Adding Trump’s name in somewhere is the way it’s supposed to be done, right?
Budget cuts at Environment and Climate Change Canada threaten Arctic science
The Arctic has been in the news a lot lately. Between the increased geopolitical interest in Greenland, claims over sovereignty, resource exploitation and the devastating impacts of climate change, the region has become a sentinel for global change.
But away from these headlines, a quieter crisis is unfolding that threatens Canada’s role in global environmental science, law and policy: the dismantling of research teams at the department responsible for Canada’s environmental policies and programs. The federal government’s plan to reduce the public service by 15 per cent over three years means that more than 800 positions at Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) will be cut.
As an environmental scientist who has been involved in the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) since 2016 and an interdisciplinary legal scholar focused on water governance in Canada, we have seen how science can shape policy. For decades, ECCC research scientists have been integral to the work of AMAP, a working group that provides advice and assessments to the Arctic Council.
This intergovernmental group comprised of Indigenous Peoples, Arctic states and non-Arctic states with observer status is the major platform for protecting the environment and co-ordinating sustainable development initiatives in the Arctic.
Sounds like a lot of cult BS trying to force everyone to be a part of the cult
Across Canada, the cuts undermine effective chemical management. Canada’s chemical management plan depends heavily on the expert assessment of government scientists. This expert-based risk assessment has enabled the discovery and monitoring of new chemical risks with comparatively few bureaucratic hurdles. However, it also means that the proposed cuts are particularly devastating to this program.
If we remove the scientists the regulatory system depends on, the system breaks. This means that these proposed cuts could not only cost jobs and reduce scientific excellence in Canada, but also leave the health of Canadians and our environment less protected.
Can they not hire people in the private sector to do the job, rather than government employees looking for a bigger budget?
