may 2009 issue
|
Readers’ Forum
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 — longer letters published at the editor’s discretion. Letters represent the opinions and not necessarily the expertise of writers. The PEGG reserves the right to edit or reject any letter.
‘Canuckleheads’ Gear Up for Mongolia
 |
HAPPY TRAILS |
What are you doing this summer? I’ll be trekking across Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Asia — a third of the way around the world, 10,000 miles over paved roads, bad roads and no roads in a vehicle that shouldn’t leave the driveway.
You can follow Team Canuckleheads, which is made up of me, a professional member of APEGGA, and my son, Alex Wrightson, who starts engineering classes at the University of Calgary in the fall. We were lucky enough to grab a spot in the 2009 version of the rally.
We figured that we must be knuckleheads to enter this thing — so choosing our team name was easy.
The rally’s roots go back to 2001 when two Englishmen bought a dilapidated Fiat 126 in the Czech Republic and attempted to drive it to Mongolia. They didn’t make it, but the Mongol Rally was born.
In 2004, the first rally took place with six teams leaving England and bound for Mongolia. Surprisingly, four teams succeeded. The only rules — the car must have an engine of one litre or less and it must be totally inadequate for the mission!
Today, the rally has grown to 500 teams, with simultaneous launches from London, Milan and Madrid.
Rules have been modified somewhat over the years, but the intent is that the rally be a risky adventure in a vehicle that shouldn’t be able to complete the journey. Once leaving the launch site, each team is completely on its own. There’s no set route, no support whatsoever. You use your wits to manage breakdowns, shakedowns and problems.
Vehicles can have an engine size up to 1.3 litres and each team must raise $2,000 for the Mongol Rally Charities.
Online entry opened in August 2008. In less than two minutes, all spaces were snapped up, but we were lucky enough to grab one.
Our trusty steed will be 2000 Daihatsu Hijet van. Purchased on Ebay for $1,400, the van awaits us in England. It has 1,295 cubic centimetres of displacement and 64 horsepower chomping at the bit to carry us across the Kazak desert and the steppes of Mongolia.
The van and all of our supplies will be donated to charity and auctioned in Mongolia.
Official charities of the rally are the Mongolia-based Children and Young People’s Protection and Development, Mercy Corps Mongolia and Christina Noble Children’s Foundation. These agencies support nomadic people, and homeless and orphaned children at risk of abuse or exploitation. More information on these charities can be found at www.mongolrally.com.
The Canuckleheads have been endorsed as an official fundraiser for the Canadian Cancer Society’s Reach for a Cure. A silent auction/dinner/dance supporting the society will be held at the Chestermere Recreation Centre on May 30. All proceeds of the event will be donated to charity.
Charitable donations may be made on behalf of the Canuckleheads at the team web page on the Mongol Rally website, through the CCS webpage dedicated to the Canuckleheads or by visiting www.thecanuckleheads.com. Our goal is to raise $50,000 for charity, so please pitch in and give us a hand.
We’re still searching for items and services for the auction and welcome any contributions.
This just in. I’ve received an outstanding auction item of a flight in a vintage aircraft over the coast range of the Yukon. Come to the auction and bid on this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fly over majestic scenery in a rare vintage biplane.
The CF-BKQ is a Beech Staggerwing, owned and piloted by John Faulkner from Whitehorse. The Staggerwing was the first aircraft produced by the Beech Aircraft Corporation. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, Walter Beech decided that what the world needed was a fast, and very expensive, executive transport.
The result was the Beech Model 17, a sleek art deco biplane that could top 200 m.p.h. in a time when military fighters couldn’t go that fast. It came to be called the Staggerwing because of the unusual placement of its two wings — with the top wing set behind the bottom wing.
Tickets to the silent auction can be purchased by visiting our website or calling me at 403-554-5706.
Corporate sponsorship and advertising space is available on our vehicle and website. Several corporate sponsors have stepped up to help us and we appreciate the support of Western Weather Protector Ltd., WestJet, Dahlson Industries Ltd., Silvertip Trucking Ltd., HEF Petrophysical Consulting Inc., Big Chief Meat Snacks and the Roadhouse.
Bruce Wrightson, P.Geol.
Calgary
Shad Valley Makes a Difference
Re: Getting the Best from the Brightest,
The PEGG, April 2009.
As an honorary director of Shad Valley, I was pleased to see this article in the April issue talking about the valuable contribution the organization is making to Alberta and the country. With close to three decades’ experience in guiding Canada’s youth to leadership roles as science, technology and engineering entrepreneurs and innovators, Shad has the knowledge and the infrastructure to positively impact innovation capacity and the economy in the future.
