January 2006 ISSUE
READERS' FORUM
renewable energy certificates
add layer of bureaucracy
We welcome Readers’ Forum letters of interest to the professions. Send them to George Lee, glee@apegga.org. Keep them to 300 words or less. Letters represent the opinions and not necessarily the expertise of writers. The PEGG reserves the right to edit or reject any letter.
Re: Renewable Portfolio Standards to Influence Electricity Generation, by Bruce Tanner, P.Eng., The PEGG, November 2005.
I think it is a safe statement that most Albertans are in favour of protecting our environment. Nobody wants to turn Alberta or the world into a landfill or worse, just for temporary economic gain.
When we revolt against harebrained schemes such as Kyoto it is not that we do not believe in climate change. Many disagree with or are not convinced of the cause of climate change. And that disagreement is secondary to our inherent distrust of bureaucracy that creates expensive and convoluted artificial schemes of trading greenhouse emission credits.
All the economic energy wasted on the Kyoto agreement could be so much better spent on more concrete issues, such as the clean-up of polluted seaports or old military off-shore dumping grounds. I’ll bet most Albertans would support that in a heartbeat, even if there was a slightly disproportionate burden to be carried by Albertans.
A scheme similar to the greenhouse emission credit trading system is now advocated for renewable energy. Please, not another piece of contorted bureaucracy in my backyard.
I am all in favour of pursuing renewable energy and the ideals of a hydro-gen economy. I will and already have personally invested in it — even lost a fair chunk of money in it. I am sure many other opponents of credit trading systems are willing to do the same, but we will not be bamboozled by ridiculous credit trading schemes.
If governments and other institutions are truly sincere about building an environmentally sustainable world, why is the Canadian Government so lax in supplying investment subsidies for investors? We can do it for ethical funds.
There are already some investments available such as flow-through shares in
new wind farms, comparable to those offered by the oil industry. Why not create
flow-through shares for helping invest in the manufacturing of hybrid cars in
Ontario? Why not for investing in hydrogen technology?
Or why not directly subsidize those new technologies? Europe does. The U.S. does.
Is it not ironic that many surveys show that our neighbours to the south have
a better environmental track record than diplomatic, progressive, same-sex-married
Canada?
If you want to do something about the environment, invest directly in companies
that are active in these areas. Mr. Tanner, please. No more harebrained credit
systems; work on real investments.
Godfried Wasser, P.Geol.
Calgary
-----------------------------------
Name Change Muddies Waters
Re: One President’s Perspective: Are Technologists Professionals? President’s
Notebook, The PEGG, November 2005.
There is no dispute that technologists fill an important and vital role in the economy. Technologists add to the strength of engineering groups.
My experience is that people outside of the engineering profession have a hard enough time understanding the difference between an engineer and an engineering technologist. These people rely directly or indirectly on the services of the two groups, but they tend not to understand the difference between the two groups or even understand that there are two groups.
Given that the EGGP Act was created to protect the public, calling technologists professionals will muddy the water even more.
It is easy to apply the term “rigorous” to the education received by a technologist when that term is not quantifiable. Applying that term to the education received by an engineering technologist and by an engineer can make it appear that the education was equal, as you mention.
As an individual who attended NAIT (honours) and then the University of Alberta, I am qualified to say that the educations are complementary but not equal. Using that argument as justification is not valid.
Brian James Krest, P.Eng.
Edmonton
-----------------------------------
Support Offered
Here here! Well done!
Let’s get on with it and unify the whole aspect of engineering, geology
and geophysics.
You have my complete support.
P.E. Smith, P.Eng., ALS
Calgary
-----------------------------------
Stick to APEGGA Mandate
I contend that the problem is APEGGA's own doing when it created the Registered
Professional Technologist category without much member discussion. Under the
APEGGA umbrella, some technologists are already classified as “professional.”
