Category Archives: Climate Science

Ex-Harper Minister Solberg renews Flat Earth Society membership

Share
Flat Earth map drawn in 1893. The map contains several references to biblical passages and various jabs at the "Globe Theory"
Flat Earth map from 1893, containing several references to biblical passages and jabs at “Globe Theory”

Writing in the Calgary Sun the other day, former Conservative Party Cabinet Minister Monte Solberg claims there is “good news on the climate front.”

Now before we get into this too far, this is the same Solberg who in 2009 celebrated the end of global warming because it was really cold in Saskatchewan that winter. Conveniently missing the idea that it’s called “global” warming and not “Saskatchewan” warming, and we will see different rates of warming in different regions of the world.

Solberg’s latest “good news” refers to recent claims by conspiracy theorists, former energy lobbyists and bought-and-paid pretend climate experts that the upward trend in planetary warming has stalled out.

Now I’m not a scientist and neither is Solberg, but here’s a chart of actual warming measured by NASA over the years:

Nasa global temperature

Again, I am not a scientist, but that is one big giant upward trend in warming that starts right around the time we all started burning a lot of coal and oil in the late 1800’s.

Cool earth, flat earth

Of course, like any good 9-11 or moon-landing conspiracy theory, this chart of actual measured temperature rise will never convince folks like Solberg and other members of the flat earth society, that the earth is warming and will continue to rise.

Honestly, I could put up no end of charts showing the reality of our warming planet and there will be a dismissive argument for every one of them. Conspiracy theories are infallible, that’s why they just get nuttier and nuttier.

In his Calgary Sun opinion piece, Solberg relies on a very nuanced argument to downplay the whole reality of the situation we are facing on our planet, writing:

[quote]In 2007, leading science guys at the IPCC projected that the planet would warm at a rate of .2 degrees every 10 years. They now say the rate is only .12 degrees.[/quote]

Now go back to that NASA chart. Whether we are looking at .2 degrees or .12 degrees, that big upward spike in warming is the reality. No matter what Solberg or anyone else in the flat earth society wants to think. No matter how much they want to quibble on the fringes about computer models and projections, that big swoop up in actual observed global temperature is the reality.

Predictions coming true

We are coming into an age now where the scientific predictions made 20 years ago about a warming planet, atmospheric distruption and more extreme weather, are actually being observed in real life. We are even as a global society trying to soften this new reality by calling it the “new normal.”

So if that’s the reality, the question is: will you find solace in Solberg’s “good news” or will you look up and face the truth of the matter?

Honestly, I won’t blame you if you side with Solberg, because as the old saying goes: “Ignorance is bliss!”

Share
Suzuki, Morton headline Monday rally for science

Suzuki, Morton headline Monday rally for science

Share

 

Suzuki, Morton headline Monday rally for science
Salmon biologist Alexandra Morton (from “Salmon Confidential”)

Over the past several years, the Harper Government has waged an unprecedented war on science in Canada – in favour of advancing its fossil fuel agenda. This has prompted a series of rallies across the country this coming Monday, co-organized by the group Evidence for Democracy.

Rallies will take place in 16 cities, including Ottawa, Toronto, Halifax, Fredericton, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver (see below for a complete list with times and locations).

Vancouver rally

At the Vancouver rally – which takes place Monday, Sept. 16 from 11AM at the Vancouver Art Gallery – high-profile scientists like Dr. David Suzuki and salmon biologist Alexandra Morton will be joined onstage by leading conservationists Joy Foy from the Wilderness Committee and Dr. Craig Orr.

Morton has experienced firsthand the Harper Government’s “see no evil, hear no evil” approach to science as she’s tried to raise the alarm over salmon viruses in BC.

[quote]I have co-published on a European salmon virus in BC’s waters and have received no response from government, so I see the strong need to stand up for science. I believe our economy and our lives depend on it.[/quote]

Dr. Orr’s organization has taken the federal government to task for not taking action on the recommendations of the $26 million Cohen Commission into disappearing Fraser River sockeye.

Gutting environmental protections

The list of cuts to environmental laws, monitoring, enforcement and research under the Harper Government is too long to publish here – but here are a few of the big ones:

The list goes on and on – for a detailed review, I recommend Joyce Nelson’s story on the subject.

As Canada’s most recognizable advocate for science, David Suzuki has been the target of much of the Harper Government’s offensive. Following attacks from Harper and his Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, Suzuki extricated himself officially from his own foundation, so as to be able to speak freely without risking reprisals for the foundation. (Incidentally, Revenue Canada’s $5 million audit of environmental organizations – based on wild-eyed allegations of “money laundering” from Oliver – proved to be a total waste of tax dollars, finding not a single green group in violation of charitable laws).

In a story titled, “We ignore science at our peril”, published a few months ago in these pages, Suzuki noted:

[quote]We can and must change the way we act. That requires listening to scientists and those who are working on solutions, and not to the naysayers and deniers who would keep us stalled in a doomed spiral.[/quote]

A “Scientific Dark Ages”

To Morton, the covering up of fish science has been a constant concern – particularly the muzzling of DFO’s Dr. Kristi Miller after making important discoveries using leading-edge genomic research to zero in on salmon diseases.

“We’re in a form of scientific dark ages here and that was evident in the treatment of Dr. Miller, who discovered what is likely the cause fo the Fraser sockeye decline – a deadly virus,” Morton told The Common Sense Canadian by phone. “This government has has done nothing visible about Miller’s findings.”

Details for rallies across Canada

Vancouver
Vancouver Art Gallery – North plaza on Georgia Street, 11am – 1pm
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/364664120302614/
Contact: Pamela, S4S.Vancouver@gmail.com, 604-786-9521.

Salmon Arm, BC
Art Gallery front steps, noon – 1pm
Contact: Warren Bell, cppbell@web.ca

Abbotsford, BC
University of the Fraser Valley (33844 King Rd) – Meet on “The Green”, noon
Bring a lab coat and signs if you can.

