Essential information on Arctic climate change, ozone depletion and pollution reaching the Arctic from B.C.’s recent forest fires will be lost unless the federal government comes through with funding to save Canada’s unique high Arctic research station.

After years of funding cuts to scientific and climate change programs under the Conservatives, the Liberal government’s emphasis on making science-based decisions in response to climate change was a welcome relief to researchers, but some are now shocked that crucial projects are about to be lost because the 2017 budget did not renew the five-year Climate Change and Atmospheric Research (CCAR) funding which expires this year.

Unless the Trudeau government comes up with approximately $7-million a year, six projects, including the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) on Ellesmere Island, will close down next year. A seventh — Canadian Sea Ice and Snow Evolution Network — will shut down the following year.

The projects, in addition to providing vital information about climate and atmosphere, serve as training grounds for up-and-coming researchers at Canadian universities.

If funding is not renewed it will mean gaps in data that has been painstakingly collected over the last 12 years and will also mean an exodus of young scientists, predicted James Drummond, PEARL principal investigator.

“I can’t imagine how many researchers will be looking for positions in other countries. This would dislocate research programs and mean we can’t progress with the knowledge we have been working on. The time sequence of measurements will be lost,” Drummond said.

In addition to PEARL, other threatened projects are the Network on Climate and Aerosols, Canadian Arctic GEOTRACES Program, Ventilation, Interactions and Transports Across the Labrador Sea (VITALS), Canadian Network for Regional Climate and Weather Processes and the Changing Cold Regions Network.

PEARL has operated in Nunavut, about 1,100 kilometres from the North Pole, since 2005 and research has focused on ozone gaps and pollution and, most importantly, climate in the high Arctic, where changes are taking place at a much faster rate than in the south.

Lab team members out for a hike near the PEARL research centre in Nunavut. Photo: Dan Weaver via CREATE ArcticScience

“We are one of very few stations in the high Arctic. We are right at the top of Canada. Some maps cut off before they get to us,” Drummond said.

“We are also one of the very few stations operating 365 days a year… I think the government needs to get a grip on this and realize how important it is,” he said.

Without funding, mothballing plans will get underway early next year and the operation is already being affected as it is not known whether new equipment should be purchased and shipped up to the station, Drummond said.

It is not the first time PEARL has faced such a crisis. Mothballing plans were underway in 2012 when the Harper government cut the previous program, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Services. However, at the last minute, after an outcry by scientists and the public, the CCAR program was announced.

Stable funding is needed in order to do good research, said Drummond, adding that he is an optimist and believes that the Trudeau government will come through with the cash once the importance of the programs is understood.

The budget set aside $73.5-million over five years to set up a Canadian centre for climate services, but that funding does not appear to support networks funded by CCAR.

In an emailed statement, in answer to questions from DeSmog Canada, Minister of Science Kirsty Duncan said the Liberal government is doing more to combat climate change than any other government in history.

“While the CCAR program has reached the end of its funding cycle, officials are working with researchers to find other avenues of support, including through the approximately $50-million in climate change research that the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council funds annually,” she wrote.

“As a researcher who led an expedition to the Arctic, I know we need a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to Arctic research — one that includes indigenous voices and the role of traditional knowledge. I am working to deliver on this ambitious vision,” Duncan said.

But time is running out, according to Duncan and she is pleased that PEARL is now getting a boost from the group Evidence for Democracy, which has launched a petition asking Duncan to reinstate stable funding.

Key Arctic Research Station Set to Close As Liberal Governments Cuts Funding https://t.co/p11hO6jVJ9 #PEARL @E4Dca @CREATEArcticSci #cdnsci

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 20, 2017

“With the impacts of our changing climate already being felt in Canada and around the world, investing in climate science is a necessary part of ensuring that our decisions and actions around climate change mitigation and adaptation are based on up-to-date science and evidence,” says the preamble to the petition.

Katie Gibbs, Evidence for Democracy executive director, said the group was surprised at the funding cuts.

