|
|||||
New Zealand Engineering 1997 July Letters To The Editor Letters to the editor can be sent to: Letters, New Zealand Engineering Freepost 3938 PO Box 12-241, Wellington or emailed to Peter@ipenz.org.nz Letters should be wise, witty and brief. The editor reserves the right to seek replies, edit and not publish letters. Some Positive Feedback Further to the June Auckland Branch Bulletin comments re the logo, I offer support. Points for are: 1. Engineering is a very broad based activity so it is difficult to conceive a picture which will be relevant to all disciplines. 2. Essentially the logo must be some form of abstraction. 3. Engineers are trained to argue logically, the logo effectively elicits an emotional response and we are not good at arguing in this mode. 4. We do need a logo. The current one is a start and we can use it for a period. 5. I suggest that a sub-committee of those who have time be formed to discuss an alternative logo to be proposed about 1999 for the new millennium. I wish them luck! 6. I congratulate the committee on actually producing the logo. At least it is a start and if it generates interest and involvement then it has achieved a great deal. 7. I have used it for some months without much customer feedback, but it does look impressive as part of your signature, and in an age of images, the image is important. Bob Gale, Auckland I like the new logo, particularly the "e" as this reminds me of the Maori koru which I feel is a symbol that identifies New Zealand. For the same reason I like the "NZ" being outside the colour block. This is truely a New Zealand logo for New Zealand engineers. Frances Gale, Auckland Just Good Engineers? It seems that almost every issue of NZE contains either letters or articles bemoaning the lack of status or recognition accorded to engineers. We seem to be obsessed with this issue. A while ago I heard some rather perceptive comments from a journalist on national radio. She said that when engineers get together their most frequent topic of conversation was their lack of recognition and status. She added that they generally went on to blame this on the public or the media. Why are engineers so concerned about status, image, and recognition? Is it really so very disastrous to be identified with motor mechanics, metal workers, or train drivers? These latter all seem to be honourable professions and I don't feel I will be unduly contaminated should I be identified with them in the mind of the public. Why can't we just do our best to be good engineers and leave it at that. Some recent attempts or suggestions for improving the status of engineers seem rather pathetic, at least to the writer. Among them are the proposed use of "ingenieur" or "Engr" in front of our names, and the new logo of the institution. I suspect these are more likely to bring us ridicule than recognition. As a number of your correspondents have pointed out, the new logo is appalling. Not only is it incoherent and childish, but the description of it as "the new IPENZ corporate identity" is absurd. Is our identity really to be found in a logo consisting of a meaningless collection of letters, shapes, and squiggles? Some of us, like myself, might prefer to remain identified with non-professional engineers, rather than with a professional organisation proclaiming such a strange "identity". Laurie Wesley, Auckland Professional Titles Who do we think will sit up and take note of engineers because of a new title? It is the results of engineers' work which will (and does) achieve this. Instead, I suggest we examine and understand why so many corporate members undertake technician/assistant level work. Some engineers appear to be deluding themselves. Alan McKinnon, Christchurch Frustrated NZE , June 1997, was a singularly frustrating issue to one who felt such pride more than forty years ago, when elected as a member of the Institution. Please take note of Arthur Williamson's plea that good engineering, a code of ethics, and a social conscience far transcend the design of a logo - which is likely to be restructured in a couple of years at any rate. Then there's Peter Sligh's complaint that a Greenpeace employee with no formal engineering qualifications was allowed to publish an article so critical of industry and so full of errors. Surely, Sligh's opinion could have been sought, and the corrections made, before the article appeared - or would the less sensational residue not have been worth publishing? But worst of all is the Editor's feature article on carbon taxes and climate change - which draws on opinions of the vested interests of the greenhouse industry. Could this be a reflection of IPENZ's memorandum of empathy with Royal Society - or (Heaven forbid) of an IPENZ desire to get on the greenhouse gravy train? It might have been mentioned, for instance, that the IPCC report released in 1996, has reduced their predicted rate of temperature increase to one-third of the 1992 prediction that scared some countries into signing the climate treaty. Instead of dwelling on the consequences of this imaginary temperature increase, the feature article could have explained that, for the past fifty years, there have been no increases that could be attributed to any greenhouse effect. Hopefully in ignorance, our Editor relies on the recent increase in the Antarctic temperature to prove his point. If that were due to increased levels of greenhouse gases, the effect would have been global. It is not - it is local, natural, well understood by scientists, and offsetting a simultaneous, but opposite, effect in the Arctic Ocean (Nature 361 335 1993) where temperatures