Faced with a climate emergency, civil engineers need to start reducing, reusing and repurposing now. But the profession first needs to debunk its sustainability myths, say James Norman of the University of Bristol, Tim Ibell of the University of Bath and Oliver Broadbent of Constructivist.
1 Introduction
Global warming is no longer a line on a graph that can be debated – it is here. It is evidenced by huge floods across Pakistan (BBC, 2022a), repeated unprecedented temperatures across the globe (BBC, 2022b), failed crops (Abdishakur, 2023) and mass migration (Parker, 2018).
Faced with a real climate emergency, the world in general, and civil engineers in particular, finally now agree that something needs to be done (e.g. Engineers Declare, 2023). The answer is to reduce the amount of new infrastructure the profession builds and increase the reuse and repurposing of existing assets (Figure 1).
Over 80% of a 1980s office building is being re-used in this major London development, cutting new embodied carbon dioxide by half (Roberts et al., 2023)
Over 80% of a 1980s office building is being re-used in this major London development, cutting new embodied carbon dioxide by half (Roberts et al., 2023)
However, for this to happen, the profession needs to address some of its commonly held myths and misbeliefs around sustainability. This article explores and debunks the seven key myths with the aim of empowering civil engineers to start acting in a more creative, less disruptive and different way.
Myth 1: This is a new problem
Global warming is most certainly not a new problem – it has been known about for over half a century (BBC, 2013). Civil engineers should have been reducing their greenhouse gas emissions 50 years ago when climate-related discoveries were being made, moving toward net zero emissions 30 years ago when the scale and impact of the problem was crystal clear (IPCC, 1992) and adopting regenerative design 10 years ago when the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (see https://sdgs.un.org/goals) were being drafted.
The reality is that the profession is now around 30 years behind where it should be. Its continued reticence to face 50 years of scientific evidence simply wastes time and energy in what is now an emergency situation.
Furthermore, to suggest global warming is a new problem removes civil engineers’ ability to learn from the mistakes of the past. For example, what has been learnt about why the profession did not act and what steps can be taken to ensure it acts differently going forward? Continuing to act as usual will not produce the necessary change. It is clear that talk, articles, declarations and policies will not make the difference required. What is and always has been needed is action – action to build less (Orr et al., 2021) and to say ‘no’ when a project should not be built.
Present estimates are that society will have 50% of the renewable energy it wishes to have by 2050 (Allwood et al., 2019). Energy demand therefore needs to be cut by half, in addition to moving to alternative energy forms. ‘Use less’ is the biggest weapon in fighting climate change. Part of the solution in civil engineering is therefore to push for ‘build nothing new’ as a real option for a client’s brief (Ibell et al., 2020).
Without trying to satisfy briefs in an alternative manner, the profession is committing a dereliction of its duty. But building nothing is not the same as doing nothing – it requires civil engineers to use their unique technical skills and imagination to provide more creative solutions (Norman et al., 2020).
Myth 2: If we do it, we will do it better
One recurring theme when talking about the projects that civil engineers should stop doing, and about where they should challenge the client’s brief and consider reuse rather than demolition, is the assumption that, somehow, ‘if we do it we will do it better’.
Just as most drivers believe that they are above-average drivers (Chambers, 2013), most civil engineers believe they will produce an above-average outcome in terms of sustainability. The Dunning–Kruger effect (Kruger and Dunning, 1999) that applies to drivers also applies to the profession.
The tautology is that the average outcome has been the output of the civil engineering industry for the last 30 years and, as is now clear, this needs to change. For example, a Meicon survey (Orr et al., 2018) showed that the average civil engineering designer believes that structural over-specification should be allowed up to a maximum of 100% – that is, double what is required.
The profession can no longer take on jobs on the basis that ‘if we do it we will do it better’. Instead, civil engineers should only accept projects where the benefit to society and the ecosystem is clear and demonstrable, and the impact is as small as possible, ideally negligible. If this is not the case, they should walk away.
Civil engineers should only accept projects where the benefit to society and the ecosystem is clear
Myth 3: It is for the next generation to solve
When the profession first became aware of the climate emergency 50 years ago, it was a problem for the next generation to solve. Then, 30 years ago, when the impact was fully understood, it was again for the next generation to solve. If both those generations of civil engineers had taken responsibility instead of passing it on, the drastic change needed now would not be necessary.
