next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi, Sorry it took me a while to respond. I often don't have the quiet time for thinking. Owen Herzman made the comment: >Helga questioned my integrity because I do consulting work for >people she considers questionable. It's not only me who considers the fossil fuel industry "questionable". The question of funding and integrity is not something to be taken lightly. The problem for ANYONE who at times works for industry (and often government too), is that the perception of bias will be there. Whether or not it exists is often beside the point. (And harsh, non-reasoned comments on the PR on hurricane Mitch certainly enhanced that perception.) Owen also wrote: >I even wrote sections of an EIA on the subject >which raised questions about the effects of natural gas, if it were being >used to increase overall fossil fuel consumption. Some of those sections >made it into the final draft and some didn't. The point is that I'm paid >for my honest opinion and I give it, here or there. I would say the key point is that the company would not use any information/advice that goes against its interests, but will use the consultant's name to bolster its list of experts who gave advice. We had a discussion about this with a friend in Quebec, who is a botanist, poor as a church mouse and who was considering doing work for one of the pipeline companies. We discouraged him. Here at Dal and other intitutions, there are a number of people who have been involved with consulting jobs for industry. Once one knows this, one will always be skeptical and wonder if their advice is not tainted by an interest in obtaining further contracts. (Of course, some are notorious for their pro-industry views. I don't put Owen in this category.) Once in a while you hear in the media about scientists who were muzzled by industry or the government, e.g. in the fishery, drug industry, Health Protection Branch, etc. But this information rarely comes out, so we are usually left with the 'official' position. The same situation often happens to environmentalists - the question of whether one should join a government/industry advisory body, etc. Rare is the advisory body which genuinely wants the best for the planet. It is usually the industrial/growth interests that take precedence. So for an environmentalist to be on such a panel, all it does is lend environmental credence to a biased report/decision. A case like that is presently being discussed in the environmental movement in PEI - it concerns the Farm Practices Review Board, coming out of the pro-pesticide Right-to-Farm legislation. Another example is the issue of Forest Certification, e.g. the Forest Stewardship Council, where big companies like Irving want environmental blessing. So, Owen, it's not personal - it's political. Helga
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects