Essay by Eric Worrall
Scientists are claiming CSIRO job cuts will impede climate research. But the CSIRO has testified to the Senate there will be no impact on “the scale of research” into Climate Change.
Scientists call for urgent funding as hundreds of CSIRO job cuts loom
In short:
Further details about the up to 350 jobs losses expected at the CSIRO are likely to be announced this week.
A CSIRO scientist fears the cuts will harm Australia’s ability to adapt and respond to climate change, but the science agency says that’s not the case.
What’s next?
A union branch representing CSIRO scientists is calling for urgent funding to stop the job losses.
…
The Environment Research Unit is expected to be hit hardest with 130—150 positions, or up to 21 per cent of its workforce, flagged for cuts.
But the CSIRO has told a Senate inquiry the changes “will not impact the scale of research that the CSIRO undertakes in relation to climate change”.
…
The CSIRO staff association told a Senate inquiry it believed “fundamental research lacking industry partners” was vulnerable to cuts, even if it was essential to the public.
“Examples included research related to air quality and smoke detection, the integration of long-term field modelling with complex vadose modelling, biotechnology and climate modelling research,” it said.
…
Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-10/csiro-call-for-urgent-funding-as-job-cuts-loom/106433192
This follows on from big environmental science cuts in Canada.
Interesting that climate modelling “fundamentally” lacks in industry partners. You would have thought green industry champions like Twiggy Forest would have provided a bit of support.
I had to look up “vadose modelling”, apparently it relates to the speed at which pollutants enter the water table. Water table pollution and salt contamination is a big deal for Aussie farmers, so I’m surprised agricultural associations aren’t providing some support.
There were hints elsewhere in the article that some scientists thought the environmental science department was pushing funding into questionable activities, but that might be the usual academic back stabbing.
I find it fascinating both Australia and Canada are cutting environmental science funding at the same time.
In the Canada article above I hypothesised that Canadian cuts were because of government revenue shortfalls, and that may play a part, but why would both Australia and Canada announce the same cuts in the same short space of time? Why cut real world observations while allegedly maintaining funding for climate modelling? If anyone has more insight into what is happening, please leave a comment.
