READERS' FORUM |
Let's hear from you...
An Advocate of Advocacy I want to weigh-in in favour of the apparent support of
advocacy given by President Ron Tenove, P.Eng. In spite
of the fact I disagreed with the line APEGGA took on the
Kyoto Accord, I was pleased to see some action. As one who
has belonged to APEGGA since the 1960s, and as a recipient
of the APEGGA Community Service Award in 1984, I felt the
Association was finally taking on more public responsibility.
The Dec. 31 Edmonton Journal carried a story on the front
page of its business section regarding Shell's Muskeg River
Oil Sands Project. In the article Neil Camarta, a Shell
senior vice-president, attributes the significant cost overrun
on this project ($5.7 billion versus a budget of $3.8 billion)
as being due to a labour shortage, poor productivity and
bad engineering.
With great disappointment I read in the February PEGG that membership dues have been increased once again. This
time, the increase is largely attributed to additional expenses
to be incurred to cover costs for the Calgary office expansion. Jesus Aburto, P.Eng. Against Kyoto, Humanly Speaking Will Kriski, P.Eng., is very blunt in his pro-Kyoto comments. So will I be in my anti-Kyoto stance. Mr. Kriski says I'm not being objective on the issue because I, as many Alberta engineers, get my "bread and butter" from oil and gas industry. Well, yes, I am not objective. I am a human, not a saint. The well-being of my family is far too important for me to trade it for something as wishy-washy as the reaction to "global warming." There is no - repeat: no - conclusive evidence of any global climate change. Calgary got 40 centimetres of snow last May. What global warming are we talking about? Don't be too carried away with what environmentalists say.
Hype and hysteria are their usual tactics for dragging public
attention to their prophecies and, eventually, to themselves.
They've never been able to suggest anything realistic. We
should go back to the caves? That is not going to happen. Every time some political and unfair decision is forced
upon us, it finds "scientific" and "academic"
support from those who take everything for real, and are
blind enough not to see that this whole campaign is not
about environmental protection at all. Konstantin Ashkinadze, P.Eng. This is the Way Democracy Works
Mr. Kriski's letter could easily be re-written in a different way. How about: "I am appalled that the Prime Minister is ratifying the Kyoto Accord without consulting the public. I, for one, do not agree with his statements and resent being represented in this fashion." It's called democracy, Mr. Kriski. Martin Bélanger, P.Eng.
Re: Megaheadaches? Quality Management Can Ease Your Pain, February PEGG As a quality assurance analyst, I was pleased to see this
article. More companies are starting to realize the need
for quality assurance programs and ISO registration. I look
forward to seeing more quality-related articles in the fields
of engineering, manufacturing, environment and safety. Tom Taheri, E.I.T. United Nations' Selective Editing The arguments to date put forward in The PEGG regarding our role as a society in the Kyoto debate have dealt with both science and the economics. What has been missing thus far has been an examination of the ethics of the United Nations, specific to the initiative. It is in this arena that APEGGA has a responsibility to speak out. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change document, Climate Change 1995, the Science of Climate Change, was edited after it had been peer reviewed and signed by Working Group 1 (the group charged with investigating the scientific basis for climate change). These edits changed the conclusions arrived at by Group 1. Whereas the edited documents published by the IPCC conclude that there is a discernable human influence on global climate, this was not the conclusion of the original Group 1 document, signed by the members of the panel. The following is just one example of the post-submission editing. In this example one sentence has been removed and replaced with another. Judge for yourself whether the intent of the section has been altered. Section 8.4.2.1 New: "Implicit in these global mean results is a weak attribution statement - if the observed global mean changes over the last 20 to 50 years cannot be fully explained by natural climate variability, some (unknown) fraction of the changes must be due to human influences." The primary purpose of APEGGA is to safeguard the public. Editing of the Group 1 document by the IPCC is the equivalent of corporate management editing a signed or sealed engineering report before release. In this later example, an engineer's responsibility to the public requires him or her to ensure that the changes to the document do not expose the public to harm. In the former example of the IPCC editing Group 1 documentation, the same responsibility should exist. Both sides of the Kyoto debate agree that significant societal changes will be required to implement the protocol. However, the necessity of these changes is based on a doctored technical document. It is necessary for APEGGA to speak out against implementation of the Kyoto Protocol until such time as accurate and unimpeachable scientific data is presented. Bruce Deagle, P.Eng.
