Research context: an instrumental case

The petroleum industry in Alberta is an instrumental case (Stake, 1995; per Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006) to examine the debate of climate change expertise given the economic centrality of the oil industry, the oil sands as a controversial energy source, and the dominance of professionals that gives them a privileged position as influencers of government and industry policy. Frames are always socio-historical constructions and, thus, time and location play an important role.

The petroleum industry is the largest single private sector investor in Canada (~CAD 35 billion in 2009) (CAPP, 2009) and it is projected that the petroleum industry will contribute CAD 1.7 trillion to Canada’s GDP and create over 456,000 jobs over the next 25 years (Canadian Energy Research Institute, 2009). There are 540 multinational integrated, midsized, and junior oil and gas companies in Canada (nearly all headquartered in Calgary, Alberta) with operations worldwide. Further, Canada’s oil reserves are considered to be a strategic resource (see Figure 1) with most reserves in Alberta and the oil sands. Given the relative political stability of Canada as a source of oil to the US, the Alberta oil sands are undergoing a CAD 250 billion expansion (AII, 2008).

View larger version:

• In this page
• In a new window

• Download to PowerPoint Slide

Figure 1.

World Oil Reserves by Country

Yet, the petroleum industry is particularly divisive and controversial. The oil industry in Alberta (especially the oil sands) is the largest source of greenhouse gases (GHG), in a country with rapidly growing (not decreasing) emissions. Overall, oil and gas production, transmission, and refining contribute 24% of Canada’s emissions. Defendants note, however, when compared to other GHG sources in North America, emissions from the oil sands are equivalent to the emissions from coal-fired power in South Carolina, USA. As a country, Canada’s GHG emissions have increased 26.6% from 1990 to 2004, rather than decreased by 6% as required by the Kyoto Protocol. In 2006, when Stephen Harper was elected as the first Prime Minister of Canada from Calgary, his Conservative minority government removed the Government of Canada’s climate change website. And, to reverse the criticism of a previous government’s choice to sign the Kyoto Protocol, in December 2011 Canada formally withdrew from the international treaty to avoid the estimated CAD 14 billion in penalties (CBC, 2011).

With more than 15% higher GHG emissions than conventional oil, the oil sands have been categorized as particularly ‘dirty’ oil (Nikiforuk, 2008) and have become the ‘whipping boy of European and American green groups fighting the “Great Climate War”’ (Sweeney, 2010, p. 160). Al Gore builds on this by stating that the ‘oil sands threaten our survival as a species’ and ‘Junkies find veins in the toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent’ (Sweeney, 2010, p. 168). While petroleum companies have claimed that they are adopting environmental initiatives (CAPP, 2007), critics question the veracity of those claims (Dyer, Moorhouse, Laufenberg & Powell, 2008; Nikiforuk, 2006). Yet, in 2008, Alberta became the first jurisdiction in North America to promulgate an offset system for GHG emissions. Further, provincial regulations require that companies must have their annual GHG emissions audited by either a professional engineer or a chartered accountant.

Professional engineers and geoscientists are particularly influential in this industry. Alberta has the highest per capita of professional engineers and geoscientists (a category of licensure that includes climatologists, geologists, glaciologists, meteorologists, geophysicists, and paleo-climatologists) in North America. And the petroleum industry – through oil and gas companies, related industrial services, and consulting services – is the largest employer, either directly or indirectly, of professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta. In oil and gas companies, almost half of CEOs are professional engineers or geoscientists and most senior management teams and boards have at least one licensed professional. Within Alberta’s Energy Resource Conservation Board (ERCB) – the quasi-judicial government agency that regulates petroleum development – five of the eight board members are professional engineers or geoscientists. Within the Albertan government, prominent engineers and geoscientists act as Deputy Ministers, Assistant Deputy Ministers, and as Chief of Staff. Further, within the broader field, they also act as advisors to government through think tanks such as the Canada West Foundation, task forces struck to review regulation, and environmental activist organizations such as the Pembina Institute. These professionals and their organizations are regulated by a single professional self-regulatory authority –APEGA¹ – through the setting of education and experience standards for licensure, practice standards, a code of ethics, and a complaint and discipline process for anyone practicing in an unskilled or unethical manner. Given the dependence on the petroleum industry and relative homogeneity in licensure requirements, we might expect a consensus of opinion. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them."

PS-The difference between "Jadehawk" and "Tommy" (or whatever his name ia/was) is that Jade is explaining why the author from Forbes is wrong and not claiming to have done a meta analysis of a meta analysis of another study. I would think the difference is plainly obvious.

PPS-IF we are going to starting ranking the types of scientists who should or should not be speaking on CLIMATE change, I would think that the atmospheric scientists' opinions should have greater weight then that of geoscientists. However, I am not willing to claim that there should be a ranking based on degree type or profession, because I do not know enough about the subject to make such a distinction, although apparently you do.