Edmonton
September 14, Winston Churchill square, 2pm
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/569543279770489/
Contact: Krystal, StandUp4Science@outlook.com

Lethbridge
University of Lethbridge, noon – 1pm
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/289078114564171/

Yellowknife
In front of The Greenstone Building (5101 50th Ave), noon – 1pm
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/504283992999086/

Winnipeg
University of Winnipeg (in front of Wesley Hall), 12:30 – 1:30
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/612342002158861/
Contact: sosrallywpg@gmail.com

Toronto
South side of Queen’s Park, 11:45 – 1pm
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/371506262976184/

Hamilton
Press conference, City Hall, 9am

Ottawa
Parliament Hill, noon – 1pm
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/639576056054837/

Kingston
Queens campus – Stauffer Library (101 Union St.), noon – 1pm
Facebook event:https://www.facebook.com/events/297246783748951/
Contact: Raly Chakarova, r.chakarova@hotmail.com, 416-937-7302

Kitchener – Waterloo
Meet at Kitchener City Hall, 5pm
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/444399535673713/

Montreal
Complexe Guy-Favreau, noon – 1:30pm
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/606078736081800/

Halifax
Dalhousie Student Union Building, room 307, 1pm – 3:30pm
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/171325193051947/
Contact: Justin Singer, justin.singer@dal.ca, 647-407-2443

Fredericton
City Hall, noon – 1pm
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/122105531293444/
Contact: Jeff Clements, j.clements@unb.ca

St. Andrews, NB
Information rally and barbecue
Water St and King St, 10am – 1pm
Contact: Caroline Davies, sos.oceanscience@gmail.com

Background information on the Stand up for Science rallies is available here.

Share
Global Warning

Global Warning

Share

By superimposing a big red “N” over the black “m” in “Global Warming”, the editors of a feature article on greenhouse gas emissions in NewScientist magazine (Nov. 17/12) altered the title to “Global WarNing”. This simple change of a single letter summarizes the sobering prospects of climate change induced by continuing to burn the fossil fuels that emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

It’s a disconcerting subject that is uncomfortable to consider. But, as the scientific calculations and modelling become more refined and credible, the predictions become more ominous. So we are being forced to contemplate the consequences for our unfolding future.

The magazine’s article, of course, is couched in the rational and calm language of science. The graphs, too, seem decorative and innocuous — until their meaning actually begins to register. On virtually every front of the climate change issue, we are exceeding the worse case scenarios described in 2007 by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That prediction was for a 4°C global temperature increase by 2100. The revised prediction in 2009 was for 5°C. The 2011 revision was for 5.5°C. The most recent predictions are now 4°C by 2060 or 2070, with 6°C likely by 2100 and a 10 percent chance of 7°C. Meanwhile, the graph showing the actual annual tonnage of carbon dioxide emissions — 34.8 billion in 2011 — continues to angle steeply upward, the only sign of any reduction being a small dip during the “Great Recession” of 2008-9.

This is sobering information. Indeed, it’s scary for anyone who thinks beyond the moment and begins to imagine what these temperatures mean. The NewScientist article offers seven sketches.

  • The volume of Arctic ice is “just a fifth of what it was three decades ago.” If current trends continue, the summer Arctic will be ice-free within a few decades. This means “more extreme weather in the northern hemisphere, faster melting of the Greenland ice sheet and greater releases of carbon currently locked away in permafrost.” Climate history has shown that even minor changes can have huge consequences — and the loss of Arctic ice is a major change.
  • Global weather is getting more extreme. The water cycle has increased by double the rate anticipated in 2007 climate models. This means more heavy rainfall. The intensity of precipitation in China and Taiwan has increased ten-fold in the last three decades. Polar jet streams, the winds that distribute weather systems, slow down as the temperature difference decreases between the tropics and a faster-warming Arctic. Consequently, weather patterns tend to “get stuck”, causing longer hot spells, cold spells, droughts and rain storms.
  • Slightly higher temperatures and a little more atmospheric carbon dioxide were expected to increase plant growth and, therefore, food production. But the anticipated benefits have been undone by the negative effects of extreme and irregular weather. The production of wheat, maize, rice and soybeans — 75 percent of humanity’s calories — fell by 1 percent between 1980 and 2008, and the decrease would have been 3 percent without more intensive fertilizing. In the US, scientists are predicting that production of these crucial calorie crops will fall by three-quarters by the end of this century if farmers attempt to grow them in existing locations. Above 35°C, many of such crops will fail to pollinate. The same scenario will apply elsewhere on the planet.
  • Sea level rise is accelerating. The 0.3 mm per year predicted by the IPCC in 2007 is now 1.3 mm per year. Conservative predictions are for a total rise of one meter by 2100, with a possibility of 2 metres. This would cause havoc in most major coastal cities.
  • Warming oceans and land will absorb less carbon dioxide, thereby increasing the atmospheric effect of continuing emissions. Rising temperatures will also release methane, methane hydrates and carbon dioxide presently held in cold storage, thereby accelerating the warming process.
  • Present carbon dioxide emissions have now reached the top of the 2007 IPCC’s worst case scenario. Even if we were willing and capable of cutting emissions dramatically and immediately, we are “most probably” on the path to a 4°C rise by 2100, “way above the 2°C level it was declared we should avoid at all costs” (Ibid.). Most scientists, the NewScientist notes, “have underplayed the significance of the emissions story to make their message politically more acceptable” (Ibid.).
  • Heat stress becomes an issue in hotter conditions. People are unable to perspire sufficiently to cool themselves when humidity and temperature rise beyond the so-called “wet-bulb temperature” of 35°C — they suffer exhaustion, heat stroke and kidney failure. A planet that warms by 7°C would render “vast swaths of Africa, Australia, China, Brazil, India and the US…uninhabitable for at least part of the year” (Ibid.).The full “development” of all the world’s fossil fuels would eventually create a largely “unliveable planet”.

This is the preliminary scenario presented by the thousands of scientists who are working toward the next official IPCC report due in 2014. It’s a conscientious and dispassionate effort to describe the future we are creating — a future that no one will like.

Share
The evolution of denial

The Evolution of Denial

Share

The evolution of denial

Consciousness can be costly. Philosophers and poets have long pondered this dilemma. But the idea has rarely entered the theories of evolutionary scientists until Dr. Danny Brower introduced it to Dr. Ajit Varki, an oncologist who is also an authority on cellular biology and an expert on anthropogeny (the origin of humans).

