Environment committee  First, we're not talking about utilization, but storage. You have to take out the word “utilization”. In the case of blue hydrogen, it is a way to get energy that will balance electricity. In some parts of Canada, especially, it could play a role in terms of transportation, for

Environment committee  It's true, we have very little infrastructure for simply storing carbon dioxide. Most facilities reuse it for funding purposes. Basically, it helps fund facilities. Furthermore, none of these facilities achieve the over 90% reduction they committed to once they have gone through

Environment committee  It can be transported by pipeline and that's how we will have to do it. That will involve quite heavy infrastructure, and if we want to do it economically, we will need very localized sites to transport the CO2 before we bury it. CO2 is heavy and it will stay close to the ground

Environment committee  Yes, I agree with that. Moreover, according to our modelling and analysis, we can't get by without it. We absolutely have to implement all reduction measures, but we're also going to have to invest in capture and storage. I'm not talking about utilization, I mean storage. Otherw

Environment committee  We absolutely must invest in the electrification of many processes, such as heating and transportation, wherever we are able to do so, to try to reduce emissions as much as possible. Right now, we need to redouble our efforts in this area, rather than supporting new developments

Environment committee  Yes. Any money that goes to an industry, whether it's a tax credit, royalties or anything like that, is a subsidy, in my opinion.

Environment committee  It carries some danger, but we don't know much about it. However, our models clearly show that it will be impossible to meet net zero objectives in Canada without storing carbon. Nevertheless, we need to use it as a last resort. We must reduce emissions elsewhere, because based o

Environment committee  Thank you for your question. In Quebec, we have solutions for carbon-neutral construction. Continuing to use natural gas and invest in furnaces for facilities that will last several decades will prevent Quebec from achieving the objectives it has set. We're talking about a 37.5%

Environment committee  It depends on the objective. In the context of the Paris Agreement, for example, oil exported from Canada and burned elsewhere is not included in Canadian climate targets. If Canada reduces its emissions but exports oil, those exports do not count on its balance sheet. In my vie

Environment committee  The issue is that the transition must take place over 30 years. Any investment that must be made again in 10 years is a lost investment. That's really the challenge of this transformation. If we want to move to natural gas, it must be part of the transition to net‑zero emissions

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm a physics professor at the Université de Montréal, the scientific director of the Trottier Energy Institute and the scientific director of the Transition Accelerator. I'll be speaking today about our work, including the “Canadian