February 2006 ISSUE
READERS' FORUM
Consulting Company Weighs in on ASET Issue
Editor’s Note: The following letter was addressed to the Hon. Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta, and is reprinted here with the permission of the authors.
It has been brought to our attention that the Alberta Association of Engineering Technologists has recently changed its name to the Association of Science and Engineering Technology Professionals of Alberta. We also understand that ASET is once again lobbying government to support legislation which would give ASET the right to license technologists to practice independently under its own act.
As professional engineers and members of APEGGA, we hold public safety paramount
and feel obligated to take issue with any legislation that may jeopardize that
safety. It is our opinion that granting ASET self-regulation would in fact do
just this, and even the name change may give members of the public the impression
that technologists are professional engineers when in fact they are not.
We believe that this should be corrected.
The difference between the practice of “technology” versus that of “engineering” is a very fine line, one which even an experienced engineer will have difficulty identifying, much less a technologist or, particularly, a member of the general public. There is much more to being a competent engineer than possessing limited scope technical knowledge or even many years of experience.
Engineering practice is not simply a trade that requires technical training, but rather a skill and a mindset created through years of academic study of broad theory, specific technical training and related experience. The two years of technical school training required for technologists are simply not equivalent to the minimum four years of university study required to become a professional engineer.
A professional engineer must know both the “why” and the “how” of engineering application, not just the “how.” Frequently there are limitations associated with “how,” which are only known to those who have studied the theory of “why.”
For this reason we agree with APEGGA’s position that all engineering and technology must be regulated under one act, which currently exists as the Engineering Geology and Geophysical Professions Act. This act is already in place so there is no need to create new legislation.
Under the current legislation, technologists who wish to practice independently may pursue that privilege by meeting the requirements set forth by APEGGA. These requirements ensure that a minimum standard of qualification is maintained and that public safety is upheld.
Allowing technologists to practice independently and regulate themselves will not serve anyone other than technologists and will only confuse the public about who is qualified to do what. This will ultimately endanger public safety by allowing individuals who are not qualified to judge what does and does not constitute sound engineering practice to make that judgment, most likely on the basis of minimum fees. The way to relieve a labour shortage in Alberta is not to lower the standards of practice.
It takes several years of intensive academic study, followed by several more of practical work experience, to become a competent and proficient professional engineer. If technologists or other individuals wish to practice engineering then we as engineers would invite them to follow the process regulated by APEGGA and governed by the current EGGP Act.
This process is designed to create competent professional engineers with the appropriate professional judgment, and this in turn serves to protect the public from engineering decisions being made by unqualified individuals. It is a process that has been working for many years, and it is a process that has proven itself effective.
The use of technology in engineering is already governed under the current EGGP Act and this is where it should remain, under review of those qualified to regulate it.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this very important matter.
Yours Truly,
Kelly Grubb, P.Eng., M.Eng., MBA
Terry Bearden, P.Eng., M.A.Sc.
Steve Chow, P.Eng. B.Sc.
Dr. Michael Liu, P.Eng.
of Bearden Engineering Consultants Ltd.
--------------------------------------------------
ASET’s Approach Disappointing
I am disappointed with
ASET’s approach and rationale.
My disappointment results from ASET’s failure to demonstrate an understanding of what “professional” truly means. Although ASET touts its members as professionals, at no time in the ASET president’s comments was the concept of ensuring the safety and well-being of the public mentioned, referenced or even inferred.
Constantly mentioning the concept of public safety and well-being can get old fast and can negatively influence the perception of its importance. However, any change in regulating engineering practice should always be tested against the concept.
ASET appears to want change only to benefit its members’ ability to “reach their full potential,” and doesn’t appear to consider whether the changes will impact the public, positively or negatively. And to me, that is self-serving and completely against the concept of professionalism.
Rob Hough, P.Eng.
Edmonton
------------------------------------------
Spreading the Accord
Re: Inclusivity Leadership Lauded, Paul C. Givens, P.Eng.,
Readers’ Forum,
The PEGG, January 2006.
A major impediment to the routine registration of foreign-trained engineering practitioners appears to be whether their home country educational institutions and regulatory bodies have developed accreditation systems similar to the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board and, in the U.S., the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology.
