back at the table. Welcome.

Ms. Meltzer, would you like to start with an introduction? When we get through the introductions, we'll move to the start of the 10 minutes.

[Judy Meltzer, Director General, Carbon Pricing Bureau, Department of the Environment]

Thank you very much.

My name is Judy Meltzer. I'm the director general of the carbon pricing bureau at Environment and Climate Change Canada.

[Nancy Hamzawi, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment]

Hi. My name is Nancy Hamzawi. I am the assistant deputy minister of science and technology at Environment and Climate Change Canada.

[The Chair]

You have a bit more time behind you from when we last saw you. Hadn't you just started in your position?

[Nancy Hamzawi]

Not to be precise, but there's the scientist in me, it's 39 days and a half.

[Matt Jones, Assistant Deputy Minister, Pan-Canadian Framework Implementation Office, Department of the Environment]

Hi. I'm Matt Jones. I'm an assistant deputy minister at Environment and Climate Change Canada and responsible for climate policy.

[Dr. Greg Flato, Senior Scientist, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment]

I'm Greg Flato. I'm a senior research scientist in the climate research division under the science and technology branch at Environment and Climate Change Canada.

[The Chair]

Thanks to the four of you for joining us today.

With that, we'll start the 10 minutes of opening comments.

[Nancy Hamzawi]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you.

In addition to my responsibilities as the ADM of the science and technology branch, I am also the Canadian focal point for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. You have met my colleagues, so I will begin with an overview of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It's an international body that undertakes comprehensive assessments of the state of knowledge on climate change. Currently, 195 countries are part of the IPCC, and thousands of scientists worldwide participate in its work. The main outputs of the IPCC are their assessment reports. These span several disciplines—scientific, technical and socio-economic—and explore the causes, impacts, mitigation and adaptation approaches for climate change.

The assessment reports are internationally recognized as the most comprehensive and authoritative scientific assessments of climate change. They provide policy-relevant scientific information to inform national and international policy discussions.

Canada has been an active participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, since it was created in 1988. Canadian scientists from both the government and academic sectors have contributed to the authorship of IPCC reports and the body of peer-reviewed literature that the IPCC considers when preparing its reports.

As Canada's focal point to the IPCC, I am committed to engaging broadly to ensure Canada's leading climate science experts, other levels of government and stakeholders are actively involved in IPCC processes.

In particular, I am committed to engagement with indigenous peoples. Most recently, three representatives of national indigenous organizations joined us as active members of the Canadian delegation in Incheon, South Korea, at the plenary where the special report on warming of 1.5°C was accepted.

IPCC assessment reports are multi-year endeavours. Work on assessment report number six is currently under way. It will be finalized in 2022, just before the first global stock-take under the Paris Agreement. The IPCC also undertakes special reports, and we will hear more about the most recent one of these very shortly.

The IPCC released its fifth assessment report in 2014, which provided critical scientific information to inform the development of the Paris Agreement. It offered definitive evidence that global warming is unequivocal and has affected all continents and oceans, and that observed warming is primarily caused by humans. We're continuing to build partnerships in the key area of research on climate change to support evidence-based decision-making.

Environment and Climate Change Canada undertakes a wide range of scientific research on climate change to understand the effects of climate change on the environment and wildlife and to inventory GHG emissions. In addition, we're a world leader in modelling and prediction to understand the physical basis of climate change.

We are fortunate to have one of our top and world-renowned experts with us today, Dr. Greg Flato, who I will turn to now to tell you more about his work and the IPCC “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C”.

[Dr. Greg Flato]

Thank you, Nancy.

As they said, I'm a senior research scientist and manager of the Canadian centre for climate modelling and analysis, located in Victoria. I was also elected vice-chair of working group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, in 2015. I'm the only Canadian on the IPCC bureau.

My research over the past 25 years has been in the area of development and application of global earth system models. These are physically based computer simulations of the global climate, which include representations of the atmosphere, ocean, ice and land surface, as well as interactions between the biosphere and carbon cycle. We use these models to understand how the climate system operates, why it has changed in the past, and how it will change in the future.