Dr. Varki met Dr. Danny Brower for a brief but intense hour at a 2005 conference on the origins of human uniqueness. As a geneticist, Dr. Brower was fascinated with the evolution of human consciousness. But he was less curious about the human ability to be aware of their own minds and the minds of others as he was about the apparent inability of other animals to develop the same facility. Whales, elephants, apes, dolphins, and some birds such as magpies provide clear evidence of self-awareness. Even though they have existed in evolutionary history for much longer than humans, however, they have never developed the same degree of self-awareness, empathetic sensitivity, social sophistication and intellectual acumen as humans. Dr. Brower thought he had an answer.

His answer haunted Dr. Varki. So, when Dr. Brower died suddenly in 2007, leaving an incomplete manuscript, Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind, Dr. Varki inherited the task of finishing it. The completed book explores the advantages, costs and implications of our human capacity to understand, empathize, organize and act, the attributes that define us as individuals, societies and civilizations.

Dr. Varki notes that some species of animals seem capable of recognizing themselves as individuals and of mourning the death of their fellows. Such animals may even recognize their own mortality, a traumatizing experience that could be psychologically crippling without the protection of an appropriate defence mechanism. And this mechanism, the theory proposes, is denial.

Humans may have succeeded where other species have failed because we have simultaneously developed the contradictory capacity for both self-awareness and denial. Thus we are capable of exercising all the intellectual, empathetic, social and cultural skills that are responsible for our amazing accomplishments but we are also capable of isolating ourselves from the inevitable death which shadows all our efforts. This capacity, the theory suggests, is the adroit device of evolution that allows us to function while avoiding the heavy psychological cost of knowing the inevitable consequence of being alive. The problem presented by self-awareness is solved simply by sidestepping the reality we do not want to confront.

As Dr. Varki outlines in his elaboration of Dr. Brower’s theory, this is a useful strategy for the individual. And it has advantages for society, too. So people undertake enterprises they would never begin if they actually confronted the reality of the challenges. Denial forms a partnership with optimism to remove the obstacles preventing us from attempting the unpredictable, difficult or impossible. Travelling to the moon, rowing across the Pacific, or working faithfully for 45 years to reach a retirement pension all require an erasing of very credible risks and obstacles. Such ordinary activities as having a baby, driving on a freeway, flying in an airplane or buying a lottery ticket all require acts of denial. Even falling in love is an act that doesn’t consider the possibility of heartbreak. So risk and failure are blindly overlooked for the prospect of benefit. Bravery could be one word to describe such behaviour — if we were fully aware. But a better word might be denial, a strategy which Dr. Varki refers to as “terror management”.

The shortcoming of denial, however, is that it tends to be indiscriminate — so we deny things we should confront. Denial is also a much better coping strategy for an individual than for a species. Indeed, the loss of a few individuals because of their refusal to confront reality is unlikely to endanger the viability of an entire society. But this constraint no longer applies in a globalized world. If denial is responsible for a nuclear holocaust, then this lurking Armageddon could obliterate much of civilization as we know it. What if denial results in the use of uncontrollable biological weapons, or the release of a virus which could initiate an unstoppable global pandemic? What if genetic tinkering inadvertently creates an organism which crashes the planet’s biological systems? The denial mechanism which once affected only local people in local places could potentially affect life on the entire planet.

This is the context in which Dr. Varki raises the subject of climate change. The mechanisms we use to avoid confronting this threat are extraordinary. It is a silence that pervades many conversation. It is a subject that elections commonly avoid. It is a science that politicians suppress — at least in Canada where those who raise it are deemed pessimists, heretics, cynics, enemies, radicals.

Of course, reality is remarkably insistent. So the trauma of extreme weather events force climate change into public awareness where it is too often heard but denied. The required remedial action is invariably postponed. The necessary government regulations become promises that never materialize. Excuses and rationalizations abound as the carbon dioxide levels rise and the planet’s weather becomes more unusual, threatening and destructive. Dr. Varki summarizes the stakes succinctly. “This is the one case,” he says of global warming, “where we cannot afford to get it wrong the first time.”

Dr. Varki concedes that his refinements to Dr. Brower’s theory need more scientific study and evaluation. But, he contends, the theory seems to fit the evidence. More sobering, however, is the way the theory seems to fit our history.

Share
Calgary flood one in growing list of recent extreme weather events

Calgary flood one in growing list of recent extreme weather events

Share
Calgary flood one in growing list of recent extreme weather events
a recent, catastrophic flood in Uttarakhand, India

The tragedy of the Calgary flood is mostly being reported in stories, interviews and anecdotes that are rich in heroism, tenacity, resilience, stoicism, determination and sometimes even moments of levity. The unstoppable rising waters of the Bow and Elbow Rivers also brought the adversity that bonded people into a community of incredible co-operation and caring. The flood was an unmitigated disaster. But it happened. And the stories attest to its terrible impact and severity. But little reportage has attempted to explain why it happened.

Calgary’s flood, it seems, is just the latest in a growing frequency of extreme weather events that have been causing havoc nearly everywhere on the planet. Indeed, the list is getting too long to itemize. While Canadian news was fixated on Alberta’s misfortune, the same weather system was causing unusual flooding in south-eastern BC, with implications for the entire eastern watershed of the Rockies. But elsewhere — media attention goes to the most immediate and dramatic — other disasters were occurring. While Calgary was drowning, extreme monsoons with torrential rains of extraordinary intensity were sweeping away entire villages and killing hundreds in India. Colorado was having the worst forest fires in its history. Record floods in central Europe were just subsiding. Northern Mexico and the southern United States are now suffering regular and protracted droughts. Australia — for macabre variety — seems to alternate between unprecedented floods, droughts and fires.

And this is barely a sample. Pakistan, Poland, France, Thailand, Brazil, Japan, Russia and the Philippines have all been traumatized recently by extreme weather events. New York is trying to recover from the 2012 ravages of Hurricane Sandy, and New Orleans from the 2005 impact of Katrina. The city of Toronto has spent at least $700 million repairing the damage from four once-in-a-century floods in the last 20 years. Manitoba hasn’t fully recovered from a 2011 flood that did $1 billion in damage and necessitated another $1 billion in preventative engineering.

