Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 23
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 9:35
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me. I want to apologize to the interpreters. My decision to appear today was made quite late, and thus I was unable to prepare written notes for the interpreters. I will try not to speak too quickly.
I have four points. First, on the international scene—I know you discussed this last week—I have had the privilege over the last ten years of following international negotiations on climate change. I attended the first Conference of the Parties in Berlin in 1995. I was also in Kyoto. I have taken part in more than a dozen such conferences in the last decade.
I was also in Nairobi. The international repercussions of the Canadian government's policy shift as regards our Kyoto commitments are extremely significant. For example, since the month of May, the Canadian position has been publicly criticized by a number of officials on the international scene: by the European Union's Environment Commissioner, Mr. Dimas; by the German Environment Minister, Mr. Sigmar Gabriel; by the President of France, Jacques Chirac and by the French Minister of the Environment, Ms. Olin, during the Nairobi conference.
The headline in the editorial of Le Devoir newspaper, following Ms. Ambrose's speech during the United Nations Plenary Session, read as follows: “Ambrose is a disgrace”. Le Devoir also published a column, that same day, by Michel David, a political columnist in Quebec, who said that it was clear that Ms. Ambrose lies as easily as she breathes.
What is emerging ever more clearly is that foreign delegates who come to see us really don't understand what is going on. In fact, Mr. Dimas, the European Commissioner for the Environment, summed it up rather eloquently in one of his statements, when he said that he doesn't understand the Canadian position on the Kyoto Protocol and that someone will have to explain it to him. People come to see us, saying what happened to Canada — Canada led the battle with respect to the ozone layer and signed the Montreal Protocol which Ms. Donnelly referred to earlier. They are wondering what happened to the Canada that led the charge on landmines, and where is the Canada which, for all intents and purposes, created the concept of peacekeeping forces.
Our international reputation is suffering tremendously as a result of this about-face. I totally disagree with Mr. Alvarez, who says that recent events demonstrate that the Kyoto Protocol has no future. Unless I am mistaken, there are some 168 countries who, once again, agreed in Nairobi to continue to move forward with international negotiations on climate change. Those 168 countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Is it complex to negotiate an international agreement with almost 170 countries around the table? Of course it is, and we have been doing that for more than a decade now.
Indeed, of all the countries that have made Kyoto commitments, commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions—in other words, all the Appendix I countries—the only one to have turned its back on Kyoto is Canada. And yet, whether it was in Bonn or Nairobi, I heard the Japanese Ambassador, Mr. Nishimura, saying that it would be very difficult for Japan to meet its Kyoto targets, but in spite of that, it remained committed. I heard Norvegian representatives—like Canada, Norway is a major energy exporter—say that it would be very difficult for them to meet their Kyoto targets, but that they, too, were committed to meeting them.
And, for us, Bill C-288 is very important, because it brings Canada back on track to meeting its Kyoto targets and, of course, moving into the future, given that Kyoto is only the beginning of the solution. I believe that the report issued by the Briton Nicholas Stern made it quite clear what the cost debate revolves around. Mr. Stern basically told us that we can show leadership and invest now to combat climate change, or that we can bury our heads in the sand and pay dearly for our inaction later on. I believe that Mr. Stern's study pretty aptly summarizes, in economic terms, what decision we have to make now.
On the more specific question of the provincial commitment, I was absolutely astounded to hear the Minister of the Environment say that the federal government would not support the Quebec plan to implement the Kyoto Protocol, because it focused on voluntary actions. I guess she must not have read the same action plan on climate change that I did. In fact, under Bill 52, tabled in the National Assembly three weeks ago, the Quebec plan that I read about provides for the creation of hydrocarbon charge of $200 million a year that will be used to finance public transit projects and projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Strangely enough, that is quite a contrast with what we heard this morning, particularly from our colleagues from the oil companies, since the CEO of Ultramar has publicly expressed his support for the Quebec plan to implement the Kyoto Protocol—a plan that imposes a partial levy of $200 million on its own industry. It is clear that this levy is anything but voluntary. Some statutes will have to be amended in order to implement that regulation.
