Sunday, March 25, 2007

Missing: Two made-in-Canada websites

Today, the top three results on Google for the search term “environment canada climate change” lead to dead ends. The governing Conservative Party had the websites emptied of content last year. Canada’s Environment Minister John Baird, however, says he is about ready to let the country know how the current government plans to help cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Since last year, Environment Canada and the Government of Canada’s climate change home pages have not had any material other than a brief message about an “effective” and “realistic” “made-in-Canada plan for reducing greenhouse gases.”

This Friday, Canada’s “Fourth National Report on Climate Change” (4NR) pledging absolute emissions reductions in 2050 was added to the above message along with “Canada’s Intial Report Under the Kyoto Protocol,” both in PDF format at Environment Canada’s climate change website.

In the past, the two sites were good sources for understanding the issue. The user-friendly HTML content on the websites disappeared sometime last year.

Responding to an email about the uncertain status of one of the websites last October, Sylvain Boutot, a “Meteorological Inquiry Specialist” wrote:

"The Government of Canada is putting in place a made-in-Canada plan for reducing greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and ensuring clean air, water, land and energy for Canadians.
On April 13 of this year (2006), as part of developing the made-in-Canada approach, 15 programs that have completed their work or which required a different approach have been wound down. These programs' web presence was amended accordingly.”

Mr. Boutot included a link to the new Clear Air Act-inspired “Clean Air Online.” There, climate change is bundled with other “air-related issues.” The hyperlink for more information on climate change leads back to the empty page that has been “wound down.”

The information available on climate change at “Clean Air Online” is relatively limited. Damon Matthews, an assistant professor in the Department of Geography, Planning and Environment at Concordia University, reviewed the content on the website. He says the basic information is sound, but he takes exception to the claim on the site that "the effects or benefits of taking action today may not be seen for many to hundreds of years."

Matthews argues, “that strong action taken now could see direct benefit (in terms of reduced negative impacts) within the next few decades. Though it is true that no action will see immediate benefit.”

Clicking on the hyperlinks to other issues that fall under the clean air canopy like acid rain or smog, though, does not lead to sites that refer to a “made in Canada” approach, nor does it confront you with formidable government documents. Any useful information to be found in the 4NR has to be culled from its 318 pages. The other sites address a specific environmental problem, but do not go into detail about how exactly the government is approaching the issue.

It is not as though information on climate change is scarce across the network of the government’s websites. There are plenty of informative sites to which those working within the ministry will quickly refer interested people. It is not clear why the decommissioned website does not refer to these resources.

Last November, the Liberal Party of Canada got access to emails inside Canada's Natural Resources Ministry, the Globe and Mail reported. The internal correspondence revealed that federal employees were asked to remove references to the Kyoto Protocol from web material. (There is still work to be done. According to the department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, “Canada is a strong supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.”)

Workers who had developed the award-winning "One-Tonne Challenge," among other environmental programs, watched those initiatives get cancelled. The climate change website was one of those cut.

The office of the environment minister did not respond to email and telephone requests for comment on their peculiar approach to the climate change website and the ministry's future plans.

The telephone number for Caitlin Horrall, who, according to a government communications officer, was the webmaster for the climate change site leads to an inoperative voice mail box.
----------
There are ample Government of Canada resources on climate change available. Matthews recommends the Meteorological Service of Canada website “Understanding the Science of Climate Change” for a comprehensive overview of the subject.

Other federal sources of information include:

Health Canada: "Climate Change and Health"

Natural Resources Canada: "Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program"

Meteorological Service of Canada: "Science of Climate Change"

14 blustery comments:

JOUR428 Teacher said...

I'm going up north now (downhill skiing, I must confess!) but will get the images when I return.

JOUR428 Teacher said...

Hi Ryan,

Nice piece. Wonder if you could take care of the edits when you have a moment.

Tks

ab

JOUR428 Teacher said...

Me again. Could you also double check your links. Tks, ab

Ryan P Bergen said...

Thank you image angel.

I found the old climate change website at "wayback machine" .

AK said...

Interesting piece, Ryan.

Isn't it ridiculous that something so cheap as a website would get cancelled as part of a program? I mean, how much does it cost for the government, of all people, to run a website? Even if they had a list of what they were working on would be better than nothing. This seems to be at the extreme end of cost cutting.

