Evidence of meeting #140 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fuel.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC
Excuse me, but I don't have much time. I understand what you're saying, but what I'm asking for is an answer based on physics and atmospheric chemistry.
I want to know the molecular interactions that will happen as a result of a carbon tax in Canada—and in Canada alone, I might add—when CO2 is a global substance. What are the physical and chemical interactions in the Canadian atmosphere that a carbon tax will elicit that will deal with the problems you raised?
4:20 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Clean Energy Canada
If we reduce carbon dioxide concentrations in the air, then we will have less warming and reduce climate variation as a result of climate change.
4:25 p.m.
Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC
You're not dealing with my question.
I used to be an environmental director at a paper mill. We had a very bad effluent stream. The 1989 pulp and paper effluent regulations required us to put in a waste-water treatment plant. We spent $25 million. Our effluent went from being toxic to being clean. I'm looking for a very specific, scientifically based, evidence-based answer, given that Canada's 1.6% of world global emissions, that our reductions will have an effect on the environmental problems such as fires and floods and heat, which you described. I want a technical answer, not a reference to some UN thing.
That's the issue. The issue is Canadians are being asked to spend this money. What are they getting for it environmentally? I want a science-based answer, please.
4:25 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Clean Energy Canada
I'm a lawyer by background and I'm pointing to the scientific experts.
4:25 p.m.
Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC
But you're making claims. You have to back them up.
4:25 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Clean Energy Canada
I am pointing to the scientific experts who—
4:25 p.m.
Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC
Your profession is not important to me. You made a claim. Back it up.
4:25 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Mr. Sopuck, you asked a question. I think we need to hear from the witness. It's only fair that you give her the opportunity.
4:25 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Clean Energy Canada
In order to provide you with the best scientific answer that I can, I'm going to point to the authoritative scientific voice on climate change and what causes global warming, which is human-induced heightened concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Addressing that issue will help to reduce the climate impacts that Canada is experiencing.
4:25 p.m.
Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC
Yes, but you're avoiding my question. I'm asking about when our emissions in Canada are reduced, will the impacts that you talk about, fires and floods, be ameliorated by the CO2 reduction, in Canada only.
4:25 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Clean Energy Canada
Every tonne of CO2 reduction will make a difference. If we're asking whether Canada's overall emissions profile in the global context matters, we are the top emitter per capita in the G20. We are one of the world's top 10 economies. The best thing we can do, if we would like to get other nations on board with this sort of action, is to design and implement a world-leading carbon pricing system and produce the clean technologies that we need not only to reduce our own emissions and grow our economy but also to export those technologies abroad and help the rest of the world meet its emissions goals as well.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I would like to raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.
During the testimony just now…
4:25 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Sorry, we're out of time, Joël. Unless it's a point of order, we're moving—
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
No, it's very important. It's a point of order.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Chair, just now I saw a flash. I want to make sure that no one in this room is taking photographs. Was it a reflection of something or did someone in the audience, behind the witnesses, take a photograph? I just want you to make sure that no photographs are taken, please.
4:25 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Yes, for everybody in the audience, when we're in session, photos aren't allowed. I should have mentioned that at the start. At the end, after we're out of session, if anybody wants a picture, there will be an opportunity to take it then. Although we are ending at.... Anyway, we'll see how we can deal with that.
Thank you, Mr. Godin.
Now we'll move to Mr. Stetski.
January 30th, 2019 / 4:25 p.m.
Wayne Stetski Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
Thank you.
Thank you for being with us today.
Mr. Myers, you made a statement that the cost outweighs the benefits. I live in southeastern British Columbia, in the Kootenay—Columbia riding. The last two summers, by the end of July, first week of August, you could not see the magnificent Rocky Mountains, or the Purcell Mountains, or the Selkirk Mountains in my riding. When you stated that the costs outweigh the benefits, did that include the environmental costs, the health costs, the economic costs of climate change, the impact on tourism, the trees we're losing, that can no longer go into our lumber mills? When you factor all that in, can you still legitimately say that the costs outweigh the benefits?
4:25 p.m.
Environmental Director, Washington Policy Center
That's a great question.
I worked at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, where we dealt with forestry issues. Living in Washington state, we got to enjoy some of that smoke over the last two summers, so I'm very appreciative of the problem you talk about.
The modelling I talked about is from William Nordhaus. He talks about the economic costs and benefits. Any time you do modelling over 100 years, there is going to be variability; there's no question. He does not say that there are no costs; he clearly says that action needs to be taken to avoid specifically the problems you're talking about and their impacts. I don't want to leave the impression that no action is necessary, because the examples you give are legitimate.
The question is where you draw the line. How much do you do? How high is the cost? What he found in his modelling, with the requisite error margins, is that if you try to meet the 2°C target of the Paris climate accord, the economic costs outweigh the benefits.
Let me also say, having a background in forestry, that it's not just climate change, as you know, that is causing the problems with forest health. A better approach, rather than reducing CO2 emissions, may be to manage forest health. There's more than one issue. There's no question that warm summers increase the likelihood of the forest fires that you and I got to experience, but it's not the only approach we can take.
4:30 p.m.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
I'm also curious about the way the question was asked to the public. If you ask the question, “Do you want to pay more taxes?”, the answer is always no. It depends upon how you present the issue and what the benefits of the tax might be.
I'm curious to know how the question was asked, because it seemed perhaps a little simplistic: Do you want to pay more or not?
4:30 p.m.
Environmental Director, Washington Policy Center
The answer isn't always no, actually. As I mentioned, in public opinion polling in both Washington state and the United States, people are willing to pay something to reduce CO2 emissions. The question is how much they're willing to pay.
We have two initiatives that I think are useful. One is a revenue-neutral carbon tax whereby sales taxes, which are the largest tax source we have in Washington state, were cut more than enough to offset the increase of the carbon tax. Even then they rejected it, because, as I said, their concern was that in the future those taxes would be raised. Even in a circumstance in which the cost is initially zero, people worry about it in the back of their mind.
I'm not arguing that carbon taxes are useless. My frustration and what I try to argue about is how, in an environment like that, to do something, which is the challenge that you face as well. That's why I offer the technology, to increase the elasticity of demand, so that the impact upon people is less and they have an opportunity to save energy, save money, and reduce carbon emissions without the carbon taxes. That's the approach I advocate.
4:30 p.m.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
I'd like to turn to the National Airlines Council for a minute.
Virtually every group we've heard from over several months of testimony has said that they believe their industry could do better. I'm quite disappointed. I thought I heard you say that you're tapped out, that you're maxed out, that you can't do any better. Is that really the position of the airline industry?
4:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Airlines Council of Canada
If you examine the data with respect to emission reductions, the data concerning our fuel consumption, which is the fundamental element in our industry, shows that we're hitting diminishing returns in relation to the investments. We are different from other sectors because of the importance of fuel as a variable cost in our operations. Reducing fuel consumption is a matter of economic survival, and in Canada all the more so because we operate in an inhospitable public environment.
I'm going to ask my colleague to jump in here to illustrate the lengths to which Canadian airlines go to reduce fuel consumption, to manage every last litre of fuel in a flight. That's our reality. Adding a cost at the margin—