ASET has only carried this notion further when it applied for the name change. It would be hard to argue against the name change, considering that ASET members are already recognized under APEGGA. You may argue that R.P.T.s are not full members, but it is difficult for the general public to realize that, especially if it is a category endorsed by APEGGA.
I would suggest that APEGGA reconsider bringing technologists under the organization or that APEGGA change its name to better reflect the new membership. To APEGGTA, perhaps?
It seems clear that ASET wants to be the lead organization for regulating technologists. APEGGA should likewise stick to its mandate in regulating engineers, geologists and geophysics, and leave the regulating of technologists to ASET.
At the very least, to avoid the previous debacle when APEGGA proposed to introduce other professions such as chemists and scientists, this matter should be debated and polled to the general membership before moving too far ahead.
S. Unwala, P.Eng.
Edmonton
-----------------------------------
What They’re Missing About Climate Change
Re: Control Controllables, Eric Loughead, P.Geol., and Hockey Stick Curve
Breaks Under Pressure, Allan MacRae, P.Eng., Readers’ Forum, The PEGG,
November 2005.
Mr. Loughead cannot reconcile how a 30 per cent increase in CO2, which makes up three per cent of the atmosphere, can lead to the observed warming. This observation does not account for the greater heating capacity of CO2 than water (CO2 is attributed a full 10-25 per cent of the natural greenhouse effect).
Similarly, Mr. Loughead neglects the contribution of other greenhouse gases, namely methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs and ground-level ozone. Mr. Loughead also does not consider the positive feedback of water vapour. A doubling of CO2 will lead to a one degree C rise in global temperature but, combined with the feedback from water vapour, maybe as much as from 1.5-4.5 degrees.
Mr. MacRae disputes the so-called hockey stick graph. Although there maybe some quibbles about the fine details of the graph, it is difficult to conceive how melting of the Arctic ice cap and retreat of glaciers worldwide can be achieved without atmospheric warming. Similarly, warming of the ocean (based on over 60 million measurements) mimics the hockey stick trend.
A sea level rise in the order of 10-20 centimetres has occurred due to thermal expansion of the oceans combined with additional water from melting glaciers.
Change in rainfall patterns due to global warming is occurring in North America.
Rainfall has increased in mid- to northern latitudes, while the Prairies are
drying out. Saskatoon recorded the driest summer ever last year.
In the southern Rockies, more precipitation is falling as rain in the fall and
spring, while winter snowfall has declined. The drilling season in northern Alberta
has shortened by two weeks since the 1950s.
These are but a few examples of the effects of global warming.
Perhaps the reason that people refuse to accept the fact of global warming is that it threatens some of our most cherished notions — that the world is ours to do with as we please and progress is economic growth.
Both of these belie an appalling lack of understanding of our ecological embeddedness. The Earth can survive without us yet we cannot survive without the Earth.
J. Edward Mathison, P.Geol.
Calgary
-----------------------------------
Inclusivity Leadership Lauded
Re: Council Changes Inclusivity Direction, e-PEGG Extra, Oct. 6, 2005.
This was a well-written, brief and concise update on an important issue. Also, I applaud the actions reported as being the right thing to do.
This is welcome example of the leadership that APEGGA is capable of providing.
Paul C. Givens, P.Eng.
Edmonton
-----------------------------------
Research Participants Needed by Master’s Student
I'm a member of APEGGA working on a master's thesis in the Division of Applied
Psychology at the University of Calgary. I am looking for participants for a
research study that I'm conducting for my degree.
My research project investigates the experiences of repatriates, specifically
in regards to their values. The criteria for participation is
1. You worked in the oil and gas industry in Canada before you took on an international
position (outside of Canada).
2. You worked in the oil and gas industry in an international position (outside
of Canada) for one or more years (continuously).
3. You returned to work in the oil and gas industry in Canada from your international
position.
4. You have been back in Canada for at least six months and not more than five
years.
Interested parties may contact me at kkma@ucalgary.ca or 403-276-5454 (ext. 1).
Kelly Ma, P.Eng.
Calgary