Transcript Season 5 Episode 12

THE WEST BLOCK

Episode 12, Season 5

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Host: Tom Clark

Guests: Justin Trudeau, Ed Fast, Elizabeth May, Fahrad Khosrokhavar

Location: Paris, France

Tom Clark: On this Sunday from Paris, 150 world leaders gather for critical negotiations on climate change. Can they agree on a way  to save the planet that has a chance of working? An exclusive interview with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on what sort of deal he wants to see.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is a veteran of these conferences. We will have her take on the chances of success in Paris. 

It’s all happening in a city that is under a state of emergency, while the prime minister, the premier of Quebec and the mayor of Montreal laid wreaths this morning at the site of the massacre that took place little more than two weeks ago. A French expert on Muslim migration has some words of warning for Canada.

It is November 29^th, the day before the climate summit and from Paris, I’m Tom Clark and this is The West Block.

Well some are saying that this is the world’s last best chance to limit the damage from runaway climate change. One hundred and ninety countries will be represented here over the next two weeks and one of the biggest challenges will be to try and get countries like China and India to sign on to a framework agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Late last week, I sat down with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for an exclusive interview about his hopes for the Paris Summit.

***

Tom Clark: And I want to talk about the Paris Climate Summit, what in your view is success in Paris?

Justin Trudeau: Success is a deal reached that both the Americans and China, as the two great emitters around climate change, can agree to and a deal that would be ambitious in scope. And committing to update targets going forward, to agree to shared accounting in an open and accountable way by countries on their own emissions, and real commitments around development financing so that the developing world can also participate in the upgrading of energy sources and play a greater role in reducing emissions.

Tom Clark: If though, this framework agreement, even if we succeed in a framework agreement, it’s not legally binding. There are no absolute limits that are being negotiated at Paris. Under those circumstances, no matter what’s agreed to, if a country decides either through neglect of by design that they’re not going to meet their commitments, there’s no consequence to that. So why should we take this too seriously?

Justin Trudeau: I don’t know if people in the oil and gas sector in Canada who’ve seen the government’s inability to get pipelines over the past 10 years because of a lack of action on the environment would agree that there are no consequences to refusing to engage on responsible environmental stewardship in emissions reduction. People around the world are looking for leadership and action on climate change and I’ve certainly noticed in international gatherings saying Canada’s engaging once again, the doors that are opening, the goodwill that is there not just on the climate side, but on economic partnerships, shared outcomes, on mutual concerns addressed. The fact is, the world is getting to be a smaller place where people are very aware who is engaging positively and who is not. And Paris will represent an important milestone in demonstrating that countries of the world are serious about tackling climate change.

Tom Clark: If we do get China to the table and presumably India as well, although you didn’t mention India, but it is a large emitter as well. If we get those countries to the table along with the United States, part of what Paris is about, is preparing the developing world for the costs of fighting climate change. Speaking to Canadians now, what should we be expecting in terms of the cost of this, not only domestically for us and what it may cost the provinces and the federal government, but also the money that we are going to have to make available to the rest of the world? What sort of neighbourhood are we in?

Justin Trudeau: I think one of the things that we’ve certainly seen is the costs of inaction on climate change are going to be astronomical, whether it’s increased floods and droughts, whether it’s rising sea levels, whether it’s melting permafrost which is endangering not just Arctic communities but also the resource potentials of the Arctic. There’s going to be costs on either side, it’s just which of the costs are more likely to be able to be borne. One of the things that’s interesting about development financing is it’s easy to leverage. When you’re actually creating energy solutions, it will make a tremendous difference in small island nations in developing countries like India that have massive power needs that don’t want to necessarily be opening up as many coal plants as they have on the books, but need to provide sources of power generation for their citizens and for their growing economy to give everyone a real and fair chance to succeed. Canada can play a positive role in investing in a better future for ourselves and for everyone.

Tom Clark: Are you suggesting though that any country should be given a bit of a hallway pass then on reducing the growth of emissions, like India?

