MAY 2005 ISSUE
readers' forum
Reasoned Response Necessary
in Global Warming Debate
Re: Will Common Sense Prevail in Global Warming Debate, Konstantin Ashkinadze, P.Eng., Readers’ Forum, The PEGG, March 2005.
The letter more or less ridicules previous correspondents who have tried to draw attention — in a somewhat indifferent or even hostile local environment — to a need for awareness and action on issues of global warming and fossil fuel conservation. These correspondents deserve a more reasoned response.
Let me comment on some of the remarks in Mr. Ashkinadze’s letter.
Opinions of “credible scientists" are of little avail; for each such opinion there are five stating the opposite. Can the writer demonstrate that for every credible scientist who believes in man-induced global warming there are five who do not?
This is an example of minority activists effectively ruling society. Where is the evidence that scientific concerns about global warming and resource exhaustion have so far produced any significant change in society? The TV commercials promoting ever bigger and more consumptive vehicles seem to grow more pervasive and strident by the month.
They are often able to force governments to make decisions against the will of the majority. When did the so-called activists have such success in the environmental field? If the will of the majority is based on ignorance and disinformation and an extremely short-term viewpoint, has government no responsibility to look farther ahead? Have recent governments made no decisions in other fields that favour minority private interests — in other words, activists — against the will of the majority? Power deregulation, for example.
The government will be forced to do something that is contrary to the best interest of the public. Who are the public? The aged, the middle-aged, the young, the children, the unborn, or all of the above? The people who live here now, or also those who will be sucked in by faster resource exploitation? Is it in the best interest of the young that we leave them a province whose irreplaceable petroleum assets have been wasted by profligate consumption?
The public interest in this province needs no interruption in the flow of its oil and gas revenues. There will inevitably be a brutal interruption when it is all gone. Conservation now will postpone that sad day. Only a decade or so from now, revenues from conventional oil wells may well be negligible. How long will the oil sands last if more and more plants are built?
Charles R. Neill, P.Eng.
Edmonton
-----------------------------------------------------
Letter Demonstrates Economic Myopia
Mr. Ashkinadze’s appeal for common sense and economics to rule in the climate debate is really an assertion of his faith in “progress.” His faith revolves around turning a blind eye to the ecological destructiveness of our society.
Mr. Ashkinadze chooses to discredit the science of climate change by asserting that current global warming is the work of a group of minority activists. His claim makes sense only if this group includes the vast majority of atmospheric scientists, most Nobel Prize winners in science, and members of the Royal Society of Canada.
Mr. Ashkinadze’s assertion that using the temperature record to predict climate change is analogous to using the last two years of stock market performance to predict long-term trends is misleading. Although direct measurement of global temperatures is limited to the last 150 years, measurement by proxy methods (e.g. tree rings, coral growth increments, lake sediment etc.) provides a highly detailed record of climate change over the past 1,000 years.
Ice cores provide a record of the Earth’s temperature and atmospheric composition for over 100,000 years. Deep ocean sediments provide a record for several million years. The current warming rate is unprecedented with respect to climate records over the last 10,000 years (i.e. following the last glaciation).
Climate change is merely one of the assaults upon the Earth’s ecological integrity. A recent report by the United Nations indicates that two thirds of the Earth’s ecological regions have been degraded by human activities.
Mr. Ashkinadze’s appeal to common sense and economics would have us bury our head in the economic sand that holds that the world is an externality, merely a source of raw material and a sink for our wastes. This economic myopia fails to recognize that we are of the Earth and we cannot exist without it. The health of the ecosphere is directly related to our health and well-being.
J. Edward Mathison, P.Geol.
Calgary
-----------------------------------------------------
We Can’t Engineer Science
Engineers are not scientists, so for APEGGA to ask our government to hold off on Kyoto, back in October 2002, was, in my opinion, not professional. APEGGA’s stand was political and not characteristic of a body whose purpose is to protect the public interest.
A humble recognition of our organization’s weakness in the field of science would be appreciated — not only by readers but also by the scientists who work tirelessly to observe, investigate and prove the cause-and-effect relationships in our universe.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, science is not engineered. Engineering comes from science, and if science says that man’s contribution to global warming is significant, then engineering had better throw its hat in the ring with those who are working to reduce this impact, rather than engage in politics for reasons unknown.
Richard Eliuk, P.Eng.
Hairy Hill, Alta.
-----------------------------------------------------
Actual Toxic Pollutants Deserve Attention
Re: No Downside to Reducing GHGs, R. F. (Dick) Wilson, P.Geoph., The PEGG, February 2005.