“(The projects) seem to fit very well with the government’s stated priorities acting on climate change according to science. That’s exactly what this research does,” she said.

The funding appears to have fallen through the cracks and government initially seemed to be taken by surprise. However, months after it was brought to their attention, no solution has been presented, so it is necessary to let Canadians know what is being lost, Gibbs said.

The petition was launched Friday and already has over 1,500 signatures, including many scientists, she said.

“I have been in touch with a number of the principal investigators of the networks that are going to have their funding cut and they are very alarmed… We are losing a whole funding stream dedicated to climate research and it doesn’t seem there is any other funding to replace that,” she said.

In the grand scheme of federal government finances, $7-million annually is a relatively small amount to spend on unique and important research, Gibbs said.

“Over 300 students have been trained at these research networks over the past five years of this grant, so it’s not only paying for the current professors, it is also necessary for training the next generation of climate scientists,” she said.

Image: Researchers at PEARL. Photo: Dan Weaver via CREATE ArcticScience

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Today is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s first day in office and when it comes to science, his new cabinet appointees look like a step in the right direction.

On top of naming Catherine McKenna the first ever Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Trudeau also appointed a Minister of Science, Kirsty Duncan, as well as a Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Navdeep Bains.

Duncan has a doctoral degree in geography, previously taught meterology, climatology and climate change at the University of Windsor and was a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

These appointments combined with Trudeau’s point blank response to questions about his 50 per cent female cabinet mandate (“Because it’s 2015”), his inclusion of indigenous leaders and his collaborative approach to the upcoming Paris climate talks have inspired a lot of hope in the new Prime Minister.

But with an abundance of commitments about science, electoral reform and transparency some Canadian scientists are left wondering if Trudeau will be able to live up to the promises.

Minister Duncan, we've done some of the intelligence gathering for you and here's what Canadian scientists say they hope to see from the new government.

Return to Evidence-Based Decision-Making

“I’m tremendously excited about this change in government,” Wendy Palen, associate professor of ecology at Simon Fraser University, told DeSmog Canada.

Palen, who also sits on the board of the science-advocacy group Evidence for Democracy, said the Liberal government has made big promises to undo the damage done by the Conservatives.

“Many Canadians think Harper’s policy regarding science has really looted what it means to be Canadian — both at home and how we’re seen by the international community,” Palen said.

“I think the Liberals have their job cut out for them but I think they’ll make progress restoring evidence-based decision-making in a way that hasn’t been there for a while.”

Create a New Culture of Science Among Public Servants

Katie Gibbs, executive director of Evidence for Democracy, agrees there is a lot of work to be done but that many of the Liberal’s platform promises “will go a long way to restoring and rebuilding science in Canada.”

“A lot of the promises they made are certainly feasible — reinstating the long-form census, un-muzzling government scientists, creating a Parliamentary Science Officer — these are all doable. They just require the political will to make them happen,” Gibbs said.

But some policies will be easier to change than the mindset of scientists working within federal departments, she added.

“Changing the communication policy is fairly easy and could be done quickly, but changing the culture among government scientists could take much longer,” Gibbs said.

Prioritize Science and Evidence, Quickly

Gibbs added that a major challenge for the Liberal government will be prioritization. With so many important election promises on the table, competing interest groups, lobbyists and civil society organizations from across the country are jockeying for first dibs. 

“[It] can't all be done immediately, so what is this government going to prioritize?” Gibbs said. “Which is also why it's really important to recognize that the work isn't over, it's really just beginning.”

Set Measurable Environmental Targets the Public Can Evaluate

Isabelle Côté, professor of marine ecology at Simon Fraser University, describes herself as “very cautiously optimistic” about the Liberal government’s campaign promises.

“I don’t think it can be as bad as we’ve had it for the past 10 years,” Cote said, adding, “but that’s the problem: expectations are so high because we’ve been battered so hard and essentially decimated for so many years.”

Côté said Trudeau’s reluctance to set specific greenhouse gas emissions targets is troubling.

