Pre-Stephen Harper, Environment Canada was regarded as the most accessible, educational federal department. Its scientists were in the media, at conferences, even in classrooms, assessing human impact on the natural world. Now, three reports in as many months have slammed the department for its inaccessibility and lack of accountability.
The Climate Action Network, a national coalition of climate change organizations, released its report “Troubling Evidence.” CAN criticizes EC for cutting its funding to university climate research, failing to publicize its own research and placing a gag order on its scientists since 2007—forbidding them from openly discussing their work with the media.
The gag order was issued via a PowerPoint presentation emailed to department staff. It required staff scientists to obtain government permission and approved written responses before taking questions from journalists. It was leaked to the press in 2008.
In March of this year the Montreal Gazette reported on another leaked EC document, this one evaluating the fallout from the gag order. The document notes, “Media coverage of climate change science, our most high-profile issue, has been reduced by over 80 percent…our scientists are very frustrated with the new process.”
In April, the Information Commissioner of Canada—who reports to parliament—released “Out of Time,” an assessment of how 24 federal institutions responded to access to information requests. EC got an F for its backlog of 276 information requests and taking an average of 97 days to complete a request.
Scott Vaughan, commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development for the Office of the Auditor General, has more experience than anyone getting information from EC. He’s reported on the department’s exaggeration of Canada’s greenhouse gas reductions and the general ineffectiveness of government environmental programs. “I’ve noticed a change in the past few years,” Vaughan tells me via phone from Ottawa. “A lot of NGOs say they can’t get Environment Canada scientists at conferences and events to share their scientific expertise.”
Vaughan has noticed EC’s website has become increasingly obfuscatory, with important documents buried deep in the hyperlinks. “You often have to know the exact title and give your email and name, which deters people.” He says EC’s mandatory annual reports to parliament are all two to four years out of date.
In May, the Canadian Newspaper Association took its shot at government accessibility from a journalist’s perspective. Fred Vallance-Jones, an investigative reporting instructor at King’s, authored CNA’s “National Freedom of Information Audit.”
“Environment Canada needed three extensions and completed none of the requests within 30 days,” Vallance-Jones tells me. “If you’re a journalist and need timely information this is hardly a good performance.” EC got seven out of 30 on CNA’s test, a D+.
I gave EC’s responsiveness my own test. I phoned a 1-800 line and left a voicemail asking the scientific rationale for basing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets on a 2005 baseline, rather than Kyoto’s 1990 baseline. I received a call back promptly and an emailed response on my deadline. The email said no spokesperson was available but the “target and base year are aligned with those of the United States [which is] necessary given the level of economic integration between the two countries.”
Interesting, but that is a political explanation, not the scientific one I asked for, making it slightly better than useless.
Several EC employees have complained, off the record, about being muzzled. “I’ve had extensive conversations with people inside Environment Canada and they all say the same thing,” says Mark Butler, policy director at Ecology Action Centre. “They’re told, ‘Don’t rock the boat, don’t do your job.’ It’s a scandal that the largest environmental agency has been castrated and nobody’s talking about it.”
Butler says his organization and Sierra Club British Columbia—both vocally critical groups—have been denied funding without explanation, despite formal requests for an evaluation. “We can handle being turned down, but we want to know why and we want the process to be fair.”
Brad Walters, an environmental studies prof at Mount Allison, says the political interference at EC is a disservice to taxpayers. “We pay for this expertise and the scientists are prevented from meeting their responsibilities. Fewer and fewer first-rate scientists will want to work for the feds.”
This article appears in Jul 22-28, 2010.
Well a government employee must protect there benifets and retirement packages first and formost before they think of doing the right thing. That is if they received the memo alowing to think freely. But hey that’s what they get paid the big bucks for, they know better. So stop asking the tough questions before you send them on stress leave!!!
Pain Monkey
Thank you for this, Chris, an excellent job of investigative reporting. Without you guys revealing these furtive government dodges we , the general public, would remain in the dark.
