John Balling, Jr. represents Western Fuels and British Coal Mining Association. That is who pays him. He was not part of the IPCC. He was paid by the oil and gas industry, a trillion-million dollar industry. But Michaels, Balling, Singer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, all paid by the oil and gas industry, are the people the member's leader quoted.
In the fall of 1987 as minister of the environment of Quebec I was a member of the Canadian delegation of the United Nations when Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland presented the now famous report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, “Our Common Future”.
The lead speaker after Mrs. Brundtland was the President of the Maldive Islands, Mahmood Abdul Gayoom. He described the natural beauty of his island state of many hundreds of islands in the Indian Ocean south of India as ecological jewels on a cushion of blue. He told us about the tidal waves that had started to visit his islands. He explained that the water surrounding the islands had always been steady and calm until the eighties when they were visited for the first time by giant tidal waves. The first time the waves caused significant damage. The second time they were more fierce and damage was correspondingly severe, and the third time they caused havoc which included considerable destruction and, sadly, human injury and death.
Way back then, 10 years ago, President Gayoom addressed us, the rich industrialized world, in this way:
Scientists tell us that in the next century the seas could rise drastically, maybe between 1 and 3 meters. If it was something in between, my island-state would disappear under the sea completely. We have no plants and no factories that spew carbon gases into the atmosphere, yet our innocent people must pay the price of your activities, and your negligence. Is this right, is this fair?
I ask is it right and fair? Is it acceptable to Canadians who believe so strongly in equity and justice? Is it right, fair and acceptable that we should be the second ranking world champions per capita of carbon emissions, a close second to the greenhouse champions the United States?
I realize that some continue to pretend that climatic change and the huge global threat posed by the increase in greenhouse gases are just a myth spread by environmentalists and tree huggers.
As I was listening to the leader of the official opposition earlier and after many years of environmental work, I wondered if the hon. member and I live on the same planet. The hon. member should talk to people from the Maldives, from Barbados, from the Marshall Islands, or from 40 small island states, who live in constant fear that sea levels will continue to rise.
Meanwhile, the leader of the opposition speaks like the dinosaur he is.
I wonder how many people from Burundi and Mali and Benin he has spoken to about the visibly encroaching desert in Africa.
The very limited time at my disposal does not allow me to mention in detail the countless examples which clearly demonstrate that the impact of greenhouse gases is not only real but has already begun to cause dramatic climatic changes in many parts of the world.
As mentioned earlier, the UN intergovernmental panel on climatic change includes some 2,000 of the greatest scientific experts on climate, whose work and findings are systematically analyzed and reviewed by their peers.
There is an impressive number of examples that show how the greenhouse effect has intensified over the last 25 years, because of the spectacular acceleration of the industrialization process and the increase in the use of energy.
Let me cite only the example of Antarctica where in January 1995 a vast section the size of Prince Edward Island broke off from the Larsen-Shelf. Two months later a 60-kilometre long fissure appeared along the northern part of the same Larsen-Shelf, Scientific measurements show that the mean temperature in the Arctic peninsula has risen by nearly 20 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 20 years.
In the book The Heat is On by Ross Gelbspan, the author quotes Argentinian scientist Dr. Rodolfo del Valle as follows: “Recently we have seen rocks poke through the surface of the ice that had been buried under 600 metres of ice for 20,000 years”. Sadly in spite of repeated commitments by industrialized countries of the north which have the means, both technological and financial, to stabilize and reduce excessive greenhouse emissions, the evidence shows a very different and a very sad tale. Emissions are not stabilized, let alone reduced, compared to 1990 totals. On the contrary, they have increased substantially.
In Canada in spite of categorical commitments by successive governments, our greenhouse gases have actually risen by 8% over 1990 results. In fact the UN climate change secretariat has reported that among developed nations the U.S., Japan and Canada were responsible for 85% of the increase in greenhouse gases between 1990 and 1995.
Yet, we are a rich and influential nation, a member of the G-7, a country whose natural resources are among the most abundant in the world, a country of knowledge and first-class technological achievements. We can and must do better.
If over the last five years India, a country far less favoured financially and technologically than our own, can invest some $600 million Canadian in solar energy as well as make significant investments in waste recovery energy, in wind energy, in biomass energy and in district energy, surely we can do substantially more.
What we must do first of all is rebalance the economic and fiscal incentive and subsidy program which over the years and even today heavily favours the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. Unless we change our ways and direction toward energy efficiency and renewable energies, unless we have the courage and determination to redirect our subsidies and fiscal incentives toward environmentally clean energies, we will continue to move from conference to conference to conference, not only spinning wheels but losing ground in the global battle to stabilize and reduce greenhouse emissions.
Over the last 20 years we have spent literally billions of dollars in subsidies and tax incentives to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. In the oil and gas industry alone, according to figures from Natural Resources Canada for the year 1993, the value of tax deductions totalled a staggering $6.247 billion.
With a determined co-ordinated program backed by adequate financial incentives, we can stabilize at 1990 levels by 2005 and reduce our emissions substantially by 2010, some reliable experts believe by as much as 10%.
We have not scratched the surface of what is possible and available: waste recovery energy, district energy, wind energy, solar energy, biomass energy, better public transportation and clean transportation fuels such as cellulose ethanol and of course energy efficiency.
What we need is a determination that turned the acid rain situation around in the eighties, when Canada took a bold leadership position including tight timelines and substantial reduction targets of 50% involving the federal government and seven of the affected provinces. Rather than worrying about lack of action by the United States, we took a bold lead and the U.S. eventually followed by amending its Clean Air Act.
Canada must continue its role as an international environmental leader regardless of the timid and pussyfooting positions of the U.S. Canada must continue to set an international example, for only when rich nations like our own set a convincing example will we in turn convince less favoured countries of the developing world to follow our lead.
For besides being good for our environment and our health, clean energies are immensely beneficial to the economy, creating investments, creating wealth through advanced technologies and creating jobs.
I will describe one last example. Denmark now depending on coal for 50% of its energy has established a bold program to replace its total coal energy by wind power by 2030. Danish and German wind power turbines now provide energy not only in Europe but in Africa, Asia, North America and South America, to communities large and small. Why should these turbines not be Canadian?
Indeed climate change solutions, very far from being an economic burden, on the contrary are a sustainable economic opportunity. Let us be bold rather than timid. Let us lead rather than follow. Let us bet squarely on energies of the 21st century, renewable energies, clean energies. Let us bet on a clean and sustainable future for our children.