Between now and 2008, the Quebec Building Code will be amended to improve the energy efficiency of all new construction in Quebec. There is nothing voluntary about that. As well, between now and 2010, we will be imposing new emission standards for light vehicles, taking our inspiration from the standards in place in California. Once again, there is nothing voluntary about any of this.
The only part of the Quebec Plan that relies on voluntary actions is, of course, the part relating to the large emitters. However, in Quebec—and this is not the case for all Canadian provinces—the problem with increased greenhouse gas emissions is not attributable to large emitters but, rather, to the transportation sector—something the Quebec plan directly tackles through funding projects for new infrastructure or improvements to existing service.
Indeed, an inventory review in Quebec shows that large emitters there have brought their greenhouse gas emissions down 7 per cent below 1990 levels. These are 2003 data, because we don't yet have 2004 data for Quebec. So, that is really not the sector the Quebec plan should be focussing on.
Quebec is the only province to have developed an action plan which, although it does not quite meet Kyoto targets, comes very close. Thanks to that plan, Quebec will move from about +8% to -1%, and the Quebec government is asking Ottawa for help to bridge the gap between the -1% and -6% called for in the Kyoto Protocol.
What kind of message are we sending that province by saying that its action plan doesn't meet the criteria and that we won't help it financially to meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol? In fact, we don't even know what the government's criteria are.
In terms of federal-provincial relations, if the goal is to develop partnerships—we talked earlier about the importance of working with the provinces—it seems to me this is an odd way to encourage the provinces and territories, and even the municipalities, to take steps to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
I would also like to talk about emissions trading, the carbon market, and flexibility mechanisms. I fully agree with those who say that the Kyoto Protocol is not an environmental agreement.
It is rather ironic to hear several organizations now denouncing the market-based mechanisms contained in the Kyoto Protocol, when they were the ones promoting them when the debate was taking place on developing the Protocol. People who have been following the debate for some time will remember that the discussion focussed on two possible avenues: the adoption of joint measures by all Schedule I countries to implement the Kyoto Protocol, or the establishment of market-based mechanisms.
European countries, in particular, were promoting what were called joint measures. They were proposing the introduction of a carbon tax which would be the same for all countries. Many organizations who appeared before this Committee at the time said that such a tax should not be introduced and that we should instead be moving towards market mechanisms. But now, these same organizations are saying that market-based mechanisms don't work and should be abandoned. There is a certain historical irony in all of that.
I am not a scientist; my background is in the social sciences. However, the scientists I have talked to say that is wrong to claim that the actual time when greenhouse gas emissions are lowered in the coming years—or in the coming decades—doesn't matter. In fact, the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that will be released next year, will probably contain a lot of information on that. That is also what the Stern report says and what several other reports will say that are to be released in the coming months and years.
The longer we wait, the more we prejudice our ability to act on the global climate system, simply because at this point, we really don't know much about how sensitive our climate is to increased temperatures.
Let me explain. If our climate only reacts to significant temperature increases, then the temperature can rise without causing problems in terms of the global climate system. The system can withstand them.
On other hand, if the climate system is very sensitive to small variations in temperature, the longer we wait to lower greenhouse gas emissions, the more significant the impacts for our global climate system.
It is completely wrong to claim—there is no scientific basis for such a claim—that the moment in time when we reduce greenhouse gas emissions is unimportant. I haven't seen a single study that supports such a claim.
In cooperation with the Quebec Minister of the Environment, Mr. Claude Béchard, representatives of the financial sector, such as Desjardins, the Sustainable Development Investment Fund, Quebec unions, environmental groups, and industry stakeholders, I recently had the opportunity to launch a coalition in support of the Kyoto Protocol to try and force the federal government's hand.
When the coalition was launched, the Vice-President of Cascades, a well-know pulp and paper company in Canada, was in attendance to say how important it is to that company that it reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. He said that this year, his company will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3 or 4% inside its own operations, and that this represents a $12-million saving on its energy bill. He added that the pulp and paper industry really needs that money right now.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 9:47
I will close with that example, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 9:48
I was referring to the most ambitious plan. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
They have the most ambitious greenhouse gas reduction plan.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 9:52
Yes, I would. I think one important thing in life is to recognize one's own limitations. So on more specific questions regarding, for example, emissions trading, I would gladly pass the microphone--and I think it's been agreed upon--to my colleague Matthew Bramley from the Pembina Institute.
