The question of how to educate for engineering sustainability has never been more relevant in the debate about how engineers should engage with society. Such education should be considered a lifelong opportunity and a responsibility if we are to serve society as we experience climate change, demographic evolution and urbanisation. These challenges create an infrastructure dilemma whereby
infrastructure loading is increasing because of urbanisation and population growth
societal complexity is increasing
society’s reserve capacity to invest in infrastructure is reducing relative to the rate of increase in complexity. (Tainter and Taylor, 2013)
As the UK considers how infrastructure investment can support economic growth, whether through transport integration of northern cities or creation of new garden cities in the south east, we should consider Sim Van der Ryn's reflections on the manner in which urban sprawl inhibits cultural integrity. From studying Japan’s 40-year history of the role of the high-speed rail system as a form of economic and social integration, the focus upon efficiently connected, high-density urban cores should be studied and better understood. We continue to see disruptive technology emerge to change our understanding of infrastructure capacity and demand, from Google cars that will allow us to multiply the carrying capacity of roads through to package-carrying drones that shift demand from one infrastructure system to another.
This issue highlights the fact that we need engineers with a broad understanding of engineering sustainability. This will allow them to connect decisions made at the component scale, such as the choice of materials for a landfill site or whether bamboo can be used as an effective construction material, through to systemically complex choices such as infrastructure designed in areas of high seismicity.
If, as engineers, we can develop our ability to communicate a systemic approach to engineering sustainability, we will be better able to support a societal understanding of sustainable engineering. We will be able to influence policy to develop solutions that work within the carrying capacity of the planet and hence improve the ability of society to develop socially and economically sustainable solutions.
To examine an instance where a systemic understanding is lacking in the public narrative, many of the arguments against fracking that are well rehearsed in the media miss the point. The principal argument is not the risk of earthquakes or the contamination of water supply. Fracking has been used around the world safely for decades. As with any complex system it carries risks, but they do not pose as great a risk to our society as the reason why the fracking is taking place: the extraction for combustion of a fossil fuel.
The figures relating to the extent of unconventional reserves in the UK might differ widely but, if the amount is substantial, this is another reason to consider leaving it in the ground. Will we really stop burning gas once we have invested in the infrastructure to access and process the fuel, and how will we reconcile that with our commitments to reduce global warming?
If we burn the current proven reserves of fossil fuels there will be no possibility of achieving the levels of carbon dioxide emission reductions that are necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. Unless, that is, carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) saves the day. Engineers and scientists are working on a number of CCS techniques, but this technology is not yet commercially proven at the necessary scales. The cost of CCS does not currently compare well with other low and zero carbon dioxide technologies.
If CCS does prove to be viable at scale, should we not be concentrating on using the technology together with biomass fuels so that they are ‘carbon negative’, actually reducing our emissions rather than avoiding adding to them?
In terms of the shale gas under our feet, if we were to take a systemic approach to the issue, we may develop the view that we should leave this asset in the ground until we have no option but to use it, or until CCS technology is proven through biomass stations and shown to be viable at sufficient scale to deal with the emissions.
In the meantime, we need a robust UK energy policy that supports a sustained commitment to investment. Such investment will leverage innovation in the use of the UK’s huge renewable resources to provide the opportunity for our businesses, universities and entrepreneurs to create solutions that can be exported around the world – a world which has a finite amount of fossil fuels and a near limitless amount of renewable energy.
We live in a world where influence has re-balanced towards the east. Our ability to purchase imports at an affordable level is likely gradually to decline over time. Making good decisions is the most important commodity we have.
To return to a quote from Sim Van der Ryn’s ecological design retrospective reviewed in this journal, ‘teach what you most want to learn.’
