I am stunned by the speech in the legislature today. CAUTION: This is a long read and it is well worth it! Please SHARE far and wide! British Columbia Legislature. Hansard Transcript. Expand to continue... Monday October 27, 2014 Second Reading of Bills BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT L. Throness: Its a pleasure to be here today to speak to Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, which is part of the larger vision for LNG that we have for our province. Its a very exciting thing, and, of course, I want to speak in support of this bill. But I want to explain my support of this bill, which combats global warming, particularly when Im not naturally inclined to believe in the science of global warming. I think I represent many of my constituents as well. Although Im not convinced of human-caused or so-called anthropogenic global warming, I wouldnt call myself a denier either. Im more of an agnostic on the question. The very use of language like skepticism and belief and denial and agnosticism, which are widely used around the world, to me is telling. These are words that we use of faith matters rather than settled issues of science. It suggests to me that the science is not yet settled. After all, we dont really discuss or argue about whether one plus one makes two or whether water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. Those kinds of things are beyond debate. But this, obviously, is not beyond debate. I think what makes me skeptical about the global warming debate is the passion, the rhetoric, the political pressure, the repression of opposing viewpoints, the accusations and condemnations and apocalyptic pronouncements that seem, to me, to substitute for hard scientific reality. I dont like to give in to that kind of thing. What also gives me pause about the science of global warming is the ongoing debate within the scientific community itself. For example, the latest news at the end of September was from two scientists from Alabama who compiled NASA satellite data to conclude that the Earths temperature hasnt increased for the last 18 years. That, to me, is a problem for global warming. A few years ago there was a scandal involving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2009, and again in 2011, there were hundreds of thousands of emails and other documents that were hacked from a server in East Anglia, in England. They were made public, and they seemed to show that senior scientists who influence public policy on a global scale were pushing the bounds of scientific evidence and politicizing that issue. We have conclusions that the Earth has a fever, the seas are rising and the skies are falling. Every extreme weather event, whether its too hot or too cold, is considered to be evidence for global warming. It all becomes very apocalyptic and panicky and driven by fear. To me, thats not very convincing, so I remain skeptical. But I have every confidence in the scientific process. Im happy to be convinced, but I think it will take some time for that to happen, as we continue to gather data around the world. The question for us here in this House is: what do we do in the interim while were gathering that data, while were continuing the scientific work? Im certainly convinced, for example, that regional warming is taking place. I remember an elderly man, in the mid-80s, telling me that when he was a boy, he used to take sleigh rides up and down East Hastings Street in Vancouver. That doesnt happen anymore. Vancouver is warmer than it used to be. As a child, I grew up in Fort St. John, and there used to be weeks on end where it would 30 and 40 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. That doesnt happen so often anymore. Even in my own lifetime, in western Canada, the region has grown warmer. That, I would say, is an indication of regional warming. Given that Im somewhat of a skeptic, why would I support this bill? I need to explain my support for it to this House and to many of my constituents, who would oppose support for a bill that wants to combat global warming. There are three reasons why Im supporting it. The first is that the science may be true. The science may be accurate. The science may be not settled yet, but there are some indications, for sure, that the effect is real, whether or not it is caused by human activity. While were waiting for the science to firm up, perhaps there is something that we ought to do, with this one condition: that we ought to follow a no-regrets policy. What do I mean by that? If warming turns out to be regional, rather than global; if the effect is short term, rather than long term; if it turns out that we could not have changed the effect anyway, we should adopt a no-regrets policy now. The steps we should take should be careful steps, steps that wont prove to have been wasting time and energy and money if it so happens that climate change turns out not to be global, not to be long term, not to be changeable. The second reason Im in support of this bill is that we in the B.C. Liberal party are a coalition. We have a diversity of views across the political spectrum. In a coalition, both sides of the coalition take some water with their wine, and Im a good coalition