Justin Trudeau: No, I think we all need to work together to ensure that, as President Obama pointed out during our G20 meeting, all the development financing in the world is not going to make much of a difference if we allow climate change to run rampant because the costs of dealing with that will undercut any progress towards greater development that have been contemplated. We have to get this balance right and we need to know that different countries, just like in Canada, different jurisdictions have different approaches, different needs and making sure that we get that right is going to be essential.

Tom Clark: Prime Minister, you’ve been generous with your time and I thank you very much.

Justin Trudeau: Always a pleasure, Tom.

***

Tom Clark: Well from Canada’s new prime minister to Canada’s new environment critic from the official Opposition, Ed Fast. Mr. Fast good to have you here.

Ed Fast: It’s good to be here.

Tom Clark: Do you believe that a deal is possible that will slow the advance of climate change?

Ed Fast: I do. I do and we’ve been very clear that Canada must do its part to address the challenges of climate change. What we continue to call for is the appropriate balance between ensuring that we leave a clean healthy environment for future generations of Canadians and also continue to be able to have strong economic growth and job creation within Canada.

Tom Clark: From a Conservative point of view, how much climate change are you willing to accept in order to preserve the wealthy economies of the west?

Ed Fast: I’m not sure that’s a question that should be asked. I think the question is—

Tom Clark: Well, I think it is actually the question that should be asked because the question is that you’re talking about the balance. The balance implies that there has to be compromises. So if you do a compromise, if you make a compromise for a better, stronger economy, then you have to compromise on the environment. So the question is, how much climate change are you willing to accept in order to achieve that balance?

Ed Fast: Well, we’ve made it very clear. We’re prepared to do our part. I think Canada is prepared to do its part, but you know, if you don’t balance off the initiatives that are going to address climate change against the economic prosperity that Canadians have come to expect, you can quickly lose the mandate to take tough measures, to address climate-change issues. And so our party has been very clear that we want to see targets that are ambitious. We are very pleased that the new Liberal government has actually adopted our targets, at least for the time being. We believe they are ambitious, but they are achievable and if you set targets that aren’t achievable, you’re wasting your time.

Tom Clark: But isn’t that exactly what your government did? You set targets of a reduction of 17 per cent by the year 2020 and you got nowhere close to that. You only got about 3 per cent of the way there. So you set targets that were unachievable and unrealistic.

Ed Fast: Tom, Tom, we’re not at 2020 yet and I would point out that ours was the first government in Canadian history to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We reduced them by 3 per cent while the economy grew by 13 per cent. Now that’s a modest reduction but it was progress unlike the previous Liberal government which actually made very bold promises, a 6 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and, in fact, increased emissions by 30 per cent without a plan.

Tom Clark: How close are you to the target that you set?

Ed Fast: It’s hard to say, we leave that to the climatologists. We leave that to the scientists who are doing it.

Tom Clark: They’ve informed the United Nations that you’re nowhere close. Canada’s nowhere close, never going to reach that goal. Do you accept what the Canadian scientists are saying?

Ed Fast: I would accept that, and that’s why we went back to the drawing boards. We established targets for 2030 that we believe are achievable. They are reasonable and they are ones, of course, that the Liberal government has now adopted, has taken them to Paris. That’s why I’m going to ask a lot of questions on the ground here. I’m going to listen very carefully, and over the next five to six months, our party is going to be refining its policy on addressing climate change and the challenges that come with it. Canada does want to do its part, but we have to do it responsibly. We have to make sure that taxpayers are respected because it is a fine balance.

Tom Clark: Prime Minister Trudeau has said that while he’s going to let the provinces do their own thing in terms of how they reach their goals, he has said that the one common thread has to be, that there has to be a price on carbon. When that comes to the House in whatever form it does, will you oppose that or will you support that?

Ed Fast: What we have said is we believe that a regulatory approach, a sound strong regulatory approach is the preferred way forward. We are prepared to look at any initiatives that come forward, but they have to respect the taxpayers. They have to be effective in actually achieving our greenhouse gas emission targets.

Tom Clark: Okay, Ed Fast thanks very much for dropping by here in Paris, I appreciate your time.

Ed Fast: Glad to do it. It’s good to be here.