The Washington Accord is an agreement among nine nations providing for mutual recognition of engineering education. The signatory countries are the U.S., the U.K., Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, South Africa, France and Canada.
The U.S. model is interesting in that graduate engineers are not barred from practicing engineering if they are not registered with state licensing boards. They can still claim to be an engineer by virtue of their education in an accredited institution but cannot claim to be a P.E. — a professional engineer certified by a state board.
These same small-e engineers design and build the processes and products used in Alberta to apparently the same level of safety and utility as if they had been made here, by our professional engineers. Alberta’s recent Safety Codes Act seems to be less restrictive about requiring the services of professional engineers for certain activities, ostensibly reflecting the practice of foreign jurisdictions and intent of design safety codes.
Perhaps there are a couple of short solutions.
Foreign jurisdictions could be required to sign onto the Washington Accord, thereby securing a mutual gain for all Canadian engineers because of the reciprocal nature of the accord.
The emigration of foreign trained practitioners is a brain drain for the losing country and is an unfair burden — in effect, a subsidy by foreign governments to Canada.
Rather than poaching professional talent and trade skills from countries that can ill afford the loss — a situation outlined in a UN Commission report in March 2005 — Canada needs to make both higher education and trades training more enticing for our high school students, who suffer from an unacceptable dropout rate and a general crises of interest in science and math.
John Aumuller, P.Eng.
Edmonton
-------------------------------------
Climate Change Correction
Re: What They’re Missing About Climate Change, J. Edward Mathison, P.Geol., Readers’ Forum, The PEGG, January 2006.
The concentration of C02 in the air is not three per cent, it is less than 0.03 per cent, or one hundredth of the level stated by Mr. Mathison.
Water vapour makes up about 97 per cent of the greenhouse effect, compared to about three per cent for C02, so C02 does not account for 10-25 per cent, as stated by Mr. Mathison.
Although widely and incorrectly assumed by climate computer models, no evidence exists to support a positive feedback of greater C02 levels increasing the greenhouse effect of water vapour, but there is evidence that some form of negative feedback exists.
Mr. Mathison’s comments about Mann’s hockey stick graph, melting ice caps and glaciers are also misleading. While the Western Arctic is warming, the Eastern Arctic and the Antarctic are cooling and ice volumes in both are increasing.
Even if the northwestern part of North America is warming, where is the evidence
that this is due to increased C02? The alleged warming trend is not characteristic
of increased C02 levels and is not even consistent with the pattern forecast
by climate computer models, which are highly overrated.
Furthermore, lower troposphere temperatures, as measured by satellites since
1979, show no significant long-term warming trend.
Where Mr. Mathison is not misstating the facts, he is relying on rhetoric and emotionalism, neither of which is helpful in this debate.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a co-author of the 2001 UN International Panel on Climate Change and U.S. National Academy of Sciences reports, elegantly wrote in the Wall Street Journal on June 11, 2001:
“We are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future...
“...The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations’ Kyoto representatives) rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence...
“...Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions.”
Allan M.R. MacRae, P.Eng.
Calgary
-----------------------------------------
Not a Matter of Quibbles
Water vapour is an order of magnitude more effective than C02 as a greenhouse gas. This fact is rarely mentioned in the media or in many technical papers.
Mr. Mathison’s criticism of Eric Loughead, P.Eng., for not considering positive feedback of water vapour is misplaced. Mr. Loughead was quite correct in not mentioning it, as the question of positive or negative feedback of water vapour and its effect on climate change remains another major uncertainty, as noted by Dr. Lindzen of MIT.
In criticizing Mr. MacRae’s reference to the hockey stick, Mr. Mathison admits that “there may be some quibbles about the fine details of the graph.” However, this is no quibble.
The hockey stick is front and centre in arguments presented by the IPCC, by NGOs and by individuals in their portrayal of a human cause for observed climate change. However, scientists have found that the math used to construct the hockey-stick graph is flawed, thus producing unreliable information on past and current climate.
I know of no scientist that disputes the episodic global increase in temperatures since about 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age. But we need answers to questions of what caused that change. For example, why did global temperatures decline from about 1940 to 1975, during a period when C02 levels were noticeably increasing?
And to close, Mr. Mathison’s mention of a dry summer in Saskatoon and other local climate change is meaningless in terms of global climate change.
D.L. Barss, P.Geol.
Calgary