Silencing Scientists (NY Times Editorial)

This is a New York Times, Sunday Review, Opinion Pages, Editorial/Notebook piece by Verlyn Klinkenborg. It was published on September 21, 2013. 
_________________________________________________________ 

Over the last few years, the government of Canada — led by Stephen Harper — has made it harder and harder for publicly financed scientists to communicate with the public and with other scientists.

It began badly enough in 2008 when scientists working for Environment Canada, the federal agency, were told to refer all queries to departmental communications officers. Now the government is doing all it can to monitor and restrict the flow of scientific information, especially concerning research into climate change, fisheries and anything to do with the Alberta tar sands — source of the diluted bitumen that would flow through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Journalists find themselves unable to reach government scientists; the scientists themselves have organized public protests.

There was trouble of this kind here in the George W. Bush years, when scientists were asked to toe the party line on climate policy and endangered species. But nothing came close to what is being done in Canada.

Science is the gathering of hypotheses and the endless testing of them. It involves checking and double-checking, self-criticism and a willingness to overturn even fundamental assumptions if they prove to be wrong. But none of this can happen without open communication among scientists. This is more than an attack on academic freedom. It is an attempt to guarantee public ignorance.

It is also designed to make sure that nothing gets in the way of the northern resource rush — the feverish effort to mine the earth and the ocean with little regard for environmental consequences. The Harper policy seems designed to make sure that the tar sands project proceeds quietly, with no surprises, no bad news, no alarms from government scientists. To all the other kinds of pollution the tar sands will yield, we must now add another: the degradation of vital streams of research and information.

Source: New York Times

Related Articles
Canadian Conservatives Cut Research Funding but Spend on Fossil Fuel Pipeline
Video - When is Canada's Environment Minister Going to Listen to Experts on Climate Change
Video - Calling on Canadian Environment Minister to Apologize for Denying Climate Change and its Impacts
Canada's Ruling Conservatives Take Another Swipe at Environmental Protections
Canada's Ruling Conservatives are Trying to Silence American Scientists
Canada's Ruling Conservatives Muzzle Scientists
Canadian Conservatives Silence Opposition to the Northern Gateway Oil Pipeline
Canadian Conservatives Admit to Killing Environmental Dissent
Conservative Budget Guts the Environment
Canada is a Dirty Energy Superpower

Read More»

The Importance of Urgently Addressing SLCPs and GHGs

While we need to reduce all greenhouse gases (GHGs), cutting short lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) alone can reduce the rate of global warming in half. Cutting SLCPs could save millions of lives per year and prevent billions of dollars in agricultural losses and reduce Artic warming by two-thirds. As reported in an ENN article, a new World Bank report warns that we must act quickly to cut SLCP. This is the finding of a report titled "Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4C Warmer World Must be Avoided."

“This report should be a wakeup call to the world that we must work harder and faster to combat climate change,” said Durwood Zaelke, President of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development. “Rapid cuts in CO2 emissions are necessary to stabilize long-term temperatures, but in the near-term, aggressively addressing short-lived climate pollutants such as black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone, and HFCs can provide rapid climate, health, and food security benefits, particularly in the critical vulnerable regions that are already suffering some of the worst impacts of climate change.”

Maintaining a global temperature at or below 2°C above preindustrial levels through the end of the century is essential if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Acting now is essential if we are to slow already accelerating extreme weather events. In addition to reducing GHGs like carbon dioxide, we need to urgently engage quick response strategies to reduce SLCPs.

“Reducing emissions of these short-lived climate forcers is critical for protecting the world’s vulnerable peoples and vulnerable ecosystems,” said Zaelke. “When we talk about sustainable development,” Zaelke added, “this is precisely what we mean. These measures reduce climate change, save lives, provide access to clean energy, and improve food security all at once.”

There is an increasing amount of interest being shown in SLCP, however excluding GHGs from the discussion is ill advised. As NASA's Drew Shindell writes:

"We are concerned about the effect of methane and black carbon primarily because they are exacerbating the threats posed by carbon dioxide...If we eliminated emissions of methane and black carbon, but did nothing about carbon dioxide we would have delayed but not significantly reduce long-term threats posed by climate change. In contrast, if we eliminated carbon dioxide emissions but did nothing about methane and black carbon emissions, threats posed by long-term climate change would be markedly reduced."

As Stanford's Ken Caldeira concludes, we cannot choose SLCPs over GHGs

"...there is no scientific basis on which to decide which impacts of climate change are most important, and we can only conclude that both controls are worthwhile."

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Study Quantifies the Costs of Climate Change Advocates Action on SLCP
Clinton Working to Cut Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
US Secretary of State at the Green Partnership for Growth
EPA's Carbon Pollution Standard
The Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Term Climate
New Partners of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition
Six Initiatives from the Climate and Clean Air Coalition
Melting Arctic Ice is Releasing Massive Amounts of Methane
Natural Gas is Not Clean Energy
Primer on CO2 and Other GHGs
Global Warming Exposes Resources
Reduction of Non-CO2 Emissions at COP16

Read More»