The views expressed here are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of ACEC.
As I write this article, world leaders at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP21) in Paris are working on establishing a global agreement on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in order to limit climate change. The outcome of this Conference, and how the United States will act in response to it, will have significant local and global consequences on the environment and the economy. Addressing GHG emissions and adapting to climate change are the greatest challenges humankind has faced since the height of the cold war when global superpowers were on the brink of mutually assured destruction. Fortunately, there are engineering solutions that can help overcome the challenges we face with climate change. However, there are political and economic obstacles to implementing these solutions.
To overcome the political obstacles, we need to promote education so that more people understand the issues and therefore support the changes that will be necessary to protect us from potentially catastrophic conditions in the future. While there is uncertainty in determining the most cost-effective measures for reducing GHG emissions, and while there is uncertainty about how fast global temperatures and sea level will rise, there is no uncertainty that human-generated GHG emissions are causing significant damage to the environment. For example, a major issue besides global warming is that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing ocean acidification which is, in turn, disrupting marine ecosystems. Therefore, we need to better explain the basics of what is happening, where there are uncertainties and where there are none. We also need to better educate ourselves so that we can clearly and authoritatively debunk misleading statements made in the political and public sectors. As engineers, we promote the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics. It therefore behooves us to consider how politicians are responding to climate science as we make decisions about whom to support.
Our role as engineers requires us to make appropriate, supportable decisions concerning both temporary and permanent projects which could create a hazard to life, health, property, or public welfare. While GHG emissions do impact life, health, property and public welfare, these impacts are generally outside of our direct responsibility. We are tasked to design facilities to accommodate climate change and the rise of the sea level. For tidal conditions and stream flows, long-established engineering procedures call for the expert evaluation of historic events to predict what could be the possible results of our current actions in the future. This traditional process is challenging because it is based on relatively short, and often poor, records. Also, there is considerable uncertainty in the appropriateness of using any particular probability distribution to extrapolate to potential extreme events. The traditional processes, while not perfect, do provide a basis of design that demonstrate an appropriate standard of care. Climate change calls into question the appropriateness of looking to the past to provide a basis for future designs. Climate change is making it even harder for us to design for protection of life and property.
Economic challenges associated with addressing GHG emissions and climate change are compounded by the need to transition to clean energy while simultaneously building systems that will adapt to anticipated changes in long-term weather patterns. Globally, the challenges are compounded further by the rapidly growing energy needs of developing countries. Because we all share the same atmosphere, we all must fund the transitions needed to achieve a sustainable future. Funding of these transitions, however, is a monumental task. This is because the benefits of achieving sustainability need to consider a 20-year to 50-year planning horizon, and the terms of office for politicians are between 2 and 6 years. Too many people make decisions based on achieving short-term satisfaction rather than their best interests for the long-term. It will be difficult to transition away from relatively plentiful and cheap fossil fuels, especially for those whose incomes are dependent on carbon-based fuels. Therefore, politically feasible solutions need to consider the professional and economic transitions people will need to make.
At the opening of COP21, a poignant video made by astronauts from around the world set the tone for the significance of the conference. Cosmonaut Rakesh Sharma, the first Indian citizen in space, stated: “Sustainable development is impossible if it is accompanied by non-sustainable consumption.” As a group of professionals who promote sustainable development, we should consider all of the factors associated with sustainability when designing to avoid hazards to public welfare.
Ultimately, the long-term welfare of humankind is dependent on achieving a sustainable balance between consumption and what can be derived from renewable resources. Private sector engineers will be instrumental in achieving this balance in a way that improves standards of living. It is my hope that we can move beyond political rhetoric so that we can work more effectively at achieving true sustainability.