partner. [1710] Im happy to compromise on an issue that, to me, is not a fundamental issue of principle. Thats why Im willing to live with a carbon tax HSE - 20141027 PM 045/LRM/1710 spectrum. In a coalition both sides of the coalition take some water with their wine. Im a good coalition partner. Im happy to compromise on an issue that, to me, is not a fundamental issue of principle. Thats why Im willing to live with a carbon tax and also with the idea of reducing greenhouse gases. The third reason is, I think, the most important reason. There is a place where both global warming skeptics and those who are completely convinced of human-caused climate change can meet, where we can find common ground. That is on the issue of clean air. We all want to enjoy clean air. We all want to fight pollution. We all want a cleaner environment. Everyone can agree on that. That is the effect that this bill will have. That, is the third reason why I will support this bill. I want to point out here that greenhouse gases do not only include carbon dioxide, but they include any gas that absorbs the suns rays to contribute to the greenhouse effect. I want to quote the existing Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, where it defines a greenhouse gas. This is what it says: greenhouse gas means any or all of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride and any other substance prescribed by regulation. This is a description of gases that pollute the atmosphere, and I am happy to find ways to reduce them, even while making use of our great and abundant natural resources of natural gas. About a decade ago there was a terrible row in my riding over the building of SE2, which was a proposed gas cogeneration facility just across the border, in Sumas. My predecessor, Barry Penner, did a great job, along with many others, in a valiant struggle against this plant. There were about 2,500 letters written to the National Energy Board against the plant. They didnt want the air shed of the Fraser Valley to be compromised. Finally, they were successful. The plant was not built. Air pollution would have resulted from the burning of natural gas. Even though natural gas is the cleanest of all fossil fuels, the use of natural gas, admittedly, produces pollution. The very existence of this bill acknowledges that. So Im perfectly happy to support the bill, because its effect will be to reduce the intensity of pollution caused by the production and burning of natural gas across this province. The key here as we develop the industry is to require greenhouse gas emission reductions without scaring away investment in the first place so that companies dont even consider coming here and, once they invest, without bringing our economy grinding to a halt through targets that are too stringent and regulation that is too comprehensive and bureaucracy that is too punishing. We want to develop an industry as well as a clean industry. This bill is, I think, successful in supplying a mechanism by which well be able to attract industry while, at the same time, requiring levels of emissions that will create the cleanest LNG plants in the world. I want to address the issue of our provincial targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases versus the global reduction of greenhouse gases. The use of more LNG, particularly in China, will result in cleaner air around the world. This is a great thing. By getting involved in this industry, were going to be doing the entire world a favour by helping China to replace coal with LNG. The NDP, I think, should be applauding this governments initiative. I find it — as I find so many other of their policies — completely inexplicable they are opposing this bill. They are putting on ideological blinkers over this issue, looking at B.C. but refusing to look at the bigger picture. The rest of the planet that will benefit from our great policy of LNG. Our government could be bureaucratic bean counters. We could stick our heads in the sand and only worry about the impact of greenhouse gases on this province alone. We could ignore the rest of the world. But that would be to hide our eyes from the hundreds of millions of people in the cities of China who live and work in conditions that would be intolerable in this country. To me, the development of our industry here, while tackling the problem of air pollution head on, is a demonstration of care for our own people and our own economy, which will benefit hugely from this industry. But it will also benefit the global situation. To refuse to exploit our resource because it produces greenhouse gases would be to stifle an incredibly valuable and useful industry at home while denying the world the benefit of that industry. So I fully support it and the way that we have chosen to reduce our GHGs. [1715] However, I would point that in seeking to reduce them, our liquefaction plants will be the cleanest in the world. We intentionally chose targets that are the most stringent in the world. We do believe that because of the mechanism weve chosen, we will actually meet our overall global greenhouse gas targets HSE - 20141027 PM 046/EBP/1715 our liquefaction plants will be the cleanest in the world. We intentionally chose targets that are