Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 346 - 358 of 358
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 11:14
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:04
On the issue of science, to say that organizations such as NASA and the Pentagon, for example, which last April issued....
A study was leaked from the Pentagon saying that climate change was, in its eyes, a threat far worse than terrorism for U.S. global security. To say that the Hadley Centre, Environment Canada, and the 122 countries that have ratified Kyoto are simply suffering from some form of mass illusion is a bit of a stretch.
In terms of living in a cave, I'm not particularly fond of it myself. You may be familiar with Scandinavian countries, which have a standard of living very similar to our own. They live in a cold climate. They have heavy industries like we do--Norway, and countries as such--and they basically consume a third of the energy we do. So it's not about living in caves; it's about being efficient. Frankly, being efficient would not only be good for the economy, but it would be good for the environment at the same time.
You will probably be reassured to know that I am a social scientist. I have published a number of articles in peer-reviewed magazines on the issue of climate change, and as Morag pointed out earlier, the international scientific consensus around climate change is there. Yes, some people still dispute it, but the overall majority of scientists who are working on the issue are saying that it's happening.
The way IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, basically does its work is by doing an international scientific review of the literature that looks at climate change. I don't have the numbers for the 2001 assessment report, but for the 1995 assessment report, they reviewed 20,000 scientific papers dealing with climate change, and that's how they were able to come to the conclusions that they did in 1995, and the conclusions in 2001.
I don't think any of us have argued that CO2 is a poisonous gas, although a number of legislatures around the world, including Quebec, are saying that CO2 should be considered a pollutant. If you look at even the classical definition of what a pollutant does to the environment, then from that perspective it can be described as a pollutant. No one is saying it's a poisonous gas, obviously.
I would agree with you that the Kyoto implementation plan should focus on developing technologies and implementing them in Canada rather than buying credits abroad. That said, I think it has to be recognized that because of the time we've wasted over the past few years, we will have to buy some credits internationally, and we need to make sure these are for valid projects--and there are valid projects out there in which we can invest. Canadian companies are investing abroad every day of the year, and we should make sure that the investments are for very valid projects.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:10
Thank you, Mr. Bigras.
On the issue of reducing the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions as opposed to absolute reductions, we are in full agreement with you. The emissions intensity approach which was introduced in the large emitters' program is a very poor one, given that it in no way guarantees that we will achieve overall reductions in emissions, which is, of course, the objective of the Kyoto Protocol.
It has to be understood that scaremongers, particularly in the oil and gas sector, are invoking the spectre of economic collapse, as they did at the time of the debate on the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its implementation in Canada. However, if memory serves me well, it was Mr. George Anderson, Deputy Minister of Natural Resources Canada, who said before this very committee that the impact of the planned measures on the oil sector would constitute a 23 to 25 ¢ increase per barrel. A 23 to 25 ¢ increase per barrel, not per litre, and we know that prices on the international markets fluctuate by several dollars per week, sometimes more. That does not seem to bother the industry, yet they say that a 23 to 25 ¢ increase per barrel would result in an economic meltdown. I find that somewhat difficult to believe.
The issue of the reference year is also very important. It has to be understood that in choosing 2010 rather than 1990, for example, we are encouraging people to pollute massively until 2010 in order to create a maximum ceiling of emissions. As a result, it will be far easier to show reductions than it would have been had 1990, the year used in the Kyoto Protocol, been used as the base year. Using 1990 would also allow us to recognize the efforts already undertaken in several Canadian industry sectors, for example, in Ontario. You spoke of the Quebec manufacturing sector, but what is true of Quebec is also true of several manufacturing sectors in Canada. For example, the pulp and paper industry across Canada has greatly reduced its production energy consumption. There is also the aluminum sector. If we opt for 2010 rather than 1990, all the efforts that these sectors have made will disappear from the radar screen and will not be recognized by the federal government's plan.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:14
Thank you, Mr. Simard.
Currently, the Canadian taxation system tends to encourage activities which produce a lot of greenhouse gas, and discourage those which produce little or none. It is true that the federal government has introduced a credit for wind energy production which is, by the way, around a third of the wind energy credit offered in the United States by the Bush administration. George W. Bush offers a wind energy production credit which is three times more generous than the Canadian one. Yet Mr. Bush is considered to be a reactionary on environmental issues. He is a reactionary, but I think that shows that Canada is lagging behind on this round.
As I said earlier, our emissions increased significantly in the 1990s. Had they been stabilized during the 90s, we would only be 6 per cent, as opposed to 28 per cent or perhaps even more, short of the Kyoto Protocol objective. Clearly, there is room for us to pick up the pace, and we have to do so. We have to stop using state money to fund business activities which generate pollution, and we have to encourage businesses which do not produce greenhouse gases. As Sidney said, and it is worth underscoring, when we reduce greenhouse gases, we are also reducing other pollutants, in particular nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides.
I agree with my colleagues that federal government subsidies for fossil fuels must be reduced progressively or even eliminated—given the current price of a barrel, they clearly do not need them—and that the introduction of renewable energies, as well as public transit, must be backed by significant incentives. Canada is the OECD country which invests the least in public transit. There is also room for improvement on this front. In our view, it is very obvious that we must stop funding pollution-producing business activities and start funding those that are environmentally friendly.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:17
No limit is set in the Kyoto Protocol. Obviously, the problem is that that can be perceived as capital flight. I agree with your colleague from the Conservative Party who pointed out that emission reduction and technological development would be funded elsewhere, while we would hang on to this technology which is obsolete and generates pollution. I do not see that as a sensible economic development strategy .
