Complaints about the "muzzling" of
Canadian government scientists are being driven by "a very small number
of Canadian journalists who believe that they're the centres of their
respective universes," says Environment Minister Peter Kent.
In a wide-ranging interview, the Harper government's point man on all things green defended his department's media policy surrounding its own researchers, which was recently criticized at a February conference in Vancouver during a panel discussion titled "the muzzling of Canada's federal scientists."
"A number of journalists who have wanted to set their own agenda on who they talk to, and when, and on a number of occasions, have tried to drag our scientists into policy discussions rather than sticking with the strict science of their positions," Mr. Kent said.
Canada made international headlines in December when Mr. Kent announced the government's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding international climate treaty in the United Nations. While pundits continue to laud and criticize the decision to scrap the treaty, the government is remaining steadfast in its position.
"We made it clear from 2006 that Kyoto was a mistake, probably the biggest foreign policy mistake that the previous Liberal government made," said Mr. Kent.
The minister says he is now focusing on a 'post-Kyoto period,' one that includes action both at home and abroad.
This year has also brought talk about reforming the review process for energy projects. While environmentalists and other groups fear the government will gut environmental reviews, the government says it is working to make the system more efficient.
Embassy spoke with Mr. Kent on March 19 about these and more issues related to his portfolio. The following interview is edited for style and length:
What do you say about reports that your government is not allowing federal scientists to speak freely about their work?
"There's been an awful lot of exaggeration and hyperbole out there. We're proud of the work that our scientists do, the papers they produce and publish domestically and internationally.
"They have given many hundreds of interviews in the past year alone, they have met before the standing committee on the environment and answered very clearly the questions that were put to them.
"There is an element in all of this controversy, second-hand information and criticism from the scientific community abroad responding to a few, a very small number of Canadian journalists who believe they're the centers of their respective universes and deserve access to our scientists on their timeline and to their deadlines, and it simply doesn't work that way.
"Communications is a big part of the work that we do at Environment Canada and we do make our scientists available at times of mutual convenience for both themselves and the journalists who want to talk to them, but there have been a number of complaints which I think were quite unreasonable in terms of the timelines and the timeframes of very few journalists.
"But a number of journalists who have wanted to set their own agenda on who they talk to and when and on a number of occasions have tried to drag our scientists into policy discussions rather than sticking with the strict science of their positions."
There's been talk about changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and possibly the Fisheries Act. The NDP says you are dismantling environmental protections and regulations. How do you respond to that?
"With respect, it's simply not true. It's sort of laughable in that it exaggerates what we're doing; it misrepresents, but it also exaggerates.
"The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act comes up for periodic review. In recent years, it's become obvious that there are a number of deficiencies, a number of improvements that simply need to be made, and we began addressing these changes before my time as minister back in June 2010, when some legislative changes were made to reduce redundancy, to work closer to the one-project, one-assessment principle.
"In the past couple of years, industry has commented positively on the improvements those legislative changes achieved.
"But that said, there are still others, and this is the year for the full review of the Act. As we go through that review...everyone from the prime minister, some of my colleagues [and] myself have recognized the fact that there are a number of ways that we believe we can still provide rigorous environmental assessments of proposed projects, but at the same time...achieve them in a more timely manner.
"That sort of addresses federal provincial relationships, responsibilities, and jurisdictions, but it also addresses the fact that some of the project proposals have taken far too long to be completed, and the length of time in these cases doesn't reflect robust environmental examination. Basically it looks at any number of reasons that the process was unnecessarily delayed.
"So what we're doing is, we believe we can be vigorous in carrying out environmental assessments and projects, but we can also be much more timely in getting them done and addressing appropriate mitigation recommendations for those projects that are approved."
The opposition has also criticized the review process. There were only nine days of hearings—why is that?
"The standing committee hasn't done a complete review; they reviewed and provided recommendations in some of the areas that they studied.
"With regards to groups that some opposition members have suggested should have been included, we talk with those parties all the time. I'm in regular consultation, [Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver is], and [Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan] is in regular consultation with First Nations, for example.
"We know that there are improvements to be made in the consultation process. We need to do more consultation on parallel tracks rather than doing it in a linear way, because very often when we consult on a linear basis we find areas of disagreement or differences that could have been more easily resolved if we were working on parallel tracks from the very beginning. I meet with NGOs, I meet with industry, we meet with stakeholders.
"The standing committee could have met for two or three years to consider all voices, but they addressed those that are relevant to the recommendations they made. I and the government, my fellow ministers and the folks in the environmental assessment agency are well aware of other improvements that can and should be made to make the process more effective, more efficient and still address environmental considerations."