So keep asking those tough questions because you know there’s self-serving motive behind the story everytime.
It is SO stupid not to take action on climate change. Doesn’t our illustrious prime minister understand that you can try to fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, all of the people all of the time, gag your scientists, cut funding for climate change programmes, but you cannot fool the Earth’s natural cycles and processes into responding as though we were not overloading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases and also reducing the oxygen content of the atmosphere?
Well, I guess he has to keep the oil and gas industries happy.
Typical lefty Coast article just trying to find ANY excuse to bash Stephen Harper. Please show me where the direct link is between these apparent problems at Environment Canada and Stephen Harper, if this department really is in such disarray as you seem to imply. Nevermind, go ahead and just say anything you want without context or full truths or facts in order to suit your political agenda. You know the far left-wing will lap it up without asking questions.
Ohh, and guess what? I’m far from a neo-Con far right-wing Christian Bush/Harper loving fascist. I’m just tired of all this baseless criticism of one person. There could be plenty to criticize about everyone if you look hard enough.
You’re gagged no matter what level of government you work for, in my experience. The scientists do the work and want to report their results to as many people as possible. If you’ve been instructed to send results no farther than your supervisor, it’s a heartbreaking thing. But you carry on in the hopes that things will change and the world will receive these findings while they’re still relevent. Leaking your results and getting yourself fired is not a solution – you usually have a dedicated team depending on you and your work for their livlihood – it isn’t an easy thing!
Ever since the mid-1980’s, I, on behalf of a 400-associate international acclaimed and published scientific group, have had extensive dealings with some of the highest level and highly paid bureaucrats (as well as scientists) not only at Environment Canada’s (EC) Atlantic HQ in Dartmouth but also at Ottawa.
I agree, to a great degree, with the comments posted by “qpmzwonxeibcruv”. I don’t see any connections with `alleged problems’ at the department and the democratically elected Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper.
The elected politicians generally reflect the will of the majority of the public, not just of environmentalists.
Same thing is happening right now in Nova Scotia as well; there has been no change in the intellectual capability of the bureaucrats at the Nova Scotia Dept. of the Environment although we have a so-called socialist government. No matter who is in power, a lot depends on the bureaucrats and how competent they are in specialized disciplines, for example, in Applied Limnology, etc.
Even during the 1990’s, there was considerable `disarray’ atleast in the Dartmouth HQ of the EC and I complained to the then Liberal Ministers then.
To itemize every past event will take too much space, hence I will make four (4) priority statements only in point form and they are in no particular order:–
(1) Some of the senior staff (even scientists) at EC always behaved as if they are literally `Evelyn Hutchinsons’ or `Albert Einsteins’ but in reality none of them are/were. There were some great scientists like the late Dr. Richard Vollenweider in Burlington though but they were few and far between.
(2) EC bureaucrats in Dartmouth always favoured select so-called volunteer groups when funding them based on whether EC’s own bureaucrats were members of such groups. There were potential significant conflicts-of-interest right there, alas! And to boot, many of those groups were not even genuine volunteer groups but were in reality, not-for-profit groups, or the like. Most of the work at those groups was actually carried out by `hired people’ and not by authentic volunteers. I have numerous examples of them throughout our beloved `bluenoseland’.
(3) I am especially surprised that the Ecology Action Centre (EC) has always been complaining. They have received significant funding (significant to me as a taxpayer) over the years yielding no pragmatic beneficial results to the public-at-large. One example was a grant of around $90,000 or so to pay for a full/parttime co-ordinator re the Halifax Harbour Coalition. I was indeed invited to participate in that but it was all for nought. The co-ordinator was influenced by a couple of professors at Dalhousie University who may be associated with the EAC itself as seen at pubic events. The co-ordinator never listened to us which resulted in mine as well as my group’s resignation; internationally, my group does have around fifty (50) well accomplished professors as well in diverse disciplines of environmental engineering, professional limnology, molecular biology, and bacteriology. As it turned out, nothing pragmatic resulted from the Halifax Harbour Coalition anyway. The work done presently at the Halifax Harbour is, to some extent, the direct result of the Fournier Task Force created by a Tory, the Rt. Hon. John M. Buchanan, and the follow-up by the Dr. Shirley Conover Committee with total public support.
