The document summarizes a study analyzing comments from an APEGA climate change survey. The study identified 5 framings that members fell into regarding causes and solutions to climate change. While members disagreed on causes, 99.4% agreed climate change is real. The study suggests professionals focus on risk management solutions instead of debating causes, in order to make progress on mitigating climate change impacts.

1. 52 | PEG JUNE 2013
ACADEMIA
Go Deep
Lianne 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 LUTTER
Member & 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.”

2. 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 ››

3. 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