Environment watchdog overzealous
Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris
Special to The Windsor Star
Tuesday, October 24, 2006

"The Earth is warming, triggering dramatic changes in climate and weather systems around the world. Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gases' released by human activities are generally to blame. Experts say we need to act quickly and effectively."

Is this a quote from David Suzuki? Greenpeace? The Climate Action Network? No, this is how the Auditor General of Canada 's Environment Commissioner begins her latest report on the federal government's environment programs.

Johanne Gelinas , Canada 's Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development, is, according to the Auditor General Act, assigned to audit "how well the federal government is meeting its environmental and sustainable development commitments." Nowhere in the Act is it specified that the Commissioner is assigned to promote fundamental policy.

Gelinas seems to know this - at least in theory. When her report was released at the end of September she told the media, "Our audits look at the process by which the government carries out its policies, not the policies themselves." But then she directly contradicted this mandate, asserting, "The government has announced that Canada cannot meet its Kyoto targets and considers these targets unrealistic. If that is the case, new targets should be established."

Imagine the outcry if the rest of the auditor general's office started to promote policy. For example, if John Rossetti, assistant auditor general for the Canada Revenue Agency, spoke out in favour of tax hikes or Ron Thompson, the Foreign Affairs auditor, said Canada must cut off diplomatic relations with another country. Their reports would never get out the door.

In defense of her single-minded focus on climate change, Gelinas reminds us that federal climate change programs were audited by the commissioner's office in 1998. That is true - then commissioner Brian Emmett devoted one of the eight chapters of his report to climate change. But he approached the issue in a very different fashion - instead of starting the report with a sensational personal perspective, Emmett reported as an auditor, with little personal opinion on the policies. He even included a separate section in his report entitled "Many areas of uncertainty remain in the science." Consistent with his more modest approach, Emmett explained that he "held a climate change symposium to assist the office in gaining a basic understanding of the issues related to the subject of climate change," interviewing more than 70 stakeholders across Canada , representing a broad range of interests and viewpoints.

We see essentially none of this in Gelinas' report. Did she hold public hearings or arrange testimony from climate experts? Who comprises her "panel of environmental advisers?" Who wrote the science section of her report? Whoever it was mustn't have been very knowledgeable, as they omit water vapour in their list of "the three natural" greenhouse gases even though it is by far the most significant. Emmett knew this and listed it first in his reports.

If Gelinas had investigated the issue properly, she would have discovered that there is intense debate raging in the climate science community and that an enormous gap exists between what is politically correct and what is scientifically correct. She also would have discovered that the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that has been the basis for Canadian government climate policy repeatedly urges against using the report as a basis for policy.

She would have found that the infamous "hockey stick" temperature graph used by IPCC (and still highlighted on Environment Canada's web site) as the major evidence of a human signal in climate change has been shown to be hopelessly flawed.

Gelinas could have provided a valuable service by pointing out that, while previous governments were wasting billions on climate change propaganda and pointless projects to "stop global warming," valuable environmental programs were being deprived of adequate funding. She should have roundly criticized Environment Canada for closing weather stations and generally failing to provide adequate weather services - we have fewer weather stations now than in 1960. Besides the direct public impact, how can we develop good climate computer models if we lack such basic data?

Emmett was by no means a purist from an auditing perspective and made it clear that he felt reducing greenhouse gas emissions was important. However, one gets the impression from his reports that Emmett would have been able to have a rational discussion with scientists on both sides of the debate.

But Gelinas comes across as a zealot. "The federal government must act quickly and with determination. It must stop playing in the margins and get to the heart of the problem," she told reporters.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser needs to explain to Canadians how it is in our best interests to have an activist as our environment commissioner.

- Dr. Tim Ball is chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com ). He is a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg and is a science advisor to the Winnipeg-based Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Tom Harris is an Ottawa-based engineer and executive director of NRSP.

back to NRSP News