Tom Clark: Coming up, a conversation over a cup of coffee with Elizabeth May about her hopes for the climate change conference.

Tom Clark: Welcome back to The West Block from Paris. Very few Canadians have followed these climate negotiations as closely as Green Party Leader, Elizabeth May. She’s been to most of them and she’s here in Paris at the invitation of the Canadian government to lend her expertise. I met up with her here last night for a little coffee and conversation.

***

Tom Clark: The word is that even if this conference is a success, we are still 50 per cent away from where we have to be to stop global warming. How can this conference be a success under those conditions?

Elizabeth May: Well, we can’t stop climate change once we’ve unleashed it, so what we’re really trying to do at this conference, is ensure that the level of climate change induced by human activity is held at a level that allows us to respond, adapt, survive, so we have to keep global average temperatures, and most scientists view, below 1.5 degree. Two degrees isn’t a safe zone, so that’s what we look at.

Tom Clark: But isn’t it a problem though, or should I say isn’t the real task of this conference to make sure that the big emitters, I’m talking about the United States, China and India actually sign on to something? Because without them, there is no deal.

Elizabeth May: Well we have had all those nations, in fact all nations on earth back in 1992 signed onto the framework convention on climate change and we’re still negotiating, we have that, which did commit in legally binding terms, that we must reduce greenhouse gas levels and we must adapt and we have to avoid dangerous levels of climate change. What every negotiation since then has tried to do is bring some real specifics to it. So this negotiation definitely has to include all nations. US and China—

Tom Clark: But it’s not going to be legally binding though.

Elizabeth May: Well I hope the treaty will be legally binding, but what they haven’t done is there will not be targets embedded in the treaty where the targets are legally binding. It’s a little confusing to explain, but I’m still hoping the treaty itself, it’s still open to the negotiators to keep this treaty legally binding, even if the commitments that are being made by countries are embedded in their domestic legislation not in the international treaty.

Tom Clark: So here’s the other thing though, is that if the targets aren’t legally binding, what happens if India says, in the next couple of weeks, yeah we’ll sign onto these numbers and then completely ignores them. There’s no consequence for India or any other country ignoring what they’ve agreed to.

Elizabeth May: Well that’s the same thing for Kyoto. There were no consequences for Canada and we were told by the previous government that we had to leave Kyoto because we’d owe money or there’d be penalties. That wasn’t ever true. What we have to hope, and what seems to be the case now increasingly, is that world leaders and governments recognize that climate change is a bigger threat to their future, to their economy, to their civilizations, to our societies, a bigger threat than terrorism, a bigger threat than anything other than global nuclear war. And the economics of moving to renewables are getting better every single year, so I think that once we start with the commitment that everyone together must reduce greenhouse gases and assist the poorer nations dealing with the levels of climate change we can no longer avoid, that it will be self-propelling and accelerating because we need to reduce more and we need to reduce faster than anything that’s on the table right now. So while I have to be optimistic that this treaty will work, I know what has been working against us has been the intransigence from some of the larger polluters, particularly the United States that doesn’t want a binding treaty and we have to hope that Canada can return to our usual role of providing some leadership in pushing for the strongest possible treaty.

Tom Clark: Final question to you though, you mentioned the United States, but the news out of Beijing today was that the pollution in Beijing was hazardous to human health, beyond anything that anybody has ever seen. Doesn’t this really come down to those two huge developing nations, China and India, and the amount of emissions that they’re putting out, aren’t they the real problems?

Elizabeth May: No, actually everyone is. When you look at the community of nations, you look at the science of climate change, the bulk of the impacts we’re seeing in 2015, are due to pollution that came decades ago mostly from the rich industrialized countries. So countries that are trying to get out of poverty and develop like China and India, still want to see the bonafides of the western industrialized wealthy countries. If we don’t pull our weight, they won’t pull their. So we’re like a bunch of people in a rowboat, we’re trying to make it shore and we have to keep bailing and nobody can afford to stop bailing and nobody can afford to stop pulling on those oars. We’re in it together.

Tom Clark: Elizabeth May awfully good talking to you.

Elizabeth May: Thank you, Tom.

Tom Clark: Take care.