have fallen by 1.5oC over the past forty years. There are probably not many brownie points to be had immediately from such a course, but if IPENZ wished to make a contribution to Science and to the New Zealand economy - and to regain their proud professional standing as seekers after the Truth - they would be better investigating how the greenhouse scam started and how it has been sustained for nearly a decade in face of the growing tide of knowledge. Peter A Toynbee, Wellington Climate Change Your article in the June issue entitled "On the Threshold of a New World Economy: Carbon Taxes and Climate Change" is very relevant and topical, and I enjoyed reading it. I disagree with one section, when you refer to the carbon absorption effects of forests, as you follow a commonly held myth that mature forests act as carbon sinks. The only period of a forest's existence when it makes a net contribution to atmospheric carbon reduction is when it is first establishing from nothing. During that period, the forest mass is increasing, and absorbing carbon. Once a forest is mature, the biological decay process of dying matter releases carbon to the atmosphere at the same rate as carbon is absorbed by new growth. Thus, mature native forests have no relevance in balancing carbon emission from other activities. In addition, a large percentage of the carbon from harvested forests is returned to the atmosphere in a period of only about five years. Second and subsequent crop plantation forests make no net contribution to atmospheric carbon reduction. It is my own opinion, though not yet widely held, that society should not be recycling paper. Rather, all waste paper should be buried, as this would return a small quantity of carbon to beneath the earth's surface and would be a small counter to all the carbon materials which we currently dig up or pump out of the ground, and then emit into the air as atmospheric carbon. New paper can then be produced by drawing carbon from the atmosphere via growing trees. Lindsay Mayo , Auckland Congratulations on your excellent article on this subject. There are just three points which I would make to reinforce the call for action which I felt you were making. Firstly, you quoted Murray Ward of the MfE saying that "worldwide
only the British (through energy sector reforms) and the Germans (by
closing East German factories) seem set to achieve their aims [returning
GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000]". But according to
the MfE's 1996 Discussion Document, with respect to this target: ·
four (Germany, Hungary, Poland and the UK) are meeting it in terms of
gross CO
This is a total of seven OECD nations (our trading partners and competitors) which are doing much more than we. Most of these nations have a range of programmes in place to stimulate energy efficiency and renewable energy. For example, in the US under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EP Act), there is a US1.5 c/kWh tax credit in favour of renewable power projects. If this were available in New Zealand (NZ2.5 c/kWh) there would be many wind power projects proceeding and very few gas-fired projects. Under the same EP Act and an ensuing Executive Order 12902 issued in 1994, all US Federal facilities are required to reduce their energy consumption by 20 percent by the year 2000 and by 30 percent by 2005. In the US as in many other countries, energy sector reform is taking place, but environmental outcomes are not being neglected in the process as in New Zealand. Secondly, you quoted Stephen Gale of the NZIER as the only reference for the introduction of a carbon tax in 1997 rather than 1998. In fact, the 1997 deadline has been a government policy since at least July 1994 when Simon Upton (then, as now, Minister for the Environment) said, "Industry has been given a window of three years in which to start to lower carbon dioxide emissions. If they do not, they face a carbon charge at the end of 1997". It is only in the last few months that the government has backtracked on that policy. Thirdly, you quoted Stephen Gale's report to the effect that a $250/tonne carbon charge would be necessary to meet the stabilisation (of emissions) target by 2010. I would point out, as I have done in a submission to the MfE, that forestry sequestration, assuming no returns on investment, would cost about $5,000 per hectare to sequester 250 tonnes of carbon, ie. $20/tonne of carbon. This puts an upper limit on the cost of absorption*, and hence on the real cost of a carbon charge (since it will be cheaper to avoid the carbon charge by absorbing instead). The MfE recognises that a two-sided instrument (giving credits for absorption) will be more cost-effective than a one-sided carbon tax. Why then do Stephen Gale (and MfE in their publications) persist in quoting costs for a one-sided instrument? By maximising the perceived effect on the economy, this then maximises the calls by business-as-usual interests to delay action, which have thus far been more effective than the calls of those who urge action. I believe that the New Zealand Government has so far been procrastinating shamefully and pointlessly on this issue. Their excuses have been that no-one else is doing anything (which is simply not true) and that it would be too expensive (again simply not true). In the meantime engineers like myself, who are striving to establish renewable energy industries, are effectively being told to go whistle. Geoff Henderson, Christchurch * Reference: Granity Forest Ltd Prospectus (1996) - $5,000 gives investor "one hectare prime freehold land, 270 export quality trees ...". Note that this simple