The last once-in-a-century flood to hit Calgary was in 2005. The current flood was immeasurably worse — after water levels had subsided considerably, they were still twice as high as the 2005 flood. “Surreal. This cannot be,” was the response of one Calgarian who was trying to reconcile the reality with a recollection of normality. “This is unbelievable,” said another who couldn’t understand how the benign little Bow and Elbow Rivers that usually wander so innocently through the city could become raging monsters. “Completely unprecedented,” said the province’s premier, Alison Redford, “the largest flood in Alberta’s history.” Indeed, this claim has been confirmed by the flood’s unsurpassed speed, level and scope.

To address the disaster, Premier Redford has allocated an immediate $1 billion to assist the pressing task of early cleaning and restoration. Those without access to money will be provided with instant cash. The initial economic damage to businesses is estimated to be $2 billion. The property damage may be $5 billion. A 10-year recovery plan is being designed to return the city to its former pride. What cannot be returned to the city, however, is its former innocence because such events are becoming much more frequent.

This particular flood was caused principally by a torrential rainstorm in the Bow River watershed, a deluge that dropped nearly 250 mm of water in a matter of hours — half as much precipitation as the area usually receives in an entire year. The river swelled to raging proportions, taking out trees, bridges, highways, homes and every obstruction in its path.

Although no individual event of this severity can be attributed to the anthropogenic changes in the planet’s hydrological cycle, the increasing frequency of such events leads to no other likely conclusion. On a warming planet, the rhythms of evaporation and precipitation become more intense. The atmosphere holds and releases greater quantities of moisture. The basic physics of climate change is as predictable as gravity. Many of the details are still uncertain but the science is quite precise about the effects on the hydrological cycle when global temperatures rise. The only uncertainties are the specifics. This time the surprise occurred for Calgary.

Indeed, it is a sad and terrible justice that the “energy capital of Canada”, one of the business centres for the world’s production of fossil fuels, should be the victim of a storm linked to climate change. The full dimensions of the tragedy are not diminished by this coincidence. Significantly, Calgary is also the family home and riding of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, our political leader who has made a disproportionate contribution to thwarting the efforts of the global community to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. Did his helicopter flight over the drowned and crippled city change his thinking?

Calgary is sobering evidence that we will pay for our carbon emissions one way or another. The considered and predictable way is to levy carbon taxes that are sufficiently high to force down the use of fossil fuels and thereby reduce the weather extremes resulting from global warming. The risky and reckless way is to tempt the limits of tolerable temperature increases by continuing with unabated carbon emissions. Then we will pay for the cost of floods, droughts, storms and other extreme weather events that disrupt our agriculture, destroy our infrastructure, traumatize our ecologies and assault our interests in various and surprising ways. Witness the Calgary flood.

Share

Working with nature can protect us from floods

Share

News of the devastating floods in Alberta hit Canadians hard. We’ve all been moved by extraordinary stories of first responders and neighbours stepping in to help and give selflessly at a time of great need. As people begin to pick up their lives, and talk turns to what Calgary and other communities can do to rebuild, safeguarding our irreplaceable, most precious flood-protection assets should be given top priority.

The severe floods in Alberta used to be referred to as “once in a generation” or “once in a century”. As recent floods in Europe and India are added to the list, that’s scaled up to “once in a decade”. Scientists and insurance executives alike predict extreme weather events will increase in intensity and frequency. Climate change is already having a dramatic impact on our planet. Communities around the world, like those in Alberta, are rallying to prepare.

While calls are mounting for the need to rebuild and strengthen infrastructure such as dikes, storm-water management systems and stream-channel diversion projects, we’ve overlooked one of our best climate change–fighting tools: nature. By protecting nature, we protect ourselves, our communities and our families.

The business case for maintaining and restoring nature’s ecosystems is stronger than ever. Wetlands, forests, flood plains and other natural systems absorb and store water and reduce the risk of floods and storms, usually more efficiently and cost-effectively than built infrastructure. Wetlands help control floods by storing large amounts of water during heavy rains – something paved city surfaces just don’t do.

study of the Upper Mississippi and Missouri Basins showed wetland restoration would have provided enough flood water storage to accommodate excess river flows associated with flooding in the U.S. Midwest in 1993. Research done for the City of Calgary more than 30 years ago made similar suggestions about the value of protecting flood plains from over-development. When wetlands are destroyed, the probability of a heavy rainfall causing flooding increases significantly. Yet we’re losing wetlands around the world at a rate estimated at between one and three per cent a year.

By failing to work with nature in building our cities, we’ve disrupted hydrological cycles and the valuable services they provide. The readily available benefits of intact ecosystems must be replaced by man-made infrastructure that can fail and is costly to build, maintain and replace.

Protecting and restoring rich forests, flood plains and wetlands near our urban areas is critical to reduce carbon emissions and protect against the effects of climate change. Nature effectively sequesters and stores carbon, helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It also regulates water. Forested basins, for example, have greater capacity to absorb water than clear-cut areas where higher peak stream flows, flooding, erosion and landslides are common.

How can we protect ecosystems rather than seeing conservation as an impediment to economic growth? The answer is to recognize their real value. The David Suzuki Foundation has evaluated some of Canada’s natural assets. This approach calculates the economic contribution of natural services, such as flood protection and climate regulation, and adds that to our balance sheets. Because traditional economic calculations ignore these benefits and services, decisions often lead to the destruction of the very ecosystems upon which we rely. Unfortunately, we often appreciate the value of an ecosystem only when it’s not there to do its job.

Cities around North America are discovering that maintaining ecosystems can save money, protect the environment and create healthier communities. A study of the Bowker Creek watershed on southern Vancouver Island showed that by incorporating rain gardens, green roofs and other green infrastructure, peak flows projected for 2080 from increased precipitation due to climate change could be reduced by 95 per cent. Opting to protect and restore watersheds in the 1990s rather than building costly filtration systems has saved New York City billions of dollars.

Intact ecosystems are vital in facing the climate change challenges ahead. They also give us health and quality-of-life benefits. Responsible decision-making needs to consider incentives for protecting and restoring nature, and disincentives for degrading it.

As Alberta rebuilds and people begin to heal from the flood’s devastation, it’s time to have a discussion about adding natural capital to the equation.
 
