Environment committee  Part of the problem here is that you regulate two things. Local safety regulation is, and I think should be, handled by the provinces and even municipalities, on levels of siting. But national regulations are needed, in concert with the provinces, to manage emissions to the atmos

Environment committee  I think it's unlikely, highly unlikely, that $15 a tonne will achieve the level of emissions reductions we need to achieve in order to avoid a dangerous disturbance to the climate system. I'm not aware of any serious study that says that. That said, the comments that have been

Environment committee  No, offshore Nova Scotia looks good.

Environment committee  I can't speak for the national task force, but I think it's fair to say that there is a legitimate argument...you may want a pipeline in the long run, but the other choice is point-and-shoot projects near Fort Saskatchewan or Lake Wabamun near Edmonton. So one should not fall int

Environment committee  Obviously, it depends what our competitors do. If Canada were the only place in the world acting, it might well be that prices much above $15 would affect competitiveness. But the fact is other countries are acting and may act soon. Right now, my expectation is that the U.S. will

Environment committee  When businesses actually look and have money on the table to do a storage project, they often find opportunities. I'm personally working with a business in Ontario that has found them, so there may be more in Ontario than you think.

Environment committee  I'd like a very quick follow-up.

Environment committee  There are a couple of answers. First, we certainly have to have technology pull and push. The pull is provided by a market price on carbon, a disincentive to emit carbon to the atmosphere, which is an incentive to spend money to reduce emissions. But we also need to provide some

Environment committee  Lots of people have concepts. All sorts of people in downtown Calgary have their own models. I don't know very well. I think it really depends on the details of the government's plans. I'm sorry to dodge that question. My amount of uncertainty would be pretty big. I'll say th

Environment committee  I can hear you.

Environment committee  I think they can both work, so this is an issue. Both of them are a lot better than nothing, and to be fair, the current government has introduced something that is a lot better than nothing. The current government's new rules really would restrict emissions, although in fact the

Environment committee  I wouldn't, because it's not so black and white and binary. With a coal-fired power plant, you tend, in practice, to build them only above a certain size. You build them only of several hundred megawatts, in practice, and capture or not capture is very much a black or white, yes

Environment committee  No. I'm partially appointed to the economics department, but I'm really a physicist by training. I publish in Econ Journal Watch sometimes, but I'm not an economist, in all honesty.

Environment committee  That's a great question, and I wish I could do it justice. First, I'm going to make a minor comment in response to something I heard earlier. One of the speakers mentioned that they would double the cost of the plant and therefore double the cost for consumers. Of course, that's

Environment committee  Yes. First of all, I must be very careful here. I am on the national task force, but I am speaking as an individual, not giving the opinions of the task force. My personal opinion is, first of all—just an opinion, not even a policy—that we shouldn't build any more coal plants w