Obviously, Canada went into Kyoto not as well prepared as a number of other countries were. For example, when they walked into the meeting halls of Kyoto in 1997, the European Union already knew pretty much how the allocation system was going to happen amongst the member states. Everything was not finalized. For example, at the time, the attitude of the European Union was that they would probably not use emissions trading. They ended up changing their minds on this.
The fact that we were not as prepared as we should have been doesn't mean we should abandon—I think it's really easy for some in Canada to say that the Kyoto Protocol targets are unachievable, when we haven't even tried. In 2005 we had a plan that was put on the table. In her report, Madame Gélinas said there were some strengths and some weaknesses. I've heard a number of ministers and representatives from the government say that Madame Gélinas said in her report that the Kyoto Protocol was unachievable. I fail to read that in her report, but maybe she would like to clarify that.
Then, for the government to come in and abolish a number of the programs that would have enabled us, if not to achieve our Kyoto targets, certainly to come closer to them, I don't think it is the right attitude. We need to try. We have an international commitment, a legally binding commitment, I should point out, to achieve our Kyoto targets. Bill C-288 is what we need to get on with the program.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 10:02
I think it might have been in 1997, or shortly after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, but it would be difficult in 2006.
That said, I think the federal government could certainly implement a hybrid system, so that the provinces that want to could address this on a territorial basis. Certainly, a province like Quebec would be interested—there may also be others—in this kind of system.
If a cap on territorial emissions were put in place, I'm not sure that would go over very well in Alberta, politically. During the ten years that we wasted, we didn't even consider this. It might have been difficult, even in 1997 or 1998, but we didn't even go through the exercise. I guess we will never know. For some provinces, it is certainly a possibility. Some have made it abundantly clear that this is how they intend to proceed.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 10:33
Actually, Mr. Chairman, I don't understand the question. We are being asked whether the Kyoto targets are based on science. Starting from that premise and looking at the scientific work that's been done by the European Union, for example, on Kyoto targets and the scientific implications of reduced greenhouse gas emissions, one really cannot help but conclude that this just is not enough for the first commitment. However, the Europeans are talking about -15 to -30 by 2020. So, I'm not sure I understand your question.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 10:34
That has nothing to do with science. I will just repeat what Ms. Gélinas said earlier in explaining her report, when she made the point that with the right leadership, it may be possible to meet Canada's Kyoto targets.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 10:47
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can remain in the atmosphere for several decades. So, the climate change we are witnessing today is the result of the greenhouse gas emissions produced several decades ago.
I want to repeat that I am not a scientist. On the other hand, I can tell you what the scientific studies say about that. And here I'm not talking about opinions published in the newspapers, but of scientific papers—in other words, scientific articles published in periodicals that have a reading committee, like Science & Nature, and many others. The consensus is that the longer we delay lowering greenhouse gas emissions, the worse the environmental legacy we will leave to our children and grandchildren. And ultimately, we are dumping the problem in their backyard. We are basically washing our hands of the whole issue.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2006-12-05 10:58
It was Prime Minister Raffarin who made a public statement at the time of the Nairobi conference, saying that one of the things the French government was looking at was imposing a tax on annex 1 countries who either didn't take on Kyoto commitments, which would be Australia and the U.S., or countries like Canada who have Kyoto commitments but have turned their backs on it. It was the first time I heard about it. Some colleagues in France had been hearing about it for a little while. Where this will go in terms of the European Union and member states we don't know yet, to be quite honest with you.
Steven Guilbeault
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Steven Guilbeault
2005-02-10 11:05
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, members of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development; my name is Steven Guilbeault and I am a campaigner for climate and energy with Greenpeace Canada. I have been with Greenpeace since 1997, but have been involved in climate change since 1994. In 1995, I attended the First Conference of the Parties in Berlin, I was in Kyoto in 1997, and I have organized more than a dozen international negotiation meetings on climate change over the past 10 years.
This morning I would like to discuss three aspects of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in Canada. First, there is the carrot and stick approach as represented in the measures that have been implemented to date. In our opinion, it is essential that we have measures on which to build the future. Of course, there is the Kyoto Protocol, but, internationally, there is already talk of what happens after Kyoto, in other words, future agreements that will follow the Kyoto Protocol. Finally, we feel that a long term plan is important. I will explain that further in a few minutes.