In my capacity as an IPCC vice-chair, I was involved in the selection of authors and served as review editor of chapter 2 of the “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C”. This particular chapter was the one that assessed mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C warming. By way of background, this special report was initiated as part of the Paris Agreement, wherein the IPCC was invited to prepare a special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways.

The IPCC released this report in early October 2018 at an approval plenary in Incheon, South Korea. The IPCC report preparation process is very rigorous, involving the selection of an international author team, four lead author meetings, and three rounds of reviews that involve international experts and governments. The report itself draws upon peer-reviewed scientific publications, some 6,000 of which are cited in this report.

This special report provides quantitative information about the greenhouse gas emission pathways that would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C and to 2°C, as well as an assessment of the difference in climate-related impacts between these two levels of warming.

It's important to understand that, in order to stabilize global temperature at any level, global net carbon dioxide emissions must reach net zero. That is, the global sum of emissions and removals must equal zero. As long as emissions are positive, temperature will continue to increase. Global mean temperature is currently at 1°C above pre-industrial levels.

The analysis provided in this special report shows that limiting warming to 1.5°C would require rapid reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions with a decline of about 45% relative to 2010 levels by 2030 and reaching net zero around 2050.

I'll now pass it back to Nancy.

[Nancy Hamzawi]

Thank you, Mr. Flato.

The Government of Canada recognizes the real impact of climate change on our environment, as highlighted by the IPCC. That’s why the government worked with the provinces and territories, and with input from Indigenous peoples, to develop and adopt the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This framework is Canada's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, pursuant to the commitments in the Paris Agreement.

The pan-Canadian framework outlines over 50 concrete measures to reduce carbon pollution, help us adapt and become more resilient to a changing climate, promote clean technology solutions, and create good jobs that contribute to a stronger economy.

We've made significant progress implementing the pan-Canadian framework. We can point to several successes, such as new regulations to reduce methane reductions, establishing the Canadian centre for climate services to improve access to climate science and information, and making historic investments to support clean growth and address climate change.

A price on carbon pollution is a key part of Canada's plan to fight climate change and to grow the economy. Pricing carbon pollution is the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stimulate investments in clean innovation. It creates incentives for individuals, households and businesses to choose cleaner options.

The federal government worked with provinces and territories giving them the flexibility to design their own climate plans that included putting a price on carbon pollution. Many provinces and territories took action and are either developing their own carbon pollution pricing systems or have accepted the federal system. As announced by the Prime Minister on October 23, the Government of Canada will put the federal carbon pollution pricing system in place in these provinces that do not take action. All direct proceeds from the federal system will be returned to the jurisdiction of origin.

Much work remains. The government will continue to work with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, businesses, academia, youth and international government to inform the transition to a low-carbon and resilient economy.

Thank you.

[The Chair]

Excellent. Thank you.

For anyone who is new today, we're going to get into our rounds of questioning. We have six minutes per person as we go through it.

We're going to start with the government side.

Ms. Dzerowicz, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Davenport, Lib.]

I'm going to be sharing my time with my colleague Mr. Peschisolido.

I want to say thank you so much for being here. It's an important discussion, and I'm definitely learning a lot, because I'm one of the newer members of the committee.

I'm delighted to hear that we are a global leader in modelling impacts. I think it's wonderful to hear. The IPCC has come out and said that what we had agreed to a few years ago in Paris we need to step up, to really put the pedal to the metal and actually go much faster. In terms of the modelling we do, have we also seen that, or is that not something your model would actually show?

[Dr. Greg Flato]

The kind of modelling we do does provide information about emission pathways that would lead to certain temperature consequences and other changes in climate.

The pathways that were used in the last IPCC assessment, which was published in 2014, did have a low-emission pathway that did limit warming to between 1.5°C and 2°C. The emission pathways that were associated with that are contained in that report.

This special report, the new one, provided even more information, more details about the contributions to those emissions and the more detailed pathways that would lead to 1.5°C and 2°C and also talked more about the difference in impacts that would be associated with limiting warming to 1.5°C versus letting warming go to 2°C or exceeding that.