Three Kyoto I say "approaching" because the membership has not yet made it. There are three fallacies from the November 2002 issue that lead me to believe deductive reasoning needs to be a refresher course in the APEGGA professional development offerings. The first fallacy: Both a letter in Readers' Forum and the Pembina Institute submission assert that since the earth is getting warmer and carbon dioxide is going up at the same time, carbon dioxide is the cause. Notwithstanding the fact that carbon dioxide does have greenhouse properties (as do water vapour, methane and many other gases), the assertion of a causal link is speculation. There is no statistical analysis that yields anything close to a meaningful correlation coefficient in any literature I have read. My waist size appears to be better correlated to Canadian economic growth than global carbon dioxide concentration is to temperature. Even if there was a correlation, correlation does not prove causality. If carbon dioxide is such a key driver, why were the epochs preceding the ice age so much warmer than the current era? If I remember correctly, Fred Flintstone did not drive an internal combustion engine. Statistically, one could expect the Earth to be warming just because its current temperature is lower than the average over geologic time. The case for global, human-driven climate forcings is at best tenuous. The second fallacy: There is only one choice, that of Kyoto or "unrestrained, uncontrolled and unregulated exponential growth" (to quote a letter). Current population projections indicate no growth in European and developed Asian countries, and only linear growth in Canada, the U.S. and Australia - the latter primarily through immigration. Since the only "unrestrained" etc. growth will be in Third World countries beyond Kyoto's scope, how does signing it reduce the stress on the planet? More importantly, the most restrained, controlled and regulated regimes of the 20th century were the ones that coincidentally had the greatest environmental impacts on the planet. I am not invoking causality between over-regulation and environmental disaster. However, the evidence would not suggest central planning and emissions permits are the way to go. The third fallacy: Canada is grossly inefficient. The Pembina Institute gleefully pointed out that "Canada has the second highest per-capita level of GHG emissions in the world - over twice as high as Western Europe or Japan." If only we were so blessed to live in a warmer climate or in a more populated part of the world. The statistics, when corrected for climate and population density, would show Canadians on a per-capita basis are average consumers. Not great, but not bad. On a per-capita basis Canada would also continue to improve. In fact, Canada could probably meet its Kyoto commitment of a six per cent reduction if it were measured on a per capita basis instead of a gross number. It is this last point of population growth that places three countries at a terrible disadvantage in Kyoto. Europe, the UK and Japan all have relatively stable populations, and all will meet their Kyoto obligations through continuously improving per-capita reductions. Canada, the U.S. and Australia all have increasing populations, and all three will be required to reduce their individual standard of living through Kyoto to balance that population growth. This is because Kyoto is based on country targets, not per-capita targets. Thus because Canada readily (and appropriately in my opinion) accepts residents from other - mostly non-Kyoto - countries, the Pembina Institute believes we must commit economic self-mutilation. The statement that the federal government, or anyone in Canada, has any clue how to achieve these goals is false. The numbers don't go around. The U.S. and Australia have already realized the inherent unfairness in Kyoto, and we should before it's too late. That doesn't mean do nothing (see fallacy number two). It means immediately progressing a program to reduce GHG emissions on a per-capita basis. Our target would be to exceed any per-capita reduction in Europe and Japan. If we achieve this, we would be reducing the emissions of our current population as per Kyoto, and would reduce the environmental impact of our continuing immigrant population by an order of magnitude versus the growth in non-Kyoto countries. We would do this while maintaining our economic strength, which would in turn enable our continued environmental and social improvement throughout the twenty-first century.
Opportunity Knocks The engineering profession has a moral responsibility to
society to develop the technologies needed to meet our Kyoto
reduction commitments. I, for one, am looking forward to
the challenge and opportunities awaiting in this endeavour. Paul Dusseault, P.Eng. New Leader Needed Re: Your Books Find a Home in West Africa Universities, The PEGG, September 2002. Many thanks to all those who responded to my article. I
have received offers from many people for their books to
be sent to Africa. However, my situation has changed significantly
in that I will be taking early retirement from Chevron Texaco
after 29 years of service. Accordingly, I will no longer
have that valuable link with the company for shipping books
from Alberta to overseas. Tako Koning, P.Geol.
|
**Please be advised that hyperlinks may no longer be valid or may be directed to new pages in archived PEGG articles.**