On the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol to date, it is apparent that the Government of Canada has adopted the carrot approach. Incentives have been offered, and there are programs, often voluntary, for various sectors of the Canadian community, particularly industry. More recently, with the One-Tonne Challenge, the people of Canada have been asked to do their share. We now have a host of measures and incentive programs, but they are often unrelated when it comes to insuring any long term effectiveness. Many Canadian newspaper articles have recently stated that even the officials in Ottawa are now acknowledging that the voluntary approach will not help us to meet our targets, something that we, as environmentalists, have been saying for quite some time.
In the Rio Framework Convention on Climate Change, an international commitment was made to bring our greenhouse gas emissions back down to the 1990 levels by the year 2000. At the time, the only measures that were put forward to meet this target were voluntary, and we all know what happened. In 2000, our greenhouse gas emissions were about 20 % higher than in 1990.
Of course, there can be voluntary measures, and we agree that incentives are necessary, but the carrot cannot work without the stick. Regulatory measures must be implemented. There must be laws to force various sectors to meet the Canadian emission standards. That is unavoidable.
This applies to many of the sectors with heavy greenhouse gas emissions. Take, for example, the large final emitters that are responsible for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. There is also the transportation sector, which accounts for about 30% of emissions. So far, very few measures, if any, have applied to the transportation sector. This aberration must be corrected without delay.
There is also the construction industry. I believe that Mr. Ribaux, from Équiterre, will touch upon that briefly. The National Building Code is a number of years old. The provincial codes, none of which is very recent either—for example, Quebec's code was published in 1981—have not really been updated, despite the introduction of new construction techniques, new materials, new technologies such as geothermics, which is becoming more popular in Canada, even though it is not yet widely used, to reduce emissions. To date, these measures have, for all intents and purposes, been ignored or used very sparingly.
Speaking of geothermics, there is a very interesting project underway in Winnipeg, where 10,000 entirely geothermic housing units will be built.
This leads me to my second point, namely, the necessity to have measures on which we can build to not only meet the Kyoto objectives, but to go beyond them.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCG, as it is called in English,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
clearly states that for a country like ours, and for all industrialized countries, emissions will have to be reduced by 60 to 80% over the next decades, by about 2050, if we want to avoid a global climate catastrophe. Even last week, these conclusions were confirmed at a meeting sponsored by British Prime Minister Blair, held at Exeter University.
The introduction of tax measures in various sectors of Canada's economy will be one way to institute structural measures. This would require a complete overhaul of Canada's tax system which, even today, tends to encourage the type of activity that greatly encourages greenhouse gas emissions while acting as a disincentive to activities, technologies and investments that would reduce or create few greenhouse gas emissions. That goes against our Kyoto Protocol objectives.
In closing, I would say that part of our problem resides in the fact that Canada has yet to have a global view of the environment issue. Whether in Rio in 1992 or Kyoto in 1997--I was there--we held to our negotiating position, without really knowing what to expect. We should look to what is being done elsewhere to prepare these action plans for decades to come. We might think of Great Britain and its white paper on emission reduction. The British government has committed to a 50% reduction of their greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. I mention Great Britain, but I could also cite a nearby state, Maine, which has undertaken, in a similar exercise, to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by the year 2050. An American state, under George Bush, which is moving forward with very proactive measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Who would have believed it?
We must not lose sight of the environmental limits, even if, so far, they have been completely ignored. How close are we coming to witnessing a global climate catastrophe? With that in mind, the European Union acknowledges that we must, by whatever means possible, avoid raising the climate's worldwide temperature by more than 2 degrees Celsius. Some countries, among them Great Britain, have already done that. Atmosphere concentration levels have been set in order to avoid going beyond that level. It is already part of Britain's climate change policy. And the European Union is about to do the same. I sincerely hope that Canada will undertake this type of exercise, and define this type of long-term objective. This will provide for a much more organized approach as we move forward in the coming decades. Everyone will know what to expect, which has unfortunately not always been the case. I will leave it at that, and would like to thank you for your attention.
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 .
Results: 1 - 15 of 23 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data