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Specialist Theresa Beer.

Share
Why Story of Climate Change Fails to Capture Public's Interest

Why story of climate change fails to capture public’s interest

Share

Why Story of Climate Change Fails to Capture Public's Interest

“Story is for a human as water is for a fish,” writes Jonathan Gottschall in his book, The Storytelling Animal. Indeed, this would seem to be so. For hundreds of thousands of years — probably for as long as we have been a speaking species — stories were the way we conveyed important ideas to each other. Of course, hunter-gatherers must have exchanged factual information about the grazing habits of game and the location of berries, nuts and roots. But stories have always been the personalizing, humanizing and empathizing process that has defined relationships, bound us into communities, and connected us to our surroundings. Stories have been the metaphorical and mythological language that has given context, justification and meaning to our very existence.

Think of stories as the poetic interpretations of a reality that always escapes objective understanding. So we try to represent this deep and endless mystery in a narrative of language rich and resonant in symbolism. Each story is intended to describe and explain the meaning of events, to bond the listener to the speaker, and then to connect them both by shared experience to a common place. The implied depth of the story invariably exceeds the stated one. In Pauline Le Bel’s soon-to-be-published book, Becoming Intimate with the Earth (Collins Foundation Press, 2013), she cites a wonderful example. During the colonization of northern British Columbia, an official of the federal government told the Tsimshian people that he was claiming their land as a part of Canada. One of the Tsimshian elders asked the official, “If this is your land, where are your stories?” According to Le Bel’s account, ”The official was silent while the elder went on to tell a story about the land in his own language.”

Stories, therefore, contain a truth that is not represented in legal documents and scientific facts, just as a birth certificate does not remotely represent the love and care that parents have for a child. The emotional depth is simply not present in a record of facts. The important human information, according to Burkeman in his brilliant exploration of this subject (Guardian Weekly, Jan. 11/13), is “suffused with moral drama: strivings, betrayals, victories, lies, conflicts and reconciliations. Drama happens in human minds, not complex systems,” he writes. And herein lies the danger of stories, notes Burkeman, because they “strip facts away, dragging attention to what’s most narratively satisfying, not what’s most important.”

Burkeman’s poignant essay emphasizes the point that, “the most important issues of our era aren’t particularly interesting. Worse than that, there’s good reason to believe in an inverse relationship between interestingness and importance.” For example, when global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide reached 400 parts per million for an entire day — the first time in about 3 million years, and a terrible milestone in the unfolding catastrophe of climate change — the report received only passing mention in the interior pages of North American newspapers. But the escape of three American women, held in enslavement in a Cleveland house for ten years, commonly received front page coverage —The Globe and Mail gave it an entire double-page spread. The freedom of the women, of course, was important to them and their families. But rising carbon dioxide concentrations are an ominous portent, with huge implications for the ecologies of the entire planet and for all humanity.

However, 400 ppm is just a number, so it elicits almost no response. As an abstract statistic, it’s wholly disconnected from the human narrative. Burkeman cites the marine biologist Randy Olson who refers to global warming as “the great unmentionable”, saying, “I dare you to find any major program studying it, and willing to call it what it is.” Olson adds, “You’ll find huge budgeted projects examining public attitudes towards climate…. But what about the simple fact that climate is quite possibly THE most boring subject the science world has ever had to present to the public.” Why so boring? Because it is not a story.

Of course, climate change creates stories. The extraordinary hurricanes that struck New Orleans and New York generated innumerable news items replete with tales of heroic struggle, harrowing escapes and tragic deaths. The same happened with unprecedented floods and raging bush fires in Australia, California and Europe. But the focus of attention invariably shifts away from the essential issue of extreme weather events to the human sagas of loss, grief, relief, bravery and resilience.

As Burkeman explains so insightfully, climate change and all the other environmental catastrophes unfolding around us, are “not stories about the suffering or triumphs of individual, knowable humans. They’re failures of complex systems: millions of individuals are affected, but in incremental, widely dispersed ways; in the case of global warming, most of those millions aren’t even born yet.”

Complex systems, however, are cerebral and rational constructs of little interest to most people. Described in numbers and equations, in statistics and graphs, in charts and projections, they are too distant and impersonal to speak directly to the human heart. History may define this incongruity as fatal since the accumulation of evidence and the detailed analysis of information has replaced stories as our contemporary measure of truth. Our modern civilization would not be viable without the disciplined thinking of science.

Stories have their many valuable uses. They may even guide the direction of science if powerful enough narratives can imagine the trajectory of the present into an ominous future. But, as yet, our stories are unable to provide solutions for today’s unfolding environmental crises. Indeed, more and more of our stories now mark the tragic course of our failures, told after we have missed the opportunity to avert disasters by preventative measures. But this may be the way our future unfolds. Without understanding science and its profound relevance to our present lives, we may be committing ourselves to a proliferation of stories with very sad endings.

Share

We ignore scientists at our peril – climate change deniers out in full force

Share

It’s happening again. Research confirms agreement among most climate scientists that we are altering the Earth’s climate, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And industrial interests, backed by climate change deniers, pull out every trick to sow doubt and confusion. What will it take for us to start seriously tackling the problem?

For the latest study, investigators led by John Cook at Skeptical Science examined abstracts of 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science. They also received comments from 1,200 scientists, who rated more than 2,100 full studies. In both cases, more than 97 per cent of studies that took a position on the causes of global warming said human activity is a primary factor. Less than one per cent rejected the consensus position. The results are consistent with previous research.

As expected, deniers are out in full force, many employing methods common to those who reject science. Medical scientists Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee examined these tactics in the European Journal of Public Health: cherry picking, reference to fake experts, misrepresentation and logical fallacies, impossible expectations of what research can deliver and conspiracy theories. Deniers often rely on talking points spread by a handful of usual suspects, including Christopher Monckton in the U.K., the Heartland Institute and Anthony Watts in the U.S. and Friends of Science and Tom Harris in Canada.