I strongly support Shad’s mission to guide our top youth to education and careers in engineering, science and technology, as they will be the ones to fuel our ability to reinvent our economy through innovation, guaranteeing future competitiveness in an ever-shifting global marketplace.
Since 1981, Shad Valley has inspired thousands of Canadian youth to fulfill their potential as Canadian innovators, entrepreneurs and leaders. More corporate engagement will ensure that Shad continues to positively impact Canada’s competitiveness in a knowledge-based global economy.
Our future depends on our youth. Support for Shad equals support for our collective futures, and Shad Valley provides a valuable service to the country. I encourage the engineering community to learn more about this important organization, and to get involved.
Gwyn Morgan, P.Eng.
Calgary
Editor’s Note: You can read the referenced article in The PEGG Online, April 2009, at www.apegga.org. Also, visit the Shad Valley website, www.shad.ca, for even more information.
Member
Advocates
‘Micro-Giving’
It’s not necessary to do extra-ordinary things to have an impact in the world. We don’t have to be extraordinary people to bring about change. Ordinary people change the world by doing ordinary things.
Collectively, we can make a difference within our circle of influence.
This is what’s behind micro-giving groups. Their vision is to provide financial assistance to those in need and to promote self-reliant, independent human beings in our society.
The cornerstone of this idea is to help people and make the world a better place. It’s to help the not-so-fortunate in our society. It doesn’t necessitate the formation of a society or an association. It’s not affiliated to any existing organization. It’s a simple and flexible idea.
Ten to 20 people get together and form an informal group. Members choose the charities to support. Since the size of each group is small, we call each one a micro-giving group. As it’s an informal group, it doesn’t need to be registered.
We have, at present, seven groups functioning at NAIT and six groups outside of NAIT. There is no umbrella organization. Each micro-giving group is an independent entity and functions autonomously.
So, what is the financial commitment? It is minimal — just $5 per week, per each individual in the group, working out to $50 or $100 per week. Since the donations from each individual are small, we call them micro-donations.
However, each group can decide on the amount to be contributed by each individual. If the group chooses, the amount can be $10 per month. This is a very flexible concept that could meet the giving capacity of any group of individuals.
Time commitment is also kept to a minimum. The group meets once a year and decides on the number of and which charities to be supported for the year. Different charities can be chosen by the members for subsequent years.
One person in the group volunteers to collect the money and sends the donation to the charities designated by the group. It’s suggested that the number of times to collect the donations be equal to the number of charities being supported by the group. This keeps the logistics of collecting the donation simple. For example, if the group decides to support four charities in a year, donations can be collected at the end of each quarter.
The money collected is sent immediately to the designated charity. The letter of acknowledgement from the charity is sent as an attachment to each member of the group. This keeps the accountability prompt and simple. The money donated goes directly to the designated charities and there’s no overhead.
The group can support charities in Canada or internationally. The choice of charities to be supported is made by the members of the group. Individual tax receipts can be requested when supporting charities registered in Canada.
Individually, you are probably already supporting a few charities either on your own or through the church or some other organization. This is of course commendable.
Micro-giving is just another way. The idea is to bring together a small group of like-minded people and support charities. As a group we can have a greater impact, thanks to the power in the numbers.
The financial commitment is minimal; the time commitment is minimal. Yet our collective donations will have a greater effect than our individual donations.
We invite anyone interested in this grassroots giving initiative to get in touch with me. We want to encourage you to form micro-giving groups at your workplace or among family and friends. Remember, each micro-giving group is an independent entity and functions autonomously. We’re willing to discuss in detail this concept.
Yes, we can make a difference in the world.
N. Pas Paskaran, P.Eng.
Edmonton
Editor’s Note: For more information, contact Mr. Paskaran at
npaskaran@hotmail.com.
Colonial Attitudes
Persist on
Alberta Projects
Re: A History of Violence, by Robert Laboucane, The PEGG, October 2008.
This is a belated accolade I want to shower upon APEGGA for printing the article and especially upon the writer. A great historical piece right for our time. I say this because of my own recent experience on a major Alberta project.
I worked as a general super-intendent of construction for what I thought was an Alberta company on the move. On the move maybe for now, but far from being Albertan.
What is happening in our True North Strong and Free is that projects are being built on Alberta soil but they are international by nature and design with a twist. The bulk of the workforce on these projects is not made up of Albertans. The work force comes from as far west as Indonesia, as far east as Newfoundland and South Africa, as far south as Texas.
