First of all, it is important to keep in mind that Quebec's reality in terms of electricity production is not the same as New Brunswick's. There is a major difference. New Brunswick uses coal to produce electricity, whereas Quebec does not use fossil fuels, be they coal or natural gas, to generate electricity.
In terms of an environmental assessment, a number of questions about shale gas have yet to be answered. Something interesting is happening in Quebec right now. The Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE) was given a mandate to study the issue of shale gas. But this commission of inquiry did not receive any environmental impact assessments prior to the project. That means that the BAPE is currently examining the matter when the developers were not required to submit any environmental impact assessments. It must start from scratch. The BAPE has just four months to examine the whole issue, in its entirety. Most of the analysts and former BAPE commissioners made it clear that the mandate was too limited and that the lack of prior environmental impact assessments was problematic. They also said that the mandate was much too short to deal with the shale gas issue in its entirety.
That being said, the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. is in the midst of a comprehensive study on the environmental impact of shale gas exploration and development. The results of that study will be released in March 2012. The U.S. has invested millions of dollars in this study. The province of Quebec does not necessarily have those kinds of resources, and I doubt that the other provinces, whether it be New Brunswick or someplace else, have the resources to undertake such an in-depth study of the matter, either.
Consequently, given the little bit of information we do have right now, we are concerned on a number of levels. I believe you mentioned Quebec's Sustainable Development Act. It sets out a number of principles, one of which being the precaution principle. Under that principle, when a threat exists and full scientific certainty does not, a project should not be allowed to proceed. And yet, the exact opposite is happening in the case of shale gas right now. There are indeed threats to water and air quality.
You also mentioned hydroelectric power generation in Quebec. We see what is happening around the world right now. Just last week, the International Energy Agency's chief economist gave a speech in England in which he said that countries would not be able to meet the commitments made at the climate change conference in Cancun—they had agreed to limit the increase in the world's temperature to 2oC—citing two reasons. The first reason was that key emitting countries were not serious about reducing their emissions, and the second had to do with the emergence of shale gas around the world.
Why is the emergence of shale gas problematic? Given the quintillion cubic metres on the market today and the sharp decline in gas prices, shale gas is threatening renewable energy development worldwide, not just in Quebec and Canada. In the U.S., investment in renewable energy has dropped by 50% from last year. According to the International Energy Agency's chief economist, that is directly related to the discovery and development of shale gas.
Clearly, Quebec produces hydroelectricity and exports it to the U.S., and it could export even more if only it could save energy and develop its wind energy potential. Today, we cannot even pursue that kind of development because the cost of producing electricity has dropped tremendously with the emergence and marketing of billions of cubic metres of gas. And in that respect, Quebec is hurting itself in terms of developing its own renewable energies and energy known as biogas, or biological methane. Quebec has invested in capturing methane emissions at landfills, in order to use what is known as biogas. Biogas is currently competing with other types of gas. Biogas derived from landfills is a source of renewable energy. It is important to remember that.
Thank you.