There are a few things I noticed in your piece concerning the writing.
- your lede ends with "is." I'm not sure what the grammatical rule is for this, but it seemed like an odd way to end a sentence, especially a lede.

- the use of the phrase "when this reporter first noticed the change" Would it be acceptable to just say when a change was first noticed? It sounds like a mix of first person into the reporting.

- this sentence seemed odd: On the policy level he adds, “I also don't think much of the ‘made-in-Canada’ approach to climate change mitigation.”

- the start of this sentence : "It is not as though..." seems a touch redundant. It sounds good without that part.

- just the general use of the word "got" in a few places also didn't sound right. Like here... "Last November, the Liberal Party of Canada got access..."

Anyway, I hope that doesn't sound like I'm tearing apart your piece. I really liked it. What do sites like Greenpeace say concerning this? Surely they, among the other enviro groups must have a beef with the lack of information (and lack of effort...)coming from the government.

Ryan P Bergen said...

AK,

Glad to see that my stuff is getting a close read.

For grammar comments it would be helpful to be referred to specific rules.

I agree with your style points. The 2nd Matthews quote should be thrown away. And there are some useless words.

"Got" is grammatically correct. Is it too colloquial?

jour428 teacher could you shed some light?

SH said...

Good piece, Ryan. All it would take for the techies in Ottawa is to foward the domain for the old site to the new site. Most visitors probably wouldn't even notice that something was amiss. If they can't even do that...well then it shows just how conservative they really are!

This appears to be the last version of the Climate Change web site available on the net.

Ryan P Bergen said...

SH,

That's a good look at the site.

Would you recommend web.archive.org over "the wayback machine?"

"the 2nd Matthews quote" should be "quotation."

A "punchier" lede is in the works.

SH said...

Ryan: I think they're both the same. :-)

Nick Say said...

Ryan,

Great piece - and that's not a throwaway platitude!

I share AK's comment about your use of "this reporter". I find it really jars, especially as this piece largely avoids use of the first-person.

My main point, however, is to be wary about saying "The office of the environment minister did not respond to email and telephone requests for comment" - it implies that they are being evasive. While they might not have yet, it doesn't mean they're not going to. When I worked for a bit as a British civil servant, we had 15 working days (i.e. 3 weeks) after receipt of a request to provide the info. If you sent it by e-mail that doesn't mean the date you sent it, but the date the civil servant responsible for the response 'officially' received it.

Of course, it may be different in Canada, but you might want to check what the government's policy is.

Briefly, what I'm trying to say is: you should double-check whether a response isn't on its way. I find it very bizarre if they declined to comment (did they?) - in the U.K. we had to give a formal response to all requests, even if that response was vague.

Nick

Ryan P Bergen said...

Earlier in the semester I had been working on the story. I spoke to a media relations rep. who said I should send him an email with my questions about the climate change website.

The questions about climate change information were answered by someone else working in the department. I also posed these questions:

Are there plans to update the link or to expand the two paragraphs that cover the climate change issue on "clean air online"?


Why does a site that was ostensibly an educational resource refer to a tangential policy decision?

The response I got last month was:

Hello,

"The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of informing Canadians about climate change. While the Environment Canada website has undergone changes, it continues to be a useful tool in providing timely and accurate information on this issue. One can learn about the science of climate change by visiting the Environment Canada's website at: http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/education/scienceofclimatechange/index_e.html

Please note that on Environment Canada's homepage under the heading "Front and Centre, there is a link to information on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. http://www.ec.gc.ca/envhome.html

I trust this information will be useful."


Do my questions make sense?

Am I being unfair?

When I picked up on the story again later, I sent an email and left a message with a comm. rep. at the office of the Environment Minister.
That was March 21.

Had I not had the earlier communications I wouldn't have been so unequivocal about the failure to comment specifically on policy and the future.

What do you think?

Nick Say said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick Say said...

Ryan,

No, you stand vindicated. As you contacted one of Baird's press officers, they should know you were on deadline. Your statement was therefore entirely valid.

I'd mistakenly assumed you'd contacted Baird's office as a member of the public.

Nick

Nick Say said...

In fact, I feel it's the lead. Whether you're a student journalist or not, someone should have gotten back to you. By now, it's been a week.

In a way, I find it kind of shocking.