calculation method may omit some allowance for the time value of money, but it is essentially "close enough" even if at first glance it appears to mismatch carbon flows, with emissions in one year taking 20 or 25 years of tree growth to absorb. Say, for example, one emits 250 tonnes of carbon per year. By this method one would have to invest $5,000 per year in forestry to absorb it. At the end of 20 years one would own not 1 but 20 hectares with not 270 but 5400 trees at various stages of growth. On the one hand it could be argued that the trees are only half grown on average so we are out by a factor of two on the cost of absorption. On the other hand, $40/tonne of carbon would then be the cost of zero net emission, whereas in the present context we are trying to establish the cost of returning net emissions to 1990 levels. If this requires (say) absorption of 20 percent of gross emissions, this then gives a cost of $8/tonne of carbon emitted (20 percent of $40). A full TCC market-based system would no doubt arrive at a different answer, which could be even lower than $8. However, it seems unlikely to be higher than $20 and almost certainly not higher than $40/tonne of carbon through the absorption route to achieve the 1990 net emission target. Note that these costs are all calculated as unrecovered investments in forestry. This is consistent with the requirement for permanent sequestration. Code of Ethics I have read with interest the letter from Mr Nixon in your May 1997 issue of New Zealand Engineering . I am sure that there has been a misunderstanding or that statements have been taken out of context in the correspondence between the Institution and Mr Nixon. The Code of Ethics clearly places ethical behaviour as an additional requirement imposed on Members of IPENZ above their normal requirement to be a law abiding citizen. If a Member breaches the Code of Ethics he/she may also be breaking the law and equally if he/she breaks the law the Member any also be in breach of the Code. But these are not necessary relationships and an alleged breach of the law and/or of the Code must be decided on the facts as quite separate and independent investigations. Neville Beach, Wellington Risky Future? The article by Howard Bezar on genetic engineering left me feeling not a little frightened for the future. The up-beat style and self assured attitude to the potential risks suggests that genetic engineers have much to learn about the public's attitude to statements issued by `professionals'; particularly when not supported by hard facts. The phrase "Clearly, the level of risk in the technology is low and can be contained, …" is reminiscent of ill considered public assurances issued by the nuclear industry in the 1970s. However, nuclear technology and the associated risks are well understood (if not always well managed); can the same be said of the techniques and risks associated with genetic engineering? Geraint Bermingham, Eastbourne Through the Looking Glasses Stuart Bridgman's "discovery" ( NZE April) supplies the kinetic energy of an object travelling at the speed of light, but this is the easy part. He cannot claim a universal theory until he can tell us the kinetic energy of a stationary object, such as my spectacles when I am sitting perfectly still. "Just a moment," said Alice (who was a little older by now and had taken sixth form physics), "I know the answer. The kinetic energy of your spectacles is zero". "Nonsense!" said the Red Queen (who lectured in mathematics at Oxford in her spare time). "Have you considered I may be sitting in an aeroplane or on a Cook Strait ferry (let us suppose on the normal idyllically calm crossing)?" "Well, why didn't you say so," said Alice, "but then you are actually moving even though you are sitting still." "Then have you considered I may be sitting on the ground (let us suppose in Auckland, where they never have earthquakes) on a planet revolving around a sun which is itself moving at an unknown speed?" Alice thought for a while. She loved riddles. Suddenly she jumped up. "Ah," she said, "but then you are actually sitting still even though you are moving!" "Just so," said the Red Queen. "Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get to somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!" Alice was about to ask how kinetic energy could mean anything in a world where spectacles could be both still and moving at the same time, when she realised the Red Queen had vanished. Thirty years later Alice was approached by a walrus named Einstein. "You iss vondering about der kinetic energy of a stationary objekt?" said he. "Well," said Alice tentatively, "I never quite felt I had it right, but the Red Queen disappeared without explaining." "Ach!" said the walrus, "der Red Qveen did not know der answer, zo she vanished! Der kinetic energy of stationary spectacles iss der mass." "But," said Alice, "the dimensions of energy are different from mass." Einstein began to comb his moustache. "It is all how you look into the spectacles. Vould you say a gram is not a mass because its dimensions are different from a kilogram?" "Of course not," said Alice. "A gram is different from a kilogram only by a constant factor." The walrus nodded. "Zo at rest der mass iss different from der energy only by a constant factor - the speed of light sqvared! This explains why der mass of inertia iss der mass of gravitation." Alice thought this new country was very strange, but wanted to appear interested: "Does this apply right down to the smallest things - the parts of the atom?" But the walrus had vanished. AG Barnett, Hamilton |
|||||
 |
|
|
|