[Julie Dzerowicz]

What would be the impact on our overall pan-Canadian framework? We talk a lot here about the price on pollution, but there are so many different aspects under the pan-Canadian framework. Would any of these adjustments or changes in modelling actually have an impact on our pan-Canadian framework? That's not to say it's not relevant, but maybe there are some additional aspects we need to start looking at that we haven't yet.

[Matt Jones]

I think one of the most useful aspects of the new IPCC report is that it paints a clearer image of the impacts associated with 1.5°C versus 2°C. For many years, we have been trying to avoid 2°C, and while we were very aware that there were plenty of climate change impacts at 2°C, I think it was chosen as a rough benchmark for a point beyond which the risks of much more significant, even catastrophic, impacts were much more probable.

I think in terms of our efforts to reduce emissions, we're one player in the global scene to reduce emissions and do our part to get to a situation in which we're reducing the risks of very significant impacts on climate change. I think even before the report was completed, we were very much aware that there are plenty of impacts—and very costly and dangerous impacts—at 2°C. In fact, we're feeling impacts now at only 1°C and even more so in the north.

I think when it comes to our policy response, we're striving to reduce our emissions, in line with the Paris Agreement target of 30%, but we're very aware that that's only one step in the process and that we need to continue in order to drive down our emissions more fully.

[Julie Dzerowicz]

I'm going to pass it to my colleague, but I'll just make one comment. My perspective is that I want to just get to implementing these aspects. My sense is that we're going to be adjusting as we go along, as we get new information, as we see what the impacts are. I'm just anxious to get started.

[Joe Peschisolido, Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.]

I come from the great municipality of Richmond. We're at sea level. We have a very ample farming industry and fishing industry. I'd like to follow up on Ms. Dzerowicz's point about the impact of climate change with the difference of 0.5°C. What would happen to a place like Steveston or Richmond, which is at sea level, if we do have that change of 0.5°C?

[Dr. Greg Flato]

Perhaps most relevant to that region, which is not far from where I live in Victoria, is sea level rise. Sea level rise is in part directly associated with warming of the ocean. As the climate warms, the ocean takes up a lot of the excess energy that is associated with increasing greenhouse gases. That increasing energy leads to warming of the ocean, which leads to an increase in the volume of the ocean. As you heat up—

[Joe Peschisolido]

What direct impact would that have on fishing and farming?

[Dr. Greg Flato]

It has a direct impact on sea level in that sea level rises. It has a direct impact on other aspects of the ocean ecosystem. One thing that's highlighted in this report is the consequence for corals in the tropics. I realize that is not really an issue for coastal British Columbia, but it is part of the global ocean ecosystem. There are lots of implications there.

In terms of sea level rise, what's shown in this report is that the difference between 2°C and 1.5°C is about 10 centimetres in global sea level rise by the year 2100. That's on a background of about 30 centimetres to 60 centimetres. It is a consequential difference, but sea level is still rising.

[Joe Peschisolido]

Thank you for your comments.

[The Chair]

Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

As a preamble on what we want here on this side, we want to know the most effective system to achieve what we want to achieve here, which is lowering greenhouse gas emissions. I come from an area that has a lot of reliance on the coal industry for electricity. I want to suss out some of the secondary impacts that a lot of people don't think about. With regard to shutting down coal power, obviously coal has a lot of greenhouse gas emissions per unit. However, a secondary production from coal plants is fly ash, which is actually a critical ingredient in cement and road production.

Ms. Meltzer, has the government done any impact modelling on the increased cost to infrastructure programs in Canada from losing our capacity to produce fly ash in Canada? Is there a plan on how we can get fly ash for these essential products?

[Judy Meltzer]

Colleagues at the table may want to add something as well.

I think you're referring to beyond just pricing pollution. You're referring to the broader efforts and regulations that will aim to phase out coal by 2030.

To speak to it from the carbon pollution pricing side, yes, there is economic analysis under way. In terms of the analysis that my team and I are part of, we're looking at the impact of a price on pollution on those sectors and at some of the economic and competitiveness impacts. That analysis is still ongoing. There are three phases to it. It cuts across all the major industrial sectors. In particular, we're looking at it in the context of developing the output-based pricing regulations. It includes cement.