This post is a part of my CLIMATE CONUNDRUM Series. See all posts in this series here
Engineers screwed the environment. Why are we letting them lead the unscrewing?
The title is deliberately provocative, but let me explain.
The year is 1800. Pre industrial world. Global population: 1 billion (an eighth of what it is today)
Our specialty focus areas include
Net Zero by Narsi
Insights and interactions on climate action by Narasimhan Santhanam, Director - EAI
View full playlistThe engineers, as we know them today, did not exist.
The world emitted about 30 million tons of CO2.
Engineers & engineering happened at the start of industrial revolution #1, which accelerated from 1800.
Two hundred and twenty years later, we have annual emissions of about 50 billion tons of CO2 equivalent – 1600 times what it was in 1800, while the population had grown only by 8 times. That is, GHG emissions rose two hundred fold per capita.
“Engineered” solutions are almost certainly responsible for most, if not all of this tremendous per capita increase.
While the whole world respects and admires engineers because they have made our lives incredibly comfortable and enriching, very few of these engineers gave any thought to the environment, and very few still do.
For engineers, their solutions come first.
If that is the case, shouldn’t it be non-engineers who lead the transition to a low carbon economy?
Of course, engineers will play a crucial role in this transition, as we live in a world made by them, but should they LEAD the low carbon transition movement?
Or, for the end result to be truly sustainable, should this movement be led by others who perhaps APPRECIATE environment far better than engineers – sociologists, philosophers, behavioural scientists, artists (hopefully not economists, and not certainly management guys, god, not THEM!)
What are your thoughts?
See my LinkedIn post on this topic