Yes, there is a need to continue the CO2 debate. The Kyoto Accord claims that anthropogenic CO2 is causing unprecedented global warming. Current research forces one to conclude that at best CO2 plays a minor role in the global climate.
At different times in the past, atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher than those currently recorded. Interestingly, recent work using fossil and peat bog material supports the claim that pre-Industrial Revolution levels were not too different from those seen today.
The comment regarding satellite data is incorrect. This data set begins in 1979 and has shown no significant change in tropospheric temperatures.
We must direct our efforts towards controlling toxic pollutants and forget the plant food CO2.
Eric J. Loughead, P.Geol.
Life Member
Calgary
-----------------------------------------------------
Debunking Technospeak In Geology, Geophysics
As a geologist I celebrate geology weekly, everywhere, and I like the idea of a celebration. I usually celebrate geology as part of National Earth Sciences Week in October, as do many geologists and geological organizations around the world (APEGGA should consider getting involved).
What caught my attention recently was the term “geoscience.” I conferred with an astute colleague, and we consider “geoscience” a technospeak version of the proper “geology” (Greek geo for earth and logos for science) or in English “earth science.”
My APEGGA certificate agrees. It says I’m a geologist (professional even), not a geoscientist. My bachelor’s diploma says I graduated in geological sciences, and my master’s says I have a degree in geology. As my smarter friend noted, geoscience is an insidious word: it is poorly defined — a moving target that may include other disciplines and is unclear to lay people.
However, I graduated long ago and far away, so I looked at the University of Alberta website. It has a Faculty of Engineering (all kinds of engineers are manufactured) and one of science. In the Faculty of Science are the Physics Department (geophysicists are created) and an Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department that “offers an interdisciplinary approach to atmospheric science, geography, and geology.”
The University of Calgary also has engineering and science (with departments of geology and geophysics, thank goodness — for I was getting more confused).
Anyway, maybe The PEGG could use the full titles: engineering, geology and geophysics. This takes more space but if space is a problem, let’s all get together __ how about “engeophysics” or something? Perhaps we should hold a contest.
It would be great if I can live out my life as a geologist who looks at rocks, rather than as a geoscientist with an identity crisis.
Dixon Edwards, P.Geol.
Edmonton
-----------------------------------------------------
No Point in Voting
Before the election, I received my annual ballot for the APEGGA Executive Committee and Council. It went into the garbage, immediately. These annual elections are nothing more than the perpetuation of the Edmonton and Calgary old boys’ club. To us professionals outside of those two centres, the Executive and Council are totally irrelevant because they do not represent us.
Until APEGGA revises its voting process so that the Council requires a member from every branch within APEGGA, I will not legitimize this process with my ballot.
Nico Wyngaarden, P.Eng.
Peace River
-----------------------------------------------------
Interests Not Represented
I’ve often wondered why APEGGA’s activities seem to run contrary to the interests of practicing engineers. Reviewing the list of nominees for the 2005 elections provides some of the answers, I think.
Candidates included a dean, an associate dean, a professor, a couple of company presidents, a director and a couple of managers, as well as a few mortals thrown in. Clearly, the Nominating Committee did an outstanding job looking for intelligent, administratively capable people with excellent credentials.
There is, however, one detail missing — the majority of these people seem to earn a living from teaching and managing as opposed to plying their practices, day in and day out.
Deans and professors will look to increase enrolments and encourage young people to enter the professions. Company presidents and managers will be eager to keep costs down and profits up, and have quick access to a large body of professional workers whenever they need them.
What about the overwhelming majority of practicing engineers, geologists and geophysicists — those who routinely put their skills to work earning a living in these professions?
A Council and executive stacked with people bent on increasing the APEGGA headcount is detrimental to the professions. It makes life more difficult for the average practicing member.
It doesn’t take a degree in economics to tell us that a large and endless supply of a resource will impair working conditions and compensation for our professional members, and increase the risk to the public as members are pressured to work harder, faster and cheaper.
Why don’t more “regular professionals” run? One hindrance is that Council meetings are held on weekdays, when practicing engineers have work commitments. On second thought, perhaps that’s a strategy to ensure they don’t run.
Mel Wilde, P.Eng.
Edmonton
Editor’s Note: See the Council Briefs on page 7 of this PEGG for information
on this year’s Nominating Committee. For how the nominating system works,
visit www.apegga.org/About/ACT/bylaws_part1.htm.