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:29
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
I think it is fundamental, not just as part of our Kyoto implementation strategy but as an overall national clean air strategy, that we force car manufacturers in Canada to produce more efficient, less-polluting vehicles.
The argument by the Canadian automaker is that we'll be the only ones on the planet to do it, and they can't manufacture vehicles for us. Well, great, they won't have to. Oregon has adopted the California standards. California has obviously adopted the California standards. A number of other U.S. states are moving in that direction, New York being one of them.
Because people travel more and more, because every year there's a greater number of vehicles on the road...basically the average fuel efficiency of the fleet hasn't moved since the end of the seventies. Considering the tremendous technological development we've seen in the auto sector, it's quite staggering to look at that statistic. We could very efficiently have....
Yes, it would be more expensive to buy those efficient vehicles. There's a bit of a debate in California. The range is between $1,000 to $3,000 to get those efficient vehicles. For an average Canadian who travels roughly 16,000 kilometres a year, the payback is so quick that it becomes a non-issue.
Frankly, our approach to this, like other sectors, has been to try to negotiate a voluntary approach with the auto manufacturers. Guess what? It's not working. We're not going anywhere. I don't think we will ever get anywhere unless the government says to the Canadian auto manufacturers that we can sit down and negotiate, but they should be certain that if we do not come to an agreement, the federal government will legislate.
If we don't do that, we'll never get out of it.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:35
There are two things we should be looking at. We want a phased-in approach. No one is talking about the massive disruption of any economic sector in Canada. That's not what we're arguing for. I think we can look to concepts such as the one developed by CEP around fair transition. If people will be losing employment in certain sectors, let's train them so that they can be employed in other sectors.
I recall that in 2002, at the time we were debating whether or not Canada should ratify Kyoto, Industry Canada produced a study that showed, depending on the different Kyoto implementation scenarios, the renewable energy industry in Canada could generate annual revenues in the order of $7 billion to $8 billion if Kyoto was implemented properly. So obviously the potential to create jobs is there. The potential to generate wealth is there as well. We just have to do it right.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:38
I think they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Is that the English expression? It refers back to what Mr. Bigras was saying earlier. If we were to use 1990 as a baseline, then these efforts that they've done would be recognized, but these same companies or sectors are arguing for a 2010 baseline to start the intensity of emission reduction, thereby basically nullifying all the efforts they've made.
If they were to choose the approach that we were talking about earlier, then these efforts would be recognized, but because they're arguing for a 2010 baseline, all of it is basically forgotten.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:41
As I said earlier, I am a social scientist, but I referred to NASA--you may have heard of them--Environment Canada, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Pentagon, the British meteorological centre, the Chinese meteorological centre, the Japanese meteorological centre, the European meteorological centre, the German meteorological centre.... A tremendous number of organizations around this planet--the World Meteorological Organization--agree that climate change is real, it's happening, and it's largely due to human activity, so you might as well question their credibility, their credentials, if you want to question mine.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:43
That is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there is an ongoing scientific debate around climate change. Right now the overwhelming consensus is that it is real, it is happening, and it is because of us, and therefore, on that basis we should develop policies to address that question, which as others have pointed out will help us address other environmental issues.
I am not saying we should stop or should prevent people who have different views on the issue from being heard. What I'm saying is that the overwhelming international consensus on this issue is what I've said already. I am not saying we should stop.... Those who have different views shouldn't be prevented from saying them. In fact, I've read many articles from Professor Patterson in various Canadian publications, but mainly in newspapers. His voice is obviously being heard, just as my voice is being heard, and that is where the debate is presently.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:49
I think Albert Einstein would be of very great use right now. He said that the significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. Climate change is exactly that.
Why aren't we capturing all the methane that's being emitted in our landfills? I don't know. It's economical, or very close to being cost-effective, in most cases. Toronto will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by some 20% because it's doing that.
I think Kyoto should force us to look at everything we're doing and find creative ways of improving our wealth, our standard of living, while not creating havoc on the plant. I think that's what it's about.
The federal government can play a very important role in providing leadership, in showing the direction we should be going in. Unfortunately that hasn't been the case so far. We say we ratify Kyoto, but at the same time we don't want to put any measures in place that would force any sector of the economy to reduce its emissions. So we're sending out a very mixed signal, and that's a problem.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:52
Thank you, Mr. Simard.
I think that even within the federal government, it is recognized that the approach adopted in 1992 is not working. Federal public servants now admit that our carrot and stick approach is effective, but there is also the whole question of taxation. The federal government now realizes that it will have to implement such measures.
For our part, we are going to continue to put pressure on the federal government. Canadians are concerned about climate change and are committed to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. A Léger Marketing poll published on Monday by the Canadian Press revealed that, if I am not mistaken, more than 80 % of Canadians support the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. On this front, Canadians are going beyond simply paying lip service to the idea. In the Léger Marketing poll, Canadians were told that they had to understand that they would have to do their bit. In spite of this, 80 % of Canadians said yes. They said that tighter measures had to be implemented and that we had to go ahead with Kyoto. In some provinces, such as Quebec, support for this type of proposal stands at around 92 %. It is not quite 100 %, but it is not far off.
I think that this is the only choice that the federal government has.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 12:58
Thank you, Mr. Watson.
The Canadian Auto Workers Union would disagree with you, since it has endorsed the NDP's green car platform, which does specify a very stringent standard for fuel efficiency for vehicles in Canada. This was launched, if I'm correct, about a year and a half ago, or two years ago, but we would be happy to provide the committee with a copy of that platform, which has been supported by the Canadian Auto Workers Union.
Results: 346 - 358 of 358 | Page: 24 of 24

|<
<
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data