“I find that worrisome because obviously if we don’t have targets, we can’t evaluate how well we’re doing. Without targets we can say we’re doing better but we don’t know. And that worries me a bit.”

Côté added Trudeau’s inconsistent position on pipelines as well as the fact that “one of his campaign managers seemed to be buddy-buddy with the oil industry” is also cause for concern.

Trudeau’s commitment to meet the Convention on Biological Diversity’s goals for ocean protection is unlikely to happen, according to Côté.

“[Trudeau] wants to meet our CBD commitment of 10 per cent of our oceans protected by 2020 but right now we’re at less than one per cent,” Cote said.

“The reality is that given the legislation we have now and the amount of consultation that has to happen for permanently protected marine areas — we don’t have the time.”

Cote noted that one protected area off the B.C. coast took a decade of consultation to put in place.

Getting Canada back on track to do more than just marine protection is going to take a tremendous amount of work, Côté said.

“We feel like the page has been turned but we need many, many pages to be turned just to get back to where we were 10 years ago.”

A good place to start would be with the implementation of a Parliamentary Science Officer, she added. “I think that’s something he could do tomorrow. He could say, ‘the search begins.’ ”

But Côté remains realistic: “The reality is it’s going to take a heck of a long time to reassemble the expertise that’s been lost by all the cuts. It’s not like these people are just waiting in the wings to jump back into the positions they had. Those people are gone.”

Bring Science Funding Back

One of those lost federal scientists is Peter Ross, former federal scientist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Ross, a marine contaminants expert now working with the Vancouver Aquarium, said Canada “has serious work to do” when it comes to restoring science.

“I’d be remiss if I didn’t say I was optimistic,” Ross said.

“Even though these last few years have been hard, I’ve always remained optimistic.”

Ross said after major budget cuts and a restrictive communications environment, he would like to see the mandate of science expanded in Canada.

“If we look at the history of science in Canada we spend half of what the OECD spends on science — we always have,” he said. “If we’re going to excel in terms of the knowledge economy, in terms of the global village, we have to invest in science.”

Trudeau has promised to return $40 million in funding to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, a federal body that saw a research exodus after major funding cuts under the Harper government in 2012.

Stick to Liberal Party’s Scientific Integrity Motion

Jeremy Kerr, professor of biology at the University of Ottawa, said he is “definitely optimistic” science will fare better under this new leadership.

“It’s like coming out of a cave,” Kerr said. “The last 10 years have been an almost unrelenting series of efforts to suppress scientific information, shut down programs, supplement normal communications with clearly organized propaganda efforts.”

“It has been an incredibly dark time.”

Kerr, who worked with the Liberal party and new Minister of Science Kirsty Duncan in May to craft a parliamentary motion to restore scientific integrity, said he has “every expectation” the Liberal government will follow through with many of the good ideas — including unmuzzling scientists and creating a Parliamentary Science Officer — in that document.

Kerr said some members of the scientific community are unnecessarily pessimistic about implementing changes.

“A lot of the scientific integrity changes that we have called for and many others have called for are not going to require an act of Parliament to achieve,” Kerr said. “What they are going to require, with careful thinking, is a few days writing a policy and communicating it to the public service.”

Kerr said people think restoring science in Canada will be “some monumental Everest challenge.”

“But I just don’t think it is,” Kerr said, adding that though these things can be done easily they must be treated as urgent.

“Some of that stuff has got to be done quickly. If it doesn’t get done quickly the opportunity for using electoral momentum will pass and they will be slowed down by the inevitable inertia of being in power.”

Kerr said the Liberal government should work to restore broken relationships with the public sector through the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. Morale among scientists is at “subterranean” levels at this point, he said.

Kerr also said the government needs to repair the holes in environmental protection, such as the loss of protection for practically all freshwater bodies in Canada, and enforce the Species at Risk Act.

“The federal science issue in Canada right now is basically a field of debris,” he said. “I think that’s over now, but we don’t know — the proof is going to be in the pudding.”

Image: Twitter

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.