The Conservative Party has criticized the Kyoto Protocol for years. Why did you choose last December to announce Canada's withdrawal? Why not earlier, like in 2009, before taking on emissions reduction targets under the Copenhagen Accord?
"From 2006 on, we made it clear that Kyoto was not workable, it wasn't fair to comply with the agreements that the previous Liberal government had made without thinking...it would have had a devastating impact on the Canadian economy.
"Our announcement in December was made after the Durban climate change conference; we didn't obstruct, we didn't try to discourage those countries that wanted to take on a second commitment period, we did work with those countries to get the outcome of a task force to create a successor agreement.
"And then we made that announcement in December because it was coming up to the end of the first commitment period and it was in the legal framework of Kyoto to make that announcement and...to withdraw.
"The prime minister's signature is on Copenhagen. We signed Copenhagen because a majority of the world's major emitting countries were signatories to that agreement, unlike Kyoto. We fulfilled our reporting requirements under Kyoto but we made it clear from 2006 that Kyoto was a mistake, probably the biggest foreign policy mistake that the previous Liberal government made."
What is your government's plan now that Kyoto is dead in Canada?
"It was our intention—and we went to Durban and pushed for this as an outcome—the final statement from the [conference] in Durban was an agreement that all governments should work towards the creation of a new climate change plan that would eventually include all major [greenhouse gas] emitters, whether developing or developed countries.
"We're shooting for 2015 for that deadline, with a coming into effect in 2020, which will be the end of the Copenhagen pledge period.
"So in the meantime, we and the US and other countries are working on our 2020 commitments, and we're doing this voluntarily, but at the same time, we're working to create a new eventual binding regime that will include all of the major emitters.
"And the sooner that we do this, the sooner we can look at additional financial aid and support to follow on with the fast-start financing, the $1.2 billion that we're rolling out now to the countries that are most affected by climate change to date."
The government is aiming to reduce pollution from coal-fired electricity plants through new regulations. In terms of Canada's Copenhagen target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, what other actions are you taking to hit that target?
"We started with transportation, which is the largest GHG-emitting sector by far, and we brought in regulations for cars and light trucks, and now heavy trucks, and we're looking ahead.
"We're working with the Americans on regulations post-2017, and the government is also, under the department of transport, working on GHG reductions in the marine transport, rail, and aviation sectors.
"We're about to bring in our final [regulations] for coal-fired electricity probably by June, and we've begun consultations with the oil and gas sector to see how we may develop regulations there.
"[For the coal-fired regulations] we'll publish them in the Canada Gazette I hope by June with a coming into effect date of July 1, 2015. That gives the sector time to prepare and accommodate what the new final regulations will stipulate. And we'll continue around other major emitters to achieve the same thing.
"The good news is that while a year ago I announced...that with regulations to date, we estimated that we were a quarter of the way towards achieving our 2020 targets. The newest numbers, which we're still crunching, and I don't have final numbers...but we're well beyond that quarter of the way mark now and moving quite significantly towards 50 per cent of the way towards hitting our 2020 targets.
"So there's good news in this plan and we continue to move forward. I would expect to have numbers...to share with Parliament probably by May, if not sooner."
The Durban Platform commits the world to negotiating a new climate treaty by 2015—what challenges does the international community face in reaching this goal?
"They're not insignificant challenges. Under Kyoto, the countries which were then listed more than a decade ago, two decades ago, they considered themselves developing countries.
"We need to convince those countries to step up now and to make a commitment to participate, to report their emissions, to allow verifications of their emissions and to actually reduce their emissions, so that's the challenge.
"It's to convince the Chinas, the Brazils. We don't need to convince the United States, they're campaigning with us along with countries like Australia, New Zealand and others. But we need to convince the large emitters, both developed and developing that they've got to step up and play their part so that we can get greenhouse gas emissions down.
"In the meantime, because this is not the fastest process in the world...last month I was in Washington with [US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] and [US Environmental Protection Agency] administrator Lisa Jackson, and with our counterparts from Mexico, Sweden, Bangladesh and Ghana, as well as the United Nations Environment Programme, and we announced an initiative to address what are called short-lived climate forcers or short-lived climate pollutants like methane, black carbon—soot—and fluorocarbons.
"They contribute every year about 30 per cent of annual global warming. So if we could contain them, we could buy ourselves more time for the international agreement through the UN process for the long-lived climate forcers like GHGs. So we're working in a number of areas and at a number of levels and there's a lot of good news to report."