The Alberta-based group was caught several years ago funnelling money – most from fossil fuel companies – through a “Science Education Fund” at the University of Calgary. It was used to create a disinformation campaign and video with Harris, who then worked with PR firm APCO Worldwide and now heads up an organization called (ironically) the International Climate Science Coalition, which rejects the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. According to Desmog Blog, Friends of Science has misrepresented the recent survey, calling it “careless incitement of a misinformed and frightened public, when in fact the sun is the main driver of climate change; not human activity or carbon dioxide.”

Another recent misrepresentation concerns research by the U.K. Met Office, which deniers falsely claim shows the Earth hasn’t warmed for 17 years.

Science isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best tools we have for understanding our place in the cosmos. When people around the world apply rigorous scientific method to study our actions and their impacts on the things that keep us alive and healthy – clean air, water, soil and biodiverse plants and animals – we must listen, not just about climate, but about a range of issues.

Many scientists are saying we’re creating serious problems – but we have solutions. A recent statement, “Scientists’ Consensus on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century”, lists five major challenges: climate disruption, extinctions, loss of ecosystem diversity, pollution, and human population growth and resource consumption.

More than 2,200 have signed, stating, “As scientists who study the interaction of people with the rest of the biosphere using a wide range of approaches, we agree that the evidence that humans are damaging their ecological life-support systems is overwhelming.”

Some may claim this is “alarmist”. It is – because the situation is alarming. It goes on: “For humanity’s continued health and prosperity, we all – individuals, businesses, political leaders, religious leaders, scientists, and people in every walk of life – must work hard to solve these five global problems starting today.”

Many of the proposed solutions have long been advocated by people working in science, the environment and even business: conserving energy and reducing fossil fuel use; better ecosystem management through processes like natural capital evaluation; improved food production and distribution and waste reduction; regulating and preventing pollution; and stabilizing population growth through better education, health care, family-planning services, economic opportunities and women’s rights.

Humanity has changed direction before. When our tools become outdated, we invent new ones. It’s why in many countries, we no longer rely on slavery to maintain economies, we can all vote regardless of race or sex and we enjoy longer and healthier lives than before. Many systems we’ve invented don’t apply to current circumstances. We can and must change the way we act. That requires listening to scientists and those who are working on solutions, and not to the naysayers and deniers who would keep us stalled in a doomed spiral.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington.

Share
An Exercise in Futility- Carbon Dioxide Reaches Alarming Levels Amid BC Election Shocker

Exercise in futility: Carbon dioxide reaches alarming levels amid BC election shocker

Share

Two surprising, important and connected events took place in British Columbia in May, 2013. On Tuesday, May 14, the province’s citizens elected a majority Liberal government. Five days earlier, on Thursday, May 9, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 400 parts per million — the last time such a high level existed on Earth was about 3 million years ago.

The election of a Liberal majority government was a surprise to almost everyone in the province. Equally surprising was the collapse in support for the New Democrats. Public opinion polls had placed them in the lead — as they had been for months — and all but a few unrealistically optimistic Liberals expected to lose. But the voters surprised both the pundits and the parties.

The explanations for electoral wins and losses are always complicated. But a significant factor was the Liberal’s simple message, repeated endlessly, of a prosperous future promised by the exploitation of BC’s sizeable natural gas deposits. The economic prospects of compressing and exporting this fossil fuel as liquid natural gas (LNG) to an Asia hungry for energy was an irresistible temptation to voters. The further possibility of BC becoming a transit site for the export of millions of tonnes of coal and huge volumes of Alberta bitumen was also a convincing economic temptation. So the majority of the legislature’s 85 seats went to the Liberals, with a smattering of Independents and one Green Party candidate.

The distribution of votes in the province is informative. Almost every seat in the interior went to the Liberals; almost every coastal riding went to the New Democrats. In the heartland of the province, the concern seemed to be jobs and the economic development arising from resource extraction. For coastal BC, the prospect of oil tankers plying BC’s pristine waters was probably a major factor in guiding the vote — the lone Green elected candidate came from a riding most at risk due to an increase in oil tanker traffic from the proposed expansion of the Kinder-Morgan pipeline to Vancouver.

Most of the voters of British Columbia, however, didn’t seem to connect the burning of fossil fuels such as natural gas, oil and coal with rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. They couldn’t or wouldn’t understand that carbon dioxide emissions cause the planet to warm, setting in motion a cascade of complex climate problems which will likely destabilize the foundations of our modern civilization. Indeed, as voters, they essentially supported the conditions that are precipitating a global environmental crisis of a magnitude unprecedented in our existence as human beings.

Climate scientists faithfully monitoring the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide must feel that they are witnessing an impending doom. All international efforts since 1992 to cut CO2 emissions have been abject failures. Levels have risen 27 percent in 55 years, with fossil fuel consumption now increasing three time faster than in the 1960s. As for LNG, the perpetual drilling, fracking, leaking, pumping, compressing and shipping required for this product makes it about as carbon intensive as dirty coal — the use of which, incidentally, is also increasing. Consequently, the international community’s pledge to not exceed a 2°C increase in global temperature seems likely to fail. The 400 ppm is a dark reminder of this inevitability. Dr. Peter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US governmental agency that has been monitoring carbon dioxide levels at the Mauna Loa station, summarizes the significance of this historic measurement. “It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem” (Globe and Mail, May 11/13).

Dr. Ralph Keeling, who is responsible for a similar program at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, reiterates Tan’s concern. “It means we are quickly losing the possibility of keeping the climate below what people thought were possibly tolerable thresholds” (Ibid.).

Dr. Maureen Raymo, an earth scientist from Columbia University in the US, echoes the same concern. “It feels,” she says, “like the inevitable march toward disaster” (Ibid.).

But the 2°C is, at best, an educated guess at the temperature limit our sustaining systems can tolerate while still avoiding the feedback loops of uncontrollable warming. The strategy a high-risk gamble fraught with danger. A realistic prognosis by many scientists is that we have already set the conditions to exceed this threshold. Most climatologists expected we would reach 400 ppm — they were only surprised that we reached it so soon.

But surprises are common these days. Climate change by almost every measure is arriving sooner than the models have predicted. Extreme weather events are occurring with unexpected ferocity. Scientists aren’t the only ones surprised. Munich Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurers (they insure insurance companies), has noted a doubling in the last three decades of claims related to extreme weather. Farmers are regularly challenged by climate anomalies that make crop production uncertain.