Up next, a French expert on Muslim migration and his advice as Canada prepares to welcome 25,000 Syrian refugees.

Tom Clark: Welcome back to The West Block from Paris. You can’t be in this city and not think about the massacre that occurred here a little more than two weeks ago. It has raised some pretty anxious questions here about the mass migration of Syrian refugees into Europe and of course soon into Canada. Will they bring with them new forms of terror or deep or social divisions? Well these questions have intrigued one of Europe’s leading experts on Muslim migration, Fahrad Khosrokhavar. I met up with him yesterday just outside of Paris and here’s part of that conversation.

As you know, Canada’s going to be taking in 25,000 refugees within the next few weeks, possibly more after that, what would your advice be?

Farhad Khosrokhavar: You know, first and foremost, those who come to Canada or come to Europe or elsewhere are victims of Daesh, our victims of Jihadism so they should not be treated as being possibly those who would commit suicide bombings, but few of them might be among those of Daesh.

Tom Clark: One thing that Europe has in common with Canada in this whole area is the question of radicalization. Once migrants have arrived, either in Europe or in Canada, what do we do about the issue of radicalization once they’re here?

Farhad Khosrokhavar: Usually, it’s not the first generation that is the most dangerous, it’s the second. The first generation usually tries to adapt to get involved in social life, to become Canadian or French or German, and the danger lies not with them. The danger is with their children, the second generation because they are in between. They would have a problem of identity, are they Canadian? Are they Syrian?

Tom Clark: Do we have to accept the fact that we just won’t be able to reach some of them, that some of them inevitably, no matter what we do, are going to become radicalized and may take action?

Farhad Khosrokhavar: Exactly, and don’t forget, among them, there are more and more converts, that means those people who have no ties, no real ties or cultural ties with Islam. The 21st century, I can tell you, is the century of hatred. Hatred has become the dominant feeling among, many, many groups because of the century of the failure of what might be called multi-culturalism in many parts of the world. Canada is still an exception. The 21st century is a century of, I would say, utopia-less societies. There’s no more political utopia, what would you like to achieve. In Europe, the French people would have the kind of very strong political utopia. We’re going to have the sort of liberté, egalité, fraternité – no one anymore believes in that. So that in this world, we have the kind of hatred that becomes a dominant feature among the jihadists. Hatred let in, is the most common sentiment they have towards society.

Tom Clark: As you say, we don’t have a vision of a political utopia anymore, the jihadists do.

Farhad Khosrokhavar: Of course, that’s it. And that’s why so many middle class people who have no roots in Islam become Muslims. Not become Islam is attractive to them, but because it gives them the key of fighting through jihad. And jihadism becomes a kind of ideology which is anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, at the same time, anti-feminist, anti-progress, regressive, repressive, all of it together. So there is a kind of romanticism among many young people about that. This is the return of what might be called of the entire ideology of the 1968 in France and in Europe. In 1968 they said, “Make love, not war” and now they say “make war” love should be restricted to the Islamic way. They said “it’s forbidden to forbid”, “il et interdit d’interdire.” And now, the more you forbid, in terms of Islam, in terms of sacred, the more serious you are. They went to Afghanistan and Kathmandu in order to smoke pot to lead the kind of life without constraint. Now they go there in order to make war, so there is a whole change of I would say, mentality.

Tom Clark: It doesn’t sound very optimistic.

Farhad Khosrokhavar: No, but at the same time, they are minorities and societies can tackle that. Once you know it, once you become aware of it, you can prevent them from going. And then for instance, belatedly, they called it “green phone,” “téléphone vert,” so that they have prevented hundreds of people to go to Syria. So this has to be done, we have to take measures and the West is inventive enough to do so. We should not be afraid of that. The 20th century has been a bloody century of major wars. The 21st century will be the century of this type of war mongering, which is limited, but dangerous in a way because this will put into question democracy.

Tom Clark: Farhad thank you so much.

Farhad Khosrokhavar: You’re welcome.

Tom Clark: While the world gathers here to talk about the future, we leave you now with some images about remembering the past. From Paris, I’m Tom Clark. See you next week.

-30-