Even in these global hard economic times, preference is given to a person from B.C., for example, over a person from Cold Lake, Alta. This is a twist to what in every way is an international job because from my experience even international projects employ a large number of locals. In fact they often go out of their way to train locals for their projects.
I have pondered the above twist over a 17-month assignment on this particular project, which will remain nameless. And I have come up with only one reason for it.
The design (engineering) company has a colonial attitude, at times a master-slave mentality. Albertans care about the land and industry here, and refuse to help in their destruction, so they’re often sent back to their reserves. Thus their absence from the site.
So Mr. Laboucane’s reference to the Indian Act and “put them in reserves” still rings very clearly to this day.
I’m confident that a measure of intelligent design will prevail in the end. And people will soon be learning new approaches to life and problem-solving that are distinct to our culture here in Alberta. As Mr. Laboucane put it, “We have more in common than we think — the very survival of our planet, for example.”
And with that commonality comes wholesome cooperation — the hallmark of success.
Richard Eliuk, P.Eng.
Hairy Hill, Alta.
Let Us Make it
More Professional
Re: Readers’ Forum submissions from
Josh Kjenner, E.I.T., Jeff Shewchuk, P.Eng., and David J. Parker, P.Eng., The PEGG, April 2009.
A big thank you to the referenced letter writers for putting things in perspective with regards to the climate debate. There have been far too many biased comments over the past year on this subject.
In my humble opinion a professional engineer should keep his or her comments within the sphere of the individual’s field of expertise.
An engineer is not a scientist and it is almost laughable to see the “clear-cut” theories being vented by some of the members of our profession in The PEGG.
My suggestion would be to limit our input to what we have reasonable knowledge of. For example, how to design a stormwater system that would accommodate the more frequent severe rainstorms caused by climate change, or how to ensure the structural integrity of a building during increased snow loads or severe windstorms.
Also, we should put more emphasis on exchange of views on alternative energy for the future. After all, we don’t all work for the oil industry!
Henning Rasmussen, P.Eng.
Gibsons, B.C.
Don’t Count
On Government
To Save Resources
It has been very interesting over the past few months to read the various opinions expressed by members in The PEGG regarding global warming and climate change. These numerous opinions in our own Association show just how strongly people feel on both sides of this issue.
Unfortunately, however, this debate has been hijacked for political purposes and distracts from the real issue — individual responsibility for the environment.
I totally believe in conservation and avoiding wasteful and self-indulgent behaviours that consume unnecessary resources or damage the environment. But I have a real problem with the whole climate change issue. The focus on global warming and climate change is doing us a great disservice, in that most of the public doesn’t view it as a personal issue but rather government’s responsibility to solve.
Why? Because it is too big. After all, it’s global and we are just individuals. It has to be government’s job.
What a clever ruse. Don’t talk about conservation — something everyone can do. Let’s couch the problem in terms that make it sound so massive — global even — that people will feel helpless to make a difference. Then lobby groups can call for grand national or even international initiatives and programs with massive budgets, and threaten politicians to get on board or risk losing at the polls.
I’ve long felt that many of the most vocal environmental groups for the most part are
cowards. Seems like a harsh thing to say, but when was the last time you heard some high-profile environmental organization chastise the public for self-gratifying and wasteful behaviour? Environmental groups know that if you want funding, you don’t risk antagonizing or embarrassing the public. You go after the government or the politicians.
Unfortunately, the focus on climate change is taking us in the same direction. I believe it is largely a political con designed to funnel massive dollars into programs that do little to change public behaviour.
Our society is over-consuming on every front. We have multi-vehicle households. We are building ever larger and larger homes filled with appliances of every description, with a TV in every room (all with the associated accessories).
The list goes on. We’re increasingly consuming more and more resources and energy.
Take the SUV fad alone. These gas guzzlers are found everywhere but not because we need them for transportation. We own them primarily because they have become a status symbol. And when that fails to impress you, get a Hummer.
Governments don’t have to mandate better fuel economies for vehicles — they already exist. We just have to buy the right vehicles.
The real solution is changing personal behaviour and taking individual responsibility, not
demanding costly and often ineffective government initiatives.
Collectively we can make a huge difference if we make it an individual responsibility to cut back our consumption of resources and energy. Not because hydrocarbons emit carbon dioxide but because conservation is the responsible (and simple) thing to do. Not because of global warming but because waste of natural resources is irrational.
Of course the government can help educate the public and fund research, but real change and responsibility must come from us, as consumers. So let’s drop the climate change rhetoric and change our behaviour.
Russ Kupin, P.Eng.
Calgary
|