ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
Scientists investigating the effects of global warming on the Arctic have a dirty little secret: They're big polluters themselves.
Flying to remote Arctic locations, hop-scotching over the tundra by fuel-guzzling helicopters and smashing through polar seas in ice-breakers all produce large amounts of the carbon-dioxide emissions blamed for climate change.
Few scientists have publicly raised the apparent contradictions between conducting research into the effect of climate change on the Arctic and what their own activities contribute to the problem.
But University of Calgary caribou researcher Ryan Brook has done just that, outlining his outsized emission tallies in the journal Arctic. By his calculations, he has been producing about 8,300 kilograms of carbon dioxide a year - or about the weight of three Hummers - over the past decade. He suspects the amount "is about average, if not on the low side" compared to other scientists in the North.
His tally came from such sources as helicopters and airplanes for travel in the North, along with attending an average of four conferences in North America each year to discuss his findings with colleagues.
For scientists, there is a huge lure in going to the Arctic. It is considered the region of the world on the front line of climate change, where computer models project the highest amount of warming. In recent years, scientists have made path-breaking discoveries on the disappearance of sea ice, the status of polar bears and the extent of permafrost melting.
Dr. Brook, a postdoctoral fellow at the university's faculty of veterinary medicine, said he thinks scientists conducting Arctic research have an image problem because their work has large carbon footprints, and they aren't doing much to bring them down. Meanwhile, their research is being used by environmentalists to advocate that everyone make deep cuts in emissions of planet-warming gases.
Dr. Brook said he started doing the calculations after "realizing through my own activities I produce a tremendous amount of carbon."
One of his recent trips to a remote camp on the Hudson Bay coast had a research team of 20. Over a week, the fuel for the helicopter ride and other uses clocked in at 3,500 kg of carbon dioxide emissions. Part of the problem is that helicopters are big fuel users, getting only about a third of the mileage of the worst fuel-hogging cars.
Scientists have to "recognize that yes, the research is important, but yes, it also has an impact," he said. "If we're saying that everyone in the globe has to reduce how much carbon you should produce, then we have to do the same as well."
The air travel industry has tried to deal with its image as a big greenhouse-gas polluter by setting up ways for passengers to buy credits to offset emissions through such projects as tree planting that remove carbon dioxide from the air.
But scientific researchers generally haven't been able to get money added to their budgets for such expenditures.
The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the largest federal body providing research funds, doesn't approve offsets under a government-wide policy from the Treasury Board.
"It's just not considered from a federal funding point of view to be a prudent investment of taxpayers' funds at this point," said Natasha Gauthier, a spokesperson for the council. She said the council has had "a few" such requests, but had to reject them.
John Smol, a professor in the biology department at Queen's University in Kingston, made a worrisome Arctic discovery two years ago. Shallow ponds that had existed for thousands of years on Ellesmere Island had suddenly dried up, indicating a dramatic change in the climate. This summer he's going back to the area by Twin Otter plane and helicopter.
He said he thinks alerting the public to what is happening in the Arctic means the emissions are worth the cost, and will help create pressure for policies that ultimately lead to reductions in greenhouse gases.
Dr. Brook agrees that Arctic research is making important discoveries, but says scientists need to devote some of their talents to developing ways of having "the minimum impact possible."
