52 | PEG JUNE 2013

ACADEMIA

Go DeepLianne Lefsrud, P.Eng., was intrigued by the passion

revealed in a climate change survey of APEGA members.

Is there some course of action that a wide cross-section

of the membership can agree on? The former assistant

director with APEGA believes there is — and the paper she

co-authored with an Austrian academic reveals why

BY CORINNE LUTTERMember & Internal Communications

Coordinator

“I have been disgusted in the past by the blind followership of

the oil industry line on climate change.”

“The earth ‘weather’ has always been changing. Now you

want to blame me and my gas furnace, big house, two cars, etc.

Well get over it.”

“(Mitigation is) overpriced and over my dead body.”

“Science is not a democracy, nor is it a popularity contest.”

These are just a few of the provocative comments made by the

APEGA members who filled out the association’s climate change

survey more than five years ago.

Examining the replies as they came in, Lianne Lefsrud, P.Eng.,

was intrigued. The survey included several questions where com-

ments were optional. Of the 1,077 respondents, almost 66 per cent

had taken extra time to express their personal thoughts on the

issue, often in great detail — as surveys go, a practically unheard

of percentage.

“It’s not really expected, it’s quite unique, to get that kind of

response,” says Ms. Lefsrud, a former assistant director in the

APEGA Professional Practice Department. While working for

APEGA, she helped the association’s environment committee

develop the survey.

“People care very deeply on all sides of this debate. The

amount that they wrote — the quantity and the content of it, the

richness in terms of the emotionality and the metaphor, was

really quite surprising. It took us aback, because engineers

and geoscientists aren’t known for their emotionality or use of

metaphor. We thought, what’s going on here?”

Further analysis was in order. A February 2008 report to

APEGA Council focused on statistical data from the survey. Ms.

Lefsrud, however, wanted to dig into the colourful commentary.

“There was more than meets the eyes here. This is a much

deeper, richer and more nuanced issue than just for or against

climate change,” she says.

A resulting research paper, Science or Science Fiction?

Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change, examines

professionals’ attitudes towards climate change science and

regulatory measures, and their legitimization of themselves as

experts on what the truth is. The journal Organization Studies

published the paper last fall.

Ms. Lefsrud, a PhD candidate in strategic management and

organization at the University of Alberta, is interested in the role of

language and rhetoric in defining and shaping our conceptions of

technology, energy, the environment and regulation. She wrote the

paper with Renate Meyer, a professor of public management and

governance at the Vienna University of Economics and Business in

Austria. They met while Dr. Meyer was a visiting professor at the

U of A.

“We have received worldwide attention for our article,” says

Ms. Lefsrud, who presented her research June 8 at TEDxFortMc-

Murray. “It’s nearing 20,000 (online) views in its first seven months

of publication; particularly astounding since most academic articles

in economics/business are cited six times on average.”

JUNE 2013 PEG | 53

ACADEMIA

TAKE FIVE

It took about 18 months to analyze the data

— including six weeks solid of 12-hour days

coding each open-ended response. Five

positions began to emerge.

“We basically found five framings that

differ according to what each Professional

Engineer or Professional Geoscientist

thinks is the problem, what they think are

the solutions, and what they think is the

role of industry and governments,” says

Ms. Lefsrud.

As described in the paper, those five

categories are

• Kyoto Activists (36 per cent). They

express the strong belief that climate

change is happening, that it is not a

normal cycle of nature, and that humans

are the main cause. They view the Kyoto

Protocol and additional regulation as the

solution. More than others, they highlight

fraternity and the need to act together to

find answers.

• Nature is Overwhelming (24 per cent).

They believe that changes to the climate

are natural, normal cycles of Earth

and that humans are too insignificant

to have an impact on nature. They are

most likely to describe climate science

as being science fiction, and to describe

climate scientists and environmentalists

as hysterical.

• Fatalists (17 per cent). They diagnose

climate change as both natural and

human caused, and are generally

apathetic. Less likely to support

regulation or express emotionality

towards the issue, they are also not

overly concerned about the economy

and don’t think anything can be done to

stop global warming.

• Economic Responsibility (10 per cent).

They also believe climate change

is both natural and human caused;

they underscore that the actual, full

cause of climate change is unknown,

because nature is always changing and

uncontrollable. For them, protecting

the economy is the most important

objective.