One of the biggest surprises, however, was the electorate’s failure to incorporate all the convincing science, evidence and warnings into its thinking and voting. The greatest and most sobering disappointment of BC’s provincial election was not which parties won or lost seats, but the failure of most voters to comprehend the seriousness of the environmental challenges confronting them. If they are unable to comprehend the principles of climate science, if they are unwilling or incapable of recognizing the threats of climate change, if their imagination is not sufficient to motivate strategies of avoidance, then elections will be little more than exercises in futility.

Share

Harper’s War on Science

Share

The story, by Joyce Nelson, is re-published from Watershed Sentinel.

If Canadians knew the full extent of the Harper government’s  war on science, they would be clamouring for the reinstatement and full funding of dozens of federal scientific programs and hundreds of scientists axed over the past year. Since the passage of omnibus budget Bill C-38, the Harper Cabinet has moved at blitzkrieg speed to make these cuts.

Canada’s Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault, agreed at the end of March to launch an investigation into the extensive muzzling of federally-funded scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and other federal agencies (1). Her decision comes after a February 20th complaint formally filed by Democracy Watch in partnership with the Environmental Law Clinic of the University of Victoria, which called for a full investigation and was accompanied by a 128-page report, Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat to Democracy. That report documents systematic silencing since 2007 of federal scientists involved in research on climate change, the Alberta tar sands, fish farms, and other areas (2).

But the muzzling of scientists is only one aspect of Harper’s war on science. Far more troubling is the actual elimination of scientific programs and the firing of scientists. Jim Turk, director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, puts it well: “The Harper government wants politics to always trump science. It wants its political views to dominate even if science shows that it’s wrong.”

The NDP’s Megan Leslie is even more caustic: “This government has abandoned evidence-based policy-making to pursue its own brand of policy-based evidence-making.”

The New Inquisition

According to information provided to me in March by the Professional Institute of Public Service Canada (PIPSC) – the union which represents federal scientists and other professionals employed by 38 federal government departments – 5,332 of their members have already either lost their jobs or been transferred to other duties. That number includes 139 scientists/professionals at Environment Canada (cut by $53.8 million), and 436 scientists/professionals at Fisheries and Oceans (already cut by $79.3 million, with $100 million more in cuts announced in the latest March 2013 budget). Thousands of unionized support staff have also been cut from these, and other, departments.

Harper claims that his drastic cuts to most federal agencies are necessary in order to eliminate the deficit before the next federal election. But as business writer David Olive recently observed, “Harper’s ultra-low corporate tax [15%] deprives Ottawa of $13.7 billion a year according to Finance’s own estimates. That’s enough to wipe out the deficit in two years without cutting a single program.”

Canada now has the lowest corporate tax rate of G8 member nations. Indeed, according to a 2013 study by the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation, of 185 countries examined, only seven countries have a lower corporate tax rate than Canada.

The DFO has been especially hard hit by Harper’s  war on science, with three rounds of cuts and another three to come. The entire ocean contaminants research program has been axed, including laboratories and research stations across Canada. World-renowned scientists have been fired, including Dr. Peter Ross, an expert on contaminants’ effects on marine mammals.

Working out of DFO Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, BC for the past 13 years, Dr. Ross is known for his path-breaking research on dioxins in pulp mill effluent, the effects of flame retardants on beluga whales, the impacts of pesticides on wild salmon, and the effects of industrial contaminants on orca whales.

Dr. Ross told Desmog Canada, “If someone is saying that we have to cut 5 per cebt from every department, that’s one thing. But when you turn around and cut 100 per cent of a program, to me that indicates something more than fiscal restraint. It argues in favour of a targeted reduction of a program for some other reason.”

More than a dozen scientific programs important to Canada’s environment and oceans health have been targeted and dismantled over the past year, while others have been slashed to the bone (2).

The Terrible Toll

DFO’s Habitat Management Program – which monitored the effects of harmful industrial, agricultural and land-development activities on wild fish – is gone. DFO’s teams of experts on ocean contaminants in marine mammals, on marine oil pollution, and on oil spill countermeasures have all been disbanded. Gone too is the Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research – the only agency with the ability to adequately assess offshore projects. Nine out of 11 DFO marine science libraries will be shut. And the Experimental Lakes Area is closed.

At Environment Canada, the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) in Nunavut, involved in monitoring the Arctic ozone hole discovered in 2011, has been closed. Similarly, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canada’s main research foundation on climate change, has been axed. The Canadian Centre for Inland Waters – the most important science monitoring agency for the imperilled Great Lakes – has lost key staff members. Cuts to the Action Plan on Clean Water, which funds water remediation, makes communities more vulnerable to toxics.

Harper’s war on science has also eliminated the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, the independent agency that ensured fracking companies complied with regulations. And by dismantling the Smokestacks Emissions Monitoring Team at Environment Canada, the government has eliminated “the only Canadian group capable of writing and supervising credible testing methods for new and existing rules to impose limits on pollution from smokestacks”.

In other cuts that are environment-related, the Cereal Research Centre in Winnipeg – which developed popular spring wheat varieties for Western Canada – is set to close in April 2014. Even the National Research Council’s world-renowned Canada Institute for Scientific & Technical Information (CISTI) has been cut drastically. These are the people who solve issues such as responding to pandemics, and maintaining food and product safety. Gary Goodyear, Minister of State for Science and Technology, has consistently defended the Harper government from accusations of a  war on science by emphasizing the $5.5 billion that the Feds have provided to the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), including another $225 million to the CFI in Economic Action Plan 2013 released on March 21.

The Canada Foundation for Innovation

The CFI – the key decision-maker for all science funding in Canada – has a governing body of 13 members, seven of whom are appointed by the Minister of Industry (Christian Paradis). These members then select the other six members.

This governing body then appoints seven of the 13 CFI Board of Directors, receives reports from the Board, appoints auditors, approves the Annual Report, sets strategic objectives and makes final decisions about what science projects will be funded, including at universities. According to the CFI website, the Members are “similar to a company’s shareholders, but representing the Canadian public.”

But a look at the CFI Members indicates that it is a highly politicized body (including a founding trustee of the Fraser Institute) that is making the decisions about what science to support with its $5.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.