Original Article
Source: embassy mag
Author: Sneh Duggal
In a wide-ranging interview, the Harper government's point man on all things green defended his department's media policy surrounding its own researchers, which was recently criticized at a February conference in Vancouver during a panel discussion titled "the muzzling of Canada's federal scientists."
"A number of journalists who have wanted to set their own agenda on who they talk to, and when, and on a number of occasions, have tried to drag our scientists into policy discussions rather than sticking with the strict science of their positions," Mr. Kent said.
Canada made international headlines in December when Mr. Kent announced the government's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding international climate treaty in the United Nations. While pundits continue to laud and criticize the decision to scrap the treaty, the government is remaining steadfast in its position.
"We made it clear from 2006 that Kyoto was a mistake, probably the biggest foreign policy mistake that the previous Liberal government made," said Mr. Kent.
The minister says he is now focusing on a 'post-Kyoto period,' one that includes action both at home and abroad.
This year has also brought talk about reforming the review process for energy projects. While environmentalists and other groups fear the government will gut environmental reviews, the government says it is working to make the system more efficient.
Embassy spoke with Mr. Kent on March 19 about these and more issues related to his portfolio. The following interview is edited for style and length:
What do you say about reports that your government is not allowing federal scientists to speak freely about their work?
"There's been an awful lot of exaggeration and hyperbole out there. We're proud of the work that our scientists do, the papers they produce and publish domestically and internationally.
"They have given many hundreds of interviews in the past year alone, they have met before the standing committee on the environment and answered very clearly the questions that were put to them.
"There is an element in all of this controversy, second-hand information and criticism from the scientific community abroad responding to a few, a very small number of Canadian journalists who believe they're the centers of their respective universes and deserve access to our scientists on their timeline and to their deadlines, and it simply doesn't work that way.
"Communications is a big part of the work that we do at Environment Canada and we do make our scientists available at times of mutual convenience for both themselves and the journalists who want to talk to them, but there have been a number of complaints which I think were quite unreasonable in terms of the timelines and the timeframes of very few journalists.
"But a number of journalists who have wanted to set their own agenda on who they talk to and when and on a number of occasions have tried to drag our scientists into policy discussions rather than sticking with the strict science of their positions."
There's been talk about changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and possibly the Fisheries Act. The NDP says you are dismantling environmental protections and regulations. How do you respond to that?
"With respect, it's simply not true. It's sort of laughable in that it exaggerates what we're doing; it misrepresents, but it also exaggerates.
"The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act comes up for periodic review. In recent years, it's become obvious that there are a number of deficiencies, a number of improvements that simply need to be made, and we began addressing these changes before my time as minister back in June 2010, when some legislative changes were made to reduce redundancy, to work closer to the one-project, one-assessment principle.
"In the past couple of years, industry has commented positively on the improvements those legislative changes achieved.
"But that said, there are still others, and this is the year for the full review of the Act. As we go through that review...everyone from the prime minister, some of my colleagues [and] myself have recognized the fact that there are a number of ways that we believe we can still provide rigorous environmental assessments of proposed projects, but at the same time...achieve them in a more timely manner.
"That sort of addresses federal provincial relationships, responsibilities, and jurisdictions, but it also addresses the fact that some of the project proposals have taken far too long to be completed, and the length of time in these cases doesn't reflect robust environmental examination. Basically it looks at any number of reasons that the process was unnecessarily delayed.
"So what we're doing is, we believe we can be vigorous in carrying out environmental assessments and projects, but we can also be much more timely in getting them done and addressing appropriate mitigation recommendations for those projects that are approved."
The opposition has also criticized the review process. There were only nine days of hearings—why is that?
"The standing committee hasn't done a complete review; they reviewed and provided recommendations in some of the areas that they studied.
"With regards to groups that some opposition members have suggested should have been included, we talk with those parties all the time. I'm in regular consultation, [Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver is], and [Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan] is in regular consultation with First Nations, for example.
"We know that there are improvements to be made in the consultation process. We need to do more consultation on parallel tracks rather than doing it in a linear way, because very often when we consult on a linear basis we find areas of disagreement or differences that could have been more easily resolved if we were working on parallel tracks from the very beginning. I meet with NGOs, I meet with industry, we meet with stakeholders.
"The standing committee could have met for two or three years to consider all voices, but they addressed those that are relevant to the recommendations they made. I and the government, my fellow ministers and the folks in the environmental assessment agency are well aware of other improvements that can and should be made to make the process more effective, more efficient and still address environmental considerations."