• Regulation Activists (five per cent). The

smallest group, they also believe climate

change is both natural and human

caused. While they are skeptical that

the scientific debate is settled, they also

prescribe more action than anyone else.

Although critical of the Kyoto Protocol,

they think there should be far-reaching

regulatory action.

Another eight per cent of respondents

didn’t provide enough information to be

categorized.

Together, the Kyoto and Regulation ac-

tivists make up 41 per cent of respondents

— members who believe regulatory action

should be taken to mitigate the effects of

climate change. Nature is Overwhelming

and Economic Responsibility form an anti-

regulation coalition of 34 per cent.

Ms. Lefsrud also notes that those

who are more defensive are in more

senior organizational roles. They are

much closer to decision making than

activists. More than 60 per cent of top

oil and gas executives fit in the Nature is

Overwhelming or Economic Responsibility

categories, compared with less than 20 per

cent in Kyoto or Regulation.

WHO IS AN EXPERT?

Not only did the researchers want to know

what attitudes professionals have towards

climate change causes, consequences and

lines of action; they also wanted to examine

how professionals construct and safeguard

their identities as climate change experts

in order to justify their own positions. What

they found is that, in some cases, it’s by

delegitimizing and destroying the credibility

of others.

“They see them as enemies — and

these are fellow professionals or other

fellow scientists,” says Ms. Lefsrud. “They

say they don’t have the experience, they

don’t have the education, they can’t see

good science, they’re not drawing from

the right sources or they have conflicts of

interest. Their judgment and science are

being clouded by other interests.”

Despite the discord, she sees signs of

hope. While members may be split on the

cause of climate change, the survey also

found that 99.4 per cent agree that climate

change is a reality.

Rather than focusing on those with

opposing views, Ms. Lefsrud believes

professionals should focus on finding

ways to unite the different factions to

collaboratively manage the real enemy: risk.

Energy groups, for example, are

concerned about risks to their infrastruc-

ture, such as the deterioration of pipelines

as they pass through melting permafrost.

BEYOND THE EMOTION

Within an APEGA survey a common bond can be found, says Lianne Lefsrud, P.Eng. As it turns out, 99.4 per cent of

respondents believe climate change is happening — which means mitigation is an appropriate response for members,

regardless of what they believe the causes are.

-photo courtesy University of Alberta/Richard Siemens

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE ››

54 | PEG JUNE 2013

ACADEMIA

The insurance industry is concerned about being exposed to the

financial risks associated with extreme weather. In the U.S., the

military is concerned about security risks, including population

displacement and conflicts over resources.

Ms. Lefsrud argues that bitter political divisions over the cause

of climate change are distracting decision-makers from the risk that

climate change presents to businesses and the economy.

“Climate change is happening; it will be a great risk to people,

not only in Canada but around the world. What can we do, in

our companies and in our professions, to mitigate the risk? As

Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, protection of the public

is paramount,” she says.

“If there’s a one-degree increase in temperature, what does

that mean in terms of sea water levels? What does a two-, three-

or four-degree increase look like? We need to look at the range of

possible consequences, and what it means in terms of what we

need to do differently.”

Work is already being done, she notes. For example, Pro-

fessional Engineers nationwide are working to revise Canadian

Building Codes. Engineers Canada is leading change here and

abroad.

“Canadian Professional Engineers and Geoscientists are

really taking a leadership role in many facets, but it tends to be

behind the scenes — engineers and geoscientists providing advice

as opposed to standing on the podium,” she says. “We do have the

ability, especially in Alberta, to be influencers of government and

industry policy.”

‘DISTRACTED FROM SOLUTIONS’

Ms. Lefsrud hopes that engineers and geoscientists on both sides

of the debate will put their differences aside and work towards risk

management solutions.

“Everyone asks me whose side I’m on. And I’m on everyone’s

side. I know that sounds kind of facile, but I can see the perspec-

tives of each of these groups. My point is that we all agree that the

climate is changing and that this represents a risk. But because

we’re busy fighting about the causes, we’re kind of missing the

point. We’re distracted from solutions.”

SURFABLE

Science or Science Fiction?

Available free online until the end of July

oss.sagepub.com

Search: Lefsrud