Environment

Ottawa absent at major climate change conference

  Professional engineers from across the country get together to plan for climate change  

By Dan Crawford

For the first time in Canada’s history, hundreds of engineers, scientists, and policy-makers converged in Ottawa to discuss the issue of climate change. The conference, hosted by the Engineering Institute of Canada (EIC), along with eight national engineering societies, began May 9th at the University of Ottawa, followed by three days of panel discussions and presentations at the Ottawa Congress Center. Notable experts from across the country and from around the world outlined the problems presented by climate change and solutions to address them.

But there was one notable absence: Rona Ambrose, the Federal Minister of Environment, failed to appear. Ambrose had been invited months prior to give the opening welcome address. The organizing committee had received confirmation from the previous Environment Minister and the committee extended the invitation to the new Minister, sending an official letter in February, 2006. The chair of the conference organizing committee, John Grefford, said that “Several e-mails and many phone calls to various members of her political support staff and Environment Canada staff unfortunately provided no official responses. The last promise I received was that we would obtain an official answer after the budget. I still await that letter.”

Many in attendance could not comprehend why the Minister would forgo such an opportunity to address Canada’s engineering community. But by the end of the conference, it became clear that the government’s strategy for addressing climate change is to be non-committal while employing avoidance and dismissal tactics at every opportunity, a strategy strikingly similar to the Bush Administration’s program of budget cuts and censorship.

In my talks with engineers working in various governmental departments, this dire situation was further confirmed. Most funding for government programs dealing with energy efficiency, conservation, or climate change have been put on hold, indefinitely. Some programs have been canceled outright, such as EnerGuide. Morale, especially at Environment Canada, is extremely low, due to concerns about cuts and layoffs. To accomplish anything under such conditions has been very challenging for these public servants. Progress on addressing climate change in Canada is, apparently, being stifled by the government.

During the tutorial session, a senior science advisor from Environment Canada, Jacinthe Lacroix, gave an informative overview of the scientific background to climate change. She said that the climate change forecasts Environment Canada releases are limited to only a doubling of current CO2 atmospheric levels. She said that when the models are run using three or four times C02 levels, the results produced are too catastrophic for public release.

This theme of trends and models revealing catastrophic conclusions surfaced a number of times throughout the conference. They were often softened with the presenter administering a dose of optimism while reciting the half-full glass analogy and reminding the audience that there is still time to change the outcomes. One is left seriously wondering though if the glass is only half-full due to the melting ice cubes.

The next tutorial, given by Paul Sears, provided a broad overview of the peak oil issue. Sears made it clear why our assumptions regarding primary energy growth should be questioned before doing any future planning. He also noted the role of coal as an energy source and the abundance of coal reserves in North America.

The next three days took place at the Ottawa Congress Center where the loose formation of two camps emerged. One focused on the growing of energy supplies while addressing climate change, the other on questioning assumptions regarding the state of the world’s energy resources, and planning accordingly.

The first camp made up the majority of attendees. The smaller, second camp had notable individuals such as former Governor General the Right Honourable Edward Schreyer, Preben Maegaard, President of the World Wind Energy Association, and Professor Martin Hoffert from New York University.

Hearing both camps throughout the conference made for some confusion. Overall, there was a broad consensus supporting the science behind both global warming and climate change, as well as the need to address them. But there was no clear consensus on how to accomplish this, especially if energy resources are constrained.

Each industry offered their own solutions from coal, to nuclear, to oil and gas, to renewables, but few posed the ethical questions: Why do we need all of this energy? and how can we live in an equitable way on this planet? These questions need answers too if we are to make any real progress at addressing climate change.

Most of the energy industries presented their solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions without giving any consideration to how their solutions would fare under climate change, especially regarding extreme weather events. Which leads one to ask, how can we take them seriously, if they themselves do not take the threat of climate change seriously?

The nuclear industry went so far as to employ scare tactics for selling its solution, then presented polling statistics showing broad public support for nuclear power. This was done, of course, without any mention of the millions they have spent on marketing campaigns to influence public opinion. The ethical issues raised by this calls for an open debate in the engineering community over what is and isn’t acceptable public behavior.

The EIC overall did an excellent job of organizing a very impressive conference. Many issues, technologies, and research findings were discussed. The conference itself was a great opportunity for engineers from across the country to network. The most important event during the four days was the vote held on the closing day. The vote was on a call to action addressed to the engineering community as a whole. It passed with only three opposed. If this call to action is adopted by the engineering societies, then the conference will go down as being a truly historic event for both Canada and the engineering discipline.

The Call to Action reads as follows: “We, the participants at the Climate Change Technology Conference, CCC2006, commit ourselves and call upon all engineers, engineering organizations, and international engineering bodies, to acknowledge the challenges posed by climate change and to adopt actions, precautionary or otherwise, to give practical expression and impetus to the development of solutions to these challenges. We recognize that this declaration may help guide our profession in its partnerships with other stakeholders for the purpose of ensuring the sustainability of our environment.”

Amen to that.