Mr. Speaker, various people have predicted 60,000 jobs, others 450,000, depending on whose estimates we look at.
Let me talk about the cost of inaction. Let us talk about quantifying those costs of inaction in terms of health costs and costs to various industries such as the insurance industry. Let us talk about the opportunities such as helping new industry evolve in Canada and becoming a centre for environmental technologies geared toward greenhouse gas emission reduction. Those opportunities have not been quantified. In fact, if we look at the cost, often the cost of inaction is not mentioned whatsoever.
There would definitely be health impacts by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We are not only talking about CO
2
emissions. When we reduce emissions, we are reducing all emissions and CO
2
is certainly the target. However, we are looking at and dealing with NO and NO
2
, and SO and SO
2
in particular. They all have levels of chemical loading in our atmosphere that are serious. It is not only CO
2
emissions, there are many other types of noxious chemicals as well.
We can agree there is a problem. Most members would say greenhouse gas emissions and global warming are issues that must be dealt with. If members talk to their constituents they would also say that yes, we understand there are issues around global warming. Where should we go from here because we know there is a problem?
The intergovernmental panel consisted of 1,800 scientists. It talked about a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We are talking about 6%, which is modest. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we implement this? How do we work with industry, governments, and various stakeholders to bring in an implementation plan that would be as user friendly and built on consensus as possible?
I had a round table in my riding specifically on Kyoto. Some of the recommendations that came from industry, government, and individual citizens were heartening to see. They came up with a number of recommendations and thoughts on this issue. One gentleman, for instance, said that he had solar panels installed in his summer cottage to heat his water, operate his lights and heat his home in general. He said the payback on that looked like it would be about six years. It is heartening for me to see people looking at those opportunities, coming up with their own solutions, and in fact working with renewable energy technologies like solar power.
There are other renewable energies that we could look at: geothermal technology, ethanol and biofuels. Coming from an agricultural riding I am happy to see that biofuels offer an opportunity. Farming is very difficult and farmers are going through rough times. We know they face international market conditions that are difficult. Farm profits are decreasing. We have seen problems with smaller farms as well. There is a reduction in the numbers of smaller farms.
Biofuels would offer farmers an alternative revenue source because they do have the input or the natural resource to put into a biofuel process. That is something that we can explore and that is good news for the agriculture sector.
Another example is wind energy. California has made great strides with wind energy. Prince Edward Island has 11 wind turbines that are working very well. They are feeding into the provincial grid system and doing a great job of it.
One other example that was mentioned at this round table was how hot water heaters are some of the least efficient appliances in our homes. Why is that so? It had not been significantly questioned before. Issues like this were brought forward by citizens who were concerned and I thought that was commendable.
Habitat protection for species at risk was mentioned. I had a hard time equating that with Kyoto. However, people said that we could look at our forests and reforestation to help rebuild habitats.
I would like to voice my support for Kyoto. We should look at creating an implementation plan where we look, on a regional basis, to come up with regional solutions involving the consultative process. We should bring all sectors, industry, municipalities, provincial governments, the energy sector, the resource sector, the citizens coalitions and non-governmental organizations around a table, to develop a regional approach that would address the regional issues and challenge this group to come up with solutions in conjunction with the federal government.
This cannot be a top down process. The implementation plan must be a “community up” process in my mind, where we build consensus among all the stakeholders around the table, bring them to Ottawa and hash out a plan.