the most stringent in the world. We do believe that because of the mechanism weve chosen, we will actually meet our overall global greenhouse gas targets even far into the future. The mechanism this act lays out to reduce greenhouse gases — and I would term it pollution — is to set in place a system of offsets and to create a technology fund. We decided not to establish a cap-and-trade system, and I applaud this. I think thats good news. Not only is a cap-and-trade system administratively very complex; the real problem with a cap-and-trade system is that it arbitrarily sets an upper limit on emissions without caring about how much it costs to reach that target, how much it costs industry to reduce emissions to those levels. The idea would be that we would set those caps lower and lower year by year. But this means that industry could actually be drummed out of the province, out of the marketplace, by the zeal of those who set those emissions. The offsets that weve chosen to set in place will work this way. If a company doesnt reach the required clean air targets, it would be required to purchase an offsetting reduction in pollution. I can think of marvellous ways to do that all over B.C. There are many options for this kind of funding — for instance, to reduce emissions of the upstream production of natural gas, which would contribute to clean air in B.C.s north. However, Im a resident of the Lower Mainland. I live in the southern part of B.C. Im hoping that some of the offset funds will come to the Fraser Valley, where I live — with about three or four million others, who are crowded into a small plain thats bounded by mountains which tend to trap air pollution. These are projects that could be undertaken right here in the Lower Mainland and that would help to reduce the consumption of natural gas or to convert away from dirtier fuels to make the air cleaner for the majority of British Columbians. For example, Id like to see some kind of assistance for greenhouse operators in the Lower Mainland, many of whom are in my riding. One of their largest costs is the cost of burning natural gas to heat their greenhouses. There may be investments that could be made to reduce these costs, such as building cogeneration facilities or partnering with unrelated businesses that produce excess heat that is not presently used. Ive been thinking in particular of a farm in my riding which uses waste from animals in a way that produces excess heat that is not used right now. We could help them find ways to use that heat without burning more natural gas. Now, I dont think that offset funds should be used only to fund reductions or efficiencies in the use of natural gas either. We could also reduce the use of other fuels, like gasoline or diesel, through offset projects. We could also promote the further use of clean electricity. I would remind the House that B.C. already has the sixth-lowest electricity costs in North America and that its clean energy because of the abundance of hydroelectricity in B.C. We could take advantage ever that wonderful resource and those low prices to use that advantage for our economy. But the cost of transition to electricity can be difficult to bear. Here are some specific ideas for offsets that could be purchased by large companies that dont meet the legislated requirements for greenhouse gas reductions. Offsets could be used to help convert cars to natural gas in the Lower Mainland, to build more fuelling infrastructure. They could also pay to convert more diesel trucks to LNG and to build LNG refuelling stations, to make them more viable. Wed be using our own homegrown conversion industry, which already exists, while reducing emissions and transitioning to a cheaper fuel all at the same time. Offsets could be a help to make it more attractive and more economical to purchase electric cars, to install more charging stations, to make them viable. I think we should be looking more closely at geothermal energy, which has great potential to provide uninterrupted, constant, reliable heat, while avoiding many of the environmental problems of other forms of the generation of electricity. Offsets could supply more electric power for ship-to-shore arrangements so that ships wouldnt have to idle while in port, using their diesel engines. Federal and provincial governments have already gotten together to provide ship-to-shore arrangements for cruise ships. This kind of thing we could extend. Offsets could provide funds that might help to establish more rapid transit. Im thinking here, of course, of my own riding out in Chilliwack, where theres precious little rapid transit between there and parts west — Abbotsford and Vancouver. Offsets could also help to subsidize solar panels for home use so that we would burn less natural gas for home heating — and even act as recharging stations for electric vehicles. [1720] These are just some ideas. Some of them may be viable, and some of them may not be viable, but theyre ideas. What we have to avoid are situations like that HSE - 20141027 PM 047/BAH/1720 gas for home heating, and even act as recharging stations for electric vehicles. These are just some ideas. Some of them may be viable, and some of them may not be viable. But theyre