The Conservative Party has criticized the Kyoto Protocol for years. Why did you choose last December to announce Canada's withdrawal? Why not earlier, like in 2009, before taking on emissions reduction targets under the Copenhagen Accord?
"From 2006 on, we made it clear that Kyoto was not workable, it wasn't fair to comply with the agreements that the previous Liberal government had made without thinking...it would have had a devastating impact on the Canadian economy.
"Our announcement in December was made after the Durban climate change conference; we didn't obstruct, we didn't try to discourage those countries that wanted to take on a second commitment period, we did work with those countries to get the outcome of a task force to create a successor agreement.
"And then we made that announcement in December because it was coming up to the end of the first commitment period and it was in the legal framework of Kyoto to make that announcement and...to withdraw.
"The prime minister's signature is on Copenhagen. We signed Copenhagen because a majority of the world's major emitting countries were signatories to that agreement, unlike Kyoto. We fulfilled our reporting requirements under Kyoto but we made it clear from 2006 that Kyoto was a mistake, probably the biggest foreign policy mistake that the previous Liberal government made."
What is your government's plan now that Kyoto is dead in Canada?
"It was our intention—and we went to Durban and pushed for this as an outcome—the final statement from the [conference] in Durban was an agreement that all governments should work towards the creation of a new climate change plan that would eventually include all major [greenhouse gas] emitters, whether developing or developed countries.
"We're shooting for 2015 for that deadline, with a coming into effect in 2020, which will be the end of the Copenhagen pledge period.
"So in the meantime, we and the US and other countries are working on our 2020 commitments, and we're doing this voluntarily, but at the same time, we're working to create a new eventual binding regime that will include all of the major emitters.
"And the sooner that we do this, the sooner we can look at additional financial aid and support to follow on with the fast-start financing, the $1.2 billion that we're rolling out now to the countries that are most affected by climate change to date."
The government is aiming to reduce pollution from coal-fired electricity plants through new regulations. In terms of Canada's Copenhagen target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, what other actions are you taking to hit that target?
"We started with transportation, which is the largest GHG-emitting sector by far, and we brought in regulations for cars and light trucks, and now heavy trucks, and we're looking ahead.
"We're working with the Americans on regulations post-2017, and the government is also, under the department of transport, working on GHG reductions in the marine transport, rail, and aviation sectors.
"We're about to bring in our final [regulations] for coal-fired electricity probably by June, and we've begun consultations with the oil and gas sector to see how we may develop regulations there.
"[For the coal-fired regulations] we'll publish them in the Canada Gazette I hope by June with a coming into effect date of July 1, 2015. That gives the sector time to prepare and accommodate what the new final regulations will stipulate. And we'll continue around other major emitters to achieve the same thing.
"The good news is that while a year ago I announced...that with regulations to date, we estimated that we were a quarter of the way towards achieving our 2020 targets. The newest numbers, which we're still crunching, and I don't have final numbers...but we're well beyond that quarter of the way mark now and moving quite significantly towards 50 per cent of the way towards hitting our 2020 targets.
"So there's good news in this plan and we continue to move forward. I would expect to have numbers...to share with Parliament probably by May, if not sooner."
The Durban Platform commits the world to negotiating a new climate treaty by 2015—what challenges does the international community face in reaching this goal?
"They're not insignificant challenges. Under Kyoto, the countries which were then listed more than a decade ago, two decades ago, they considered themselves developing countries.
"We need to convince those countries to step up now and to make a commitment to participate, to report their emissions, to allow verifications of their emissions and to actually reduce their emissions, so that's the challenge.
"It's to convince the Chinas, the Brazils. We don't need to convince the United States, they're campaigning with us along with countries like Australia, New Zealand and others. But we need to convince the large emitters, both developed and developing that they've got to step up and play their part so that we can get greenhouse gas emissions down.
"In the meantime, because this is not the fastest process in the world...last month I was in Washington with [US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] and [US Environmental Protection Agency] administrator Lisa Jackson, and with our counterparts from Mexico, Sweden, Bangladesh and Ghana, as well as the United Nations Environment Programme, and we announced an initiative to address what are called short-lived climate forcers or short-lived climate pollutants like methane, black carbon—soot—and fluorocarbons.
"They contribute every year about 30 per cent of annual global warming. So if we could contain them, we could buy ourselves more time for the international agreement through the UN process for the long-lived climate forcers like GHGs. So we're working in a number of areas and at a number of levels and there's a lot of good news to report."
Original Article
Source: embassy mag
Author: Sneh Duggal
No comments:
Post a Comment