LETTER TO THE EDITOR The Past and Future of AIPG
The side-by-side articles in the Fall 2018 TPG by Aaron Johnson and Douglas Bartlett were highly insightful, espe- cially in regard to AIPG’s relationship to the public. As this topic reflects on our ability to grow and survive as a professional society, we need to address what maintained our early growth and what we need to do to reclaim that growth.
AIPG was founded in 1963 and by 1965 had 850 CPG mem- bers. By 1972, that number had grown to over 2,200 active members, the vast majority of whom were employed in the energy and minerals sector, and AIPG focused on that sector. However, in 1972, the newly formed EPA put forward the Clean Water Act, and geoscientists began to find themselves involved more and more with public environmental issues. Also, increases in AIPG membership had begun to slow and, in 1976, President John Haun lamented “We cannot, in good conscience claim to speak for the entire profession with such a small membership.”
AIPG then opted to change its image by renaming the society the Association of Professional Geological Scientists. At the same time it adopted a grace period of reciprocity between some states that registered geologists. These dramatic actions resulted in a 50% increase in membership in about one year. Of course the name was changed back to AIPG after a couple of years for reasons that may reflect ongoing conflicts within the profession.
By 1984, AIPG membership had sustained a modest growth to over 4,700 active members, and a higher percentage of them were now involved in the environmental sector. Note that only about 170 of these CPGs currently remain as active members. of this number,. By this time the USEPA had put forward the CERCLA Act (Superfund), which provided many more oppor- tunities for earth scientist employment. Many states now saw the need to regulate the qualifications of those doing the work and passed legislation requiring registration of Professional Geologists, thus fulfilling a primary goal of AIPG.
As these registration bills came into force, many newly reg- istered PGs saw little justification to join AIPG; some joined competing certifying organizations, and active membership began a slow decline. In response, by the mid 1990s AIPG began adding new classifications of membership to increase its numbers. These memberships did not require certification, and one of them focused on establishing student sections at Universities. This latter effort has proven admirably success- ful, although it is not clear how many of these members will ultimately stay with AIPG.
By 2000, numbers of active CPGs had declined to about 4,000 and have steadily dropped to 2,769 at present with total non- student membership being less than the number of CPGs 35 years ago. In contrast student membership has grown and in 2016 students outnumbered CPGs! However, it is unclear how AIPG can maintain its goals, growth and position in the earth sciences, no less be comparable to other professional societies such as NSPE or AIA without a major change in direction.
In 2008, Past-President Dan St. Germain bravely appointed an Ad Hoc Committee on Climate Change to arrive at a position statement for AIPG. The Committee’s statement was a com- promise between political versus scientific debate and, there- fore, had little meat. It was even more ambiguously revised
by the Executive Committee. In 2010, the AIPG Executive Director ceased the publishing of articles and opinion pieces on climate change in the TPG, and no applicable articles or let- ters have appeared since. AIPG and AAPG remain as the only major international science societies that are non-committal on global warming or climate change. In 2010, AAPG abolished its Global Climate Change Committee because their President determined that “Climate change is peripheral to our science and …… AAPG does not have credibility in that field.”
The makeup of AIPG is not the same as AAPG. In fact, based on AIPGs own surveys, the majority of members are not employed in the petroleum or energy sector. Will AIPG continue to ignore the fact that a good number of its members practice in environmental and engineering fields that are directly involved in mitigating the impacts of global climate change and, that regardless of cause, these impacts provide major employment opportunities for our members? Even after ten years of silence, it is probably impossible to find agreement on what position AIPG should take on this matter, although more members especially from the Gulf Coast Region may now recognize the merits of addressing these issues. For the time being, can we put differences aside and at least focus on the fact that climate extremes are growing and the role that geo- scientists can and should play in preparing for those extremes?
In the TPG’s President’s Message (Fall 2018) regarding communicating science, Douglas Bartlett references the sci- ence historian Naomi Oreskes. Perhaps it is ironic to note that Ms. Oreskes is an outspoken supporter of the current scientific consensus on global climate science and that our current statements on energy related issues still show a bias toward denialism.
As a society that has a goal of communicating with the public, how will history treat AIPG if we don’t accept the projected impacts from global warming, and provide credible professional input into such related matters as coastal, flood zone, infrastructure protection, as well as water supply and drought planning? How can we expect to retain students as future members, if we don’t participate in what many, including the banking, insurance and military sectors, consider the greatest environ- mental crisis of the century? Can AIPG maintain professional membership or even survive as an organization if it does not address these issues? Will AIPG have a future? Perhaps we should can- vas our Student Members on these issues, as they appear to be our future.
Drew Diefendorf, CPG-3598
Drew Diefendorf is a 42-year member of AIPG including seven sections, two of which he served as Section President. He was also a member of the 2008 Ad Hoc Committee on Climate Change.
www.aipg.org
Jan.Feb.Mar 2019 • TPG 5
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