ideas. What we have to avoid are situations, like that which arose a year ago, in which the Auditor General studied some of the offsets that were a part of carbon-neutral government and suggested that two major projects were really not doing the job of offsetting emissions. Of course, the government disagreed with the facts in this report, and I dont want to argue the facts, but the accusation alone could shake the confidence of taxpayers in the program. So we want to bend over in this new program. We want to bend over backwards to make sure that our offsets are incremental, which means that they wouldnt have happened anyway, even without offset funds. We want to make sure that projects are credible and practical and effective, that they are fully documented, that they are accountable to the public for real results. We need to do this in order to retain public confidence in our offset program and assure taxpayers that all of these funds are being spent wisely and effectively. Now, theres also a technology fund that will be established through this bill. Contributions to that fund could generate technologies that would more effectively remove effluents as they are generated, such as the pollutants that the burning of natural gas produces, or they could do things like make better batteries so that electric cars would be more attractive to purchase, or enable us to build more efficient water-driven turbines that would produce electricity at lower costs. There are always a host of opportunities for research. These kind of things are always oversubscribed. The key here, again, is to get the best bang for our buck, tackling projects that have a good chance of success so that research funds are not wasted. In particular, I think we should research ways that will work to make the LNG industry in B.C. leaner and more competitive, more efficient, so that we will help to ensure the viability of this industry a generation into the future. Now, were setting in place the system, but I want to point out, as Ive done before, that this industry comes at virtually no cost to the taxpayer. We havent broken our budget. We havent risked a lot in order to bring LNG to B.C. Were not risking huge sums of money so that if LNG doesnt pan out for some reason, our taxpayers will suffer some huge loss. No, its all upside for us. The global demand for our natural gas will pull that resource out of the ground and bring it to the market without cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, it will come with enormous benefits to the taxpayer. I want to conclude by putting our own planned GHG emissions in context by making some comparisons. Were assuming that our industry will produce 13 megatonnes of greenhouse gases every year — thats 13 million tonnes; thats a lot of tonnes — while the oil sands next door in Alberta currently produce 100 megatonnes a year. In other words, the emissions from our industry will be 13 percent of Albertas oil sands emissions alone. How do our numbers compare internationally? Well, our LNG industry could produce 13 megatonnes per year. Canada as a whole produced 560 megatonnes of GHGs in 2012. The United States produced 5,200 megatonnes of GHGs in 2012. China produced 9,900 megatonnes of greenhouse gases in 2012. These are not my figures. These are according to a report by the European Union. B.C.s LNG industry will produce 13 megatonnes of greenhouse gases, and thats 761 times less than what China will produce. We will not be a leader in emissions, but we will be a leader in emissions control. Our greenhouse gases will not be insignificant. Thirteen million tonnes is still a large amount, but British Columbians should not be panicked into thinking that we will be a world leader in emissions. We will not even be in the same ballpark, not even be in the same city with the same ballpark, of any of the worlds major economies. We have to keep our perspective. Were going to develop the cleanest LNG plants in the world. The mechanism contained here, in the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, is going to help us do it. Through it all, were maintaining our determination to reach the targets for GHG reduction that we set back in 2009, regardless of the development of this enormous industry. [1725] In June of this year we announced success. We announced that in 2012 we were successful in achieving our first interim GHG reduction target of 6 percent below 2007 levels. We remain committed to ultimately achieving an 80 percent reduction from 2007 levels, which is a lot of clean air. HSE - 20141027 PM 048/ALW/1725 target of 6 percent below 2007 levels. We remain committed to ultimately achieving an 80 percent reduction from 2007 levels, which is a lot of clean air. I think its a bold promise. Its a tall order. But were determined to do that while growing a vibrant industry which will do so much for our province. By 2020 or so, Im hoping that we will also have the cleanest air in the world. The cleanest air in B.C., I hope, will be in the Fraser Valley. To me, this bill is all about clean air, and thats why Ill be voting in favour of this bill.
Posted on: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 03:14:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015