For example, CFI Co-Chair David Fung is so thoroughly embedded in China-Canada business/trade collaboration that he may as well be seen as a de facto vice-president of CNOOC (China National Offshore Oil Corp.).

The other Co-Chair, Roland Hosein, is a vice-president of GE Canada, a company that is thoroughly engaged in promoting “energy export corridors” and water-privatization efforts across Canada, including the Global Energy Network Institute (GENI) and (with Goldman Sachs) the Aqueduct Alliance.

Meanwhile, the Board of Directors of the CFI includes the president/CEO of the Montreal Economic Institute (a perennial advocate of bulk water export), and an executive for Husky Energy (whose Hong Kong billionaire owner Li Ka-Shing is buying up water/utilities around the globe).

Otherwise, both the CFI Members List and the CFI Board are packed with corporate biotechnology representatives.

So Harper’s war on science has some obvious goals, including getting rid of all federally-funded science that would impede water export, as well as any science standing in the way of aquaculture, tar sands and natural gas export.

As Maude Barlow and renowned freshwater scientist David Schindler wrote in The Star Phoenix, “The Harper government is systematically dismantling almost every law, regulation, program or research facility aimed at protecting freshwater in Canada and around the world.” Harper even killed the Global Environmental Monitoring System, an inexpensive project that monitored 3,000 freshwater sites around the world for a UN database.

The “One-for-One” Rule

In 2010, the Harper government created the Red Tape Reduction Commission, a little-known advisory body overseen by Treasury Board’s Tony Clement and packed with private-sector members. They came up with a strategy for “reducing the regulatory burden on businesses to better enable them to make needed investments in productivity and job creation.” Called the “one-for-one” rule, the measure “requires regulators to remove a regulation each time they introduce a new regulation that imposes new administrative burden on business.” The Harper government adopted the “one-for-one” rule in January 2013, with Treasury Board bragging that “Canada will be the first country to give such a rule the weight of legislation.”

Of course, the Harper government has already wiped out most federal environmental regulation with omnibus budget bills C-38 and C-45. And now, with the  war on science, a few beancounters left in federal departments will be tasked with choosing which rule to eliminate if a new regulation is added.

That kind of stupidity is what has made the Harper Conservatives (and Canada) look truly medieval to much of the scientific world.

Now the Harper government is scrambling to look “green” and “scientific” in order to get U.S. approval for its Keystone XL dilbit export pipeline and to bolster various trade issues (including the Fuel Quality Directive) pending with Europe. But having axed so much environmental and climate science, including the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, and having fired hundreds of scientists across the land, the Harper Cabinet looks like nothing less than the New Inquisition dressed in a cowboy hat.

Joyce Nelson is an award-winning freelance writer/researcher and the author of five books.

 

(1) Information Commissioner To Investigate Muzzling of Federal Scientists

At the end of March 2013, Canada’s federal Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault, agreed to launch an investigation into the muzzling of federally-funded scientists at the departments of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Environment Canada (EC), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and other federal agencies.

Sporadic mainstream media reports since 2008 have attempted to highlight the muzzling of Canada’s scientists, who have been prevented from giving interviews with journalists and speaking freely about their taxpayer-funded research. In February 2012 BBC News reported the findings of Canadian journalist Margaret Munro: “The Postmedia News journalist obtained documents relating to interview requests using Canada’s equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act. She said the documents show interview requests move up what she describes as an ‘increasingly thick layer of media managers, media strategists, deputy ministers, then go up to the Privy Council Office, which decides yes or no’.”

The Privy Council Office (PCO) supports and takes its orders from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), but it has a certain degree of power in its own right. The Clerk of the Privy Council is Wayne G. Wouters. The President of the Privy Council is Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure & Communities; Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Quebec). There are four other Harper Cabinet Ministers in the PCO: Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government in the Senate); Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons); Gordon O’Connor (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip); and Tim Uppal (Minister of State for Democratic Reform).

Just how thoroughly Suzanne Legault will investigate this chain of command in terms of the muzzling remains to be seen.

(2) Environmental Science Axed by the Harper government (2012-2013)

Department of Fisheries & Oceans

Programs discontinued:

• Species-at-Risk Program

• Ocean Contaminants & Marine Toxicology Program

• Habitat Management

• Experimental Lakes Area (Northern Ontario) *St. Andrews Biological Station (New Brunswick)

• Centre for Offshore Oil & Gas Energy Research

• Kitsilano Coast Guard Station

Budget slashed:

• Institute of Ocean Sciences (Sidney, B.C.)

• Freshwater Institute – Winnipeg

• Oil Spill Counter-Measures Team

• Canada Coast Guard

• Maurice-Lamontagne Institute (Quebec)

• Marine Science Libraries

Environment Canada

Programs discontinued:

• Environmental Emergency Response Program

• Urban Wastewater Program

• Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (Nunavut)

• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

• Smokestacks Emissions Monitoring Team

• Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission

• National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy

Budget slashed:

• Environmental Protection Operations

• Compliance Promotion Program

• Action Plan on Clean Water

• Sustainable Water Management Division

• Environmental Effects Monitoring Program

• Contaminated Sites Action Plan

• Chemicals Management Plan

• Canadian Centre for Inland Waters (Burlington, Ont.)

Natural Resources Canada (NRC)

Budget slashed:

• Reduced science capacity for oversight and research

National Research Council

Budget slashed:

• Canada Institute for Scientific & Technical Information

Transport Canada

Budget slashed:

• Transportation of Dangerous Goods (pipeline and tankers oversight)

• Transport Canada Aircraft Services

Other

Programs discontinued:

• Arctic Institute of North America’s Kluane Research Station

• The Global Environmental Monitoring System

• Cereal Research Centre (Winnipeg)

• Canadian Environmental Network

• Prairies Regional Office: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

• The Research Tools and Instruments Grant Program

• Grants Programs administered by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)

Budget slashed:

• The Centre for Plant Health (Vancouver Island)

• Canadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health (Winnipeg)

• Horticulture Research & Development Centre (Quebec)

• Plant Pathology Program (Summerland, B.C.

• The Great Lakes Forestry Centre (Toronto)

• The National Water Research Institute (Burlington, Ont.)

• Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration

Share