I set myself the challenge this month of reading my company's annual sustainability report. There's some great stuff in here which we can be justly proud of. We are one of the world's biggest environmental and engineering consultants, with some impressive stories from low carbon buildings to new wastewater treatment plants that can remove much higher proportions of pollutants such as nitrates from sewage and capture methane from solid sludge as a source of energy for the plant. We have also worked with councils to change user behaviour when it comes to waste and divert 95% of waste away from landfill. We have committed to WRAP's commitment to halve the volume of construction waste arising from our projects which goes to landfill.
As well as expertise in ecology, heritage/archaeology and the planning process (including public consultations), we have a number of qualified people who can help projects achieve recognised best practice standards for environmentally friendly buildings (BREEAM or LEED) and civil engineering projects (CEEQUAL). One good idea I spotted was a company headquarters building with a staff cafe where everyone gets a discount if they use a mug rather than a takeaway container. We could try that one at Network Rail's coffee shop/canteen in York!
However, the report as a whole brings me back to a knotty question: to what extent is it ethically acceptable to help highly-polluting companies to become slightly more sustainable, while never appearing to challenge their core business approach?
On the one hand, I have a great respect for those who work on coal-fired power plants built in the 1960s, since I spend a week or so every quarter extracting water from boreholes and getting it independently tested for a range of pollutants as part of the stringent licensing arrangement with the Environment Agency. On the other, I recommend we don't build any more!
The sustainability report made me wonder if we should really be proud of our efforts to help a major UK airport to install a very impressive biomass combined heat and power plant (using only renewable timber grown within a 50 mile radius). The airport has an target it regards as ambitious to reduce carbon emissions from its buildings by 34% by 2020 (compared to 1990). But this smacks of missing the point.
Like a petrol station with solar panels in the roof, why bother saving 13,000kg of carbon a year on buildings if the airport intend to significantly expand the number of flights over the same period, supported by new runways and terminal buildings? That's the equivalent of just one passenger flying to New Zealand and back, not even one full long-haul plane-load! When each short-haul flight means 250kg of carbon per passenger and long-haul ones can result in thousands of kg per passenger, surely addressing the number of flights should be the major definition of whether they are becoming more sustainable?
Similarly is it OK to help a Saudi oil company to invest in better refineries which reduce pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide from diesel and petrol? Or to work on