The Legault government is determined to build the third link, while presenting itself as a leader in the fight against the climate crisis. But is the construction of this road tunnel in line with the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?
The duty asked the question to the office of the Minister of the Environment and the Fight against Climate Change, Benoit Charette, in the wake of the publication last Monday of the most recent report of the IPCC. It must be said that this scientific summary must serve as a basis for the climate policies of the coming years, which will be crucial for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and respecting the objectives of the Paris Agreement, to which the Quebec.
Minister Charette’s office did not answer this question, instead inviting us to contact the office of the Minister of Transport and Sustainable Mobility, Geneviève Guilbault. The latter also did not want to specify whether the tunnel project under the St. Lawrence River was compatible with the recommendations of the IPCC.
“Like any major project, the third link will be subject to the very demanding environmental standards that Quebec has adopted, including the environmental impact study. This study will have to present in particular the effects of the project on the capacity of Quebec to achieve its targets of reduction of GHG ”, argues the firm of Mr.me Guilbault, in a written response. “Besides, as has already been mentioned, there will also be a public transit component to connect users from both shores,” we recall.
Incompatible
The most recent report of the IPCC, of which 195 countries are members, recommends in particular a reduction in energy consumption in all its forms, better planning of land use, including the densification of cities, but also much more support important to public and active transportation. The synthesis also underlines the importance of adaptation, which requires better protection of natural areas, but also restoration of those that have been degraded.
The duty therefore challenged five experts in energy, climate and transport issues. All believe that the CAQ project is incompatible with the recommendations of the IPCC, which would imply that Quebec reduce its GHG emissions, reduce its dependence on the car and completely rethink the development of its territory.
“The IPCC recommends doing everything possible to accelerate the reduction of GHG emissions, and that starts with avoiding creating new ones,” underlines Jeanne Robin, principal director of the Vivre en ville organization and planning specialist. of the territory. “All the experts say that the third link will promote urban sprawl and increase energy consumption in transport, but also the use of land that can provide valuable ecological services. We can therefore say that it does not go in the direction of reducing our carbon footprint and increasing resilience in the face of climate change. »
Professor in the Department of Urban and Tourism Studies at UQAM, Florence Paulhiac adds that the possible electrification of the car fleet, which is often mentioned by the Legault government, does not change the other problems that may arise from a future link. Quebec-Lévis road. “This way of seeing things does not allow us to reflect on the development of cities, or even on the consumption of land and natural resources. Placing the electric car as the only solution will generate more land consumption, because people will always be able to move further, perpetuating the model of urban sprawl,” she insists.
Like several other experts, this specialist in sustainable mobility believes that a paradigm shift is urgently needed. “We must focus on public and active transportation to make it more attractive and efficient, bring work closer to residences, etc. It’s a bigger project than the electrification of cars, but it will also be much more profitable collectively. » Mme Paulhiac adds that Quebec has nothing to gain by maintaining its “dependency” on the car, since in addition to producing GHGs, it generates health problems and losses in economic productivity.
Public funds
With the bill for the third link estimated, very preliminary, at $6.5 billion, the government is being asked to rethink the use of public funds. “This money should be sent to public transit or active transportation infrastructure projects. Current funding for public transit is insufficient to maintain services, and even more so to improve them,” laments Annie Levasseur, holder of the Canada Research Chair in Measuring the Impact of Human Activities on Climate Change in the School of Higher Technology.
Same story with Annie Chaloux, professor at the School of Applied Politics at the University of Sherbrooke. “Do Quebecers really want to put all these billions into an infrastructure that will have fairly marginal benefits for the community? she asks. Mme Chaloux pleads instead for support for measures that would allow citizens of the Quebec region to reduce their need to own a car. She cites as an example the financing of fleets of shared cars.
Holder of the Chair in Energy Sector Management at HEC Montréal, Pierre-Olivier Pineau believes that we need to move away from the debate on the climate coherence of the third link to seek to understand its meaning instead. “The project is a symptom of our collective desire to have more collective infrastructures that serve individual needs. »
He reminds us that Quebecers also choose energy-guzzling vehicles. Sales of “trucks”, a category that includes vans, sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks, have indeed increased by 253% between 1990 and 2021, to the point of representing 71% of sales in the province in 2021.
Ultimately, Mr. Pineau nevertheless predicts the abandonment of the mega road project. “He will disappear from the plans as more detailed information is obtained. This is a subject that is wasting our time. »