October 2007 ISSUE
Readers’ Forum
Reducing Emissions is Important —
Regardless of Debate
We welcome Readers’ Forum letters of interest to the professions. Send them to PEGG Managing Editor George Lee, glee@apegga.org. Although we will run longer letters at our discretion, please try to keep them under 300 words. Letters represent the opinions and not necessarily the expertise of writers. The PEGG reserves the right to reject letters. Letters are edited for style, clarity, length, taste and legality.
Re: Real Pollution is an Issue — Carbon Dioxide Isn’t, Readers’ Forum, by Norm Kalmanovitch, P.Geoph., The PEGG, September 2007.
I agree that there are several factors beyond human activity that influence global temperatures and climate change. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does, in a graph depicting positive and negative radioactive forces.
But what is the real message Mr. Kalmanovitch is trying to convey? The debate whether CO2 is a contributor to global warming has been going on for several years and there are two schools of thoughts (including among scientists). It is simply not prudent for us professionals to downplay CO2 or do nothing while this uncertainty continues.
CO2 is one of the substances to be managed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, whether or not it is a pollutant.
Shouldn’t we contribute positively in helping reduce emissions where there are obvious economic and environmental benefits to be derived? CO2 is mostly generated from fossil fuel combustion — a significant amount of it from vehicles. The message we ought to be giving to our audience is let’s do what is within our control and is cost effective, regardless of the CO2 uncertainty.
We can reduce energy consumption in our daily lives and industrial processes.
We can shift towards cogeneration, heat recovery, use of alternative and more
benign fuels, and development of energy efficient technologies that make good
engineering and environmental sense. Engineers and technologists must think to
integrate these concepts at the design stage of processes and equipment.
Looking at the global perspective on air pollution, we all know that every tonne
of CO2 reduced from a combustion process will help reduce other emissions, such
as sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and volatile organic
compounds. This helps improve air quality and reduce health impacts. We must
think globally but act locally, and do the best within our control.
I believe that the APEGGA Environment Committee should not engage itself in dwelling on the debate around uncertainty of CO2 in influencing climate change. Rather, it should promote energy efficiency, technological efficiency, and alternative fuels and energy.
We Albertans can go a long way towards reducing CO2 emissions by replacing just two traditional incandescent light bulbs with energy-efficient ones. Let’s also learn from Brazil, where many cars run on alcohol or an alcohol blend.
Paresh Thanawala, P.Eng.
Calgary
Editor’s Note: To view the graph that Mr. Thanawala references, visit www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-6.htm.
----------------------------------------------------------
A View From Both Sides: Preserve Scopes
I came to engineering through initial training in technology. Since I have seen the issue of professional authority from both sides of the fence, I think I can say, without being accused of bias, that technologists generally do not appreciate the value of those additional two years of university undergone by engineers.
This is because they are entirely un-familiar with the contents. And this lack of understanding surely has something to do with ASET’s bid for increased scopes of practice.
Engineering is defined as work that, using established practical, scientific and ethical principles, aims to better the human condition. The engineer’s exclusive scope of practice encompasses all such work that, if done improperly, could harm human health, material wealth or the environment. Alarmingly, the exclusive right of the engineer to authenticate such work is being attacked.
APEGGA, bolstered by a ballot in which only 16 per cent of eligible members voted, is moving to grant technologists the right to apply for a new Professional Technologist designation. This designation would allow them to independently authenticate engineering work, if based on predetermined codes and standards within their training and experience.
This is a significant divergence from past practice, and it will lessen public safety if it’s permitted to proceed.
Most codes specifically state that qualified engineering judgment must complement their application. But technologists lack the education necessary to mitigate errors and omissions. Subtract one curriculum from the other if you don’t believe me!
Codes cover those works that are most dangerous to human and environmental safety. Why should technologists be permitted to practice independently within such fields?
Certainly, the codes and standards enumerated in paragraph 6 of Alberta’s Pressure Equipment Safety Regulation should be held outside the independent authentication scope of technologists, wherever such action would infringe upon the engineer’s exclusive scope of practice. That’s just as things ought to be — with all codes and standards.
Will Milburn, E.I.T.
Edmonton