The world has just 7 years to halve its greenhouse gas emissions and 27 years to get down to net zero emissions (IPCC, 2023). This is not a problem for future generations; it is not a problem for children starting school now. It is a problem for today’s professional civil engineers and needs to be tackled now.
Just as civil engineers look back on previous generations, they will be judged by future generations according to future ethical standards – not those of today. Today’s profession will not look pretty in hindsight to future generations and, indeed, some might even be prosecuted for crimes against the planet (Bather, 2023). Incidental clients of today are not the harsh judges of behaviour tomorrow. This is a problem for the current generation of civil engineers to solve. Future generations will either thank them, or judge them, for their actions.
Myth 4: It is for educators to teach
There is arguably no point educating future civil engineers on the climate emergency and how to be agents of change if the industry they move into is not willing to make the necessary change. But of course, educators need to continue to teach.
‘Just say no’ needs to be a central theme in all civil engineering undergraduates’ education, instilling confidence and empowerment to provide an alternative view on client briefs that are wasteful. The ability to think systemically should be central to education. Understanding systems of systems is also key, as is the ability to ask the right questions and not just know the answers to other people’s questions.
But if all educators do is teach and civil engineering graduates then enter a world where change does not occur, that education is wasted. So how will the profession know if it is changing enough? A good test is to think about how different work activities will be next year if the needed reductions in impact are made. If the work being done then looks similar to now, the profession is not changing enough.
Myth 5: We would do it differently but no one will pay
‘No one will pay’ is not a defence when it comes to safety and nor should it be a defence when it comes to environmental impact. Furthermore, the misconception that no one will pay should be challenged.
A common misunderstanding is that ‘different’ will be more expensive. It might be difficult, require learning, feel riskier and be more expensive up front, but it may well be cheaper over the project life cycle and offer better value for money. By sharing examples and experiences, such as in this special issue, it becomes easier for others to learn, less risky and more replicable.
Another misconception is that work is controlled by the supply and demand of projects, and not by the supply and demand of employees. As graduates discover that the world of civil engineering does not live up to their sustainable ideals, they are leaving the profession. Certainly, more large firms now have graduate vacancies at the end of each academic year. If a skills shortage continues, the driver for employers will not be winning work but rather winning the type of work they can offer their staff to do.
Myth 6: It is not up to us – it is up to a bigger organisation
Many civil engineers believe that change can only come from outside, from some external agency that has more power to bring about change than they do. They wrongly believe that the authorities have got this under control and that by following guidance from governments, institutions and boardrooms they will meet the climate challenge. The reality is quite different.
The profession enables almost everything in the world: without it there would be no civilisation. This means civil engineers have an incredible amount of agency to create change (Ichioka and Pawlyn, 2022). By saying only other organisations – whether clients, architects, policy makers or end users – can bring about change, the profession gives up its own agency and ability to do so.
Civil engineers can start to bring about change as individuals by saying no to projects they do not want to work on and leaving organisations they believe to be unethical. They can choose to give their time, energy, creativity and expertise to companies that are making a difference.
The profession needs to collaborate to find new ways of organising in response to the scale of the challenges faced (e.g. Leti, 2023). While it is true that if a government implements policies to reduce emissions it can make a substantial difference, it is also true that civil engineers can act now – they do not have to wait.
Myth 7: It is too late so we may as well give up
The impacts of global warming are already being felt and will only get worse, but the future is not yet decided. There will be increased temperatures and rising sea levels, though by how much is not yet known. Civil engineers still have time to act – it is not too late.
The speed at which they act is hugely important as it will impact the lives of billions of people. Nearly everyone alive today is already being impacted by global warming. The profession needs to design for resilience and the impact of changes that are already coming, but it also needs to minimise the impact of those changes.
Right now is the most important and creative time to be a civil engineer. The profession can either continue with business as usual and be a part of unthinkable global impacts, or it can bring to bear all its engineering ingenuity to imagine new ways of doing things.
Civil engineers can deploy their special skills to model and design beyond the ordinary. They can use their limitless creativity and imagination to reduce what they use and recycle and repurpose all that has come before. The profession needs to wake up from its process-based slumber and become a creator of new possibilities.