(4) Re Climate Change that was alluded to in the article, it is lot more complicated. I and my associates (some of them being world class scientists and also may have been part of the Noble Prize winning group’s research papers) have realized that the general public worldwide has to get behind the scientists.
But is the general taxpaying public really behind `controls’ even in beloved Nova Scotia, let alone in the USA, China, and India, for example?
Look at the continuous car sales and the relatively exploding automobile traffic on the roads, as one example.
I have observed even some of the employees (or members) of the Ecology Action Centre (EAC) driving vans, cars, and other vehicles to events that I also attended.
I did my 2-cents worth in this by getting rid of my car back in September of 1998 as a self-discipline and never looked back.
In addition, I continue to conduct advanced lake research (some of it related to climate change) though some of it does require automobiles in which case I am fortunate in that I get driven around by my associates, all being total volunteers!
Perhaps that’s the irony of it all.
`pragmatic environmentalist but centrist’
I assume Mr Benjamin and his ilk will be voicing their objections to the latest NSPower proposeal at the URB hearings.
Will all the enviros be there to tell the URB just how stuoid theNSPower/NewPage plan is ?Or is the Dexter government buying votes in Pictou and the silence of the enviro movement ?
I suspect you got a political explanation rather than a scientific one because the rationale WAS actually political rather than science-based. You assume that our leaders in the federal government are making decisions based on scientific knowledge and recommendations from the bureaucracy. That’s a pretty outdated assumption, if you ask me. I mean, look at the Census debacle…
It is now Dec 20 2010. Britain is covered in record amounts of snow. Air travel in England is at a standstill. The Global Warming / Climate Change propaganda machine gets it’s experts to proclaims that the snow fall is due to Global Warming. If it’s a hot summer then they scare people and say it is due to Global Warming. If it’s a freezing winter with record amounts of snow, hey they will say that too is due to Global Warming.
For a moment lets put down our Koolaid and reflect back on what a Global Warming senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia had stated back in the year 2000:
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
By Charles Onians
Monday, 20 March 2000
Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said.
Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. “As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it’s few and far between,” he said.
Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up “without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world – open-air skating”.
Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change – into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.
Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.
“We don’t really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like,” he said.
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.
Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.
The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in “London Snow” of it, “stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying”.
Not any more, it seems.
Original posted at:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/s…
Just as there are those who believe that the Earth was created in its present form a few thousand years ago, preferring the Bible as their natural history reference to the exclusion of all of modern science, and even some in government willing to suggest that dinosaurs (the one-time existence of which is beyond doubt) walked the planet with Adam and Eve, there are those who still cling to the idea that anthropogenic global warming is an elaborate and diabolical scientific hoax. I can’t think of a simpler demonstration of the fact that some people in this modern age are beyond the reach of reason than this state of denial.
The plain and simple fact is that the government has muzzled Environment Canada scientists because their science frequently doesn’t conform to the Conservative government’s own agenda. It further upsets those in the business community who worry that the citizenry might demand some changes to government policy if they became aware of the large disconnect between the threat identified by climate science on the one hand and the government’s “do nothing” policy on the other.
Unfortunately, government interference with government scientists is nothing new. Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency both have a long history of outside political interference, usually at the behest of corporations whose profits might be put in jeopardy if these government agencies more faithfully served the interests of the Canadian people instead of the narrow interests of corporate shareholders.
To find out why Environment Canada scientists have been muzzled, one only has to follow the money trail back to the corporate entities which fund political campaigns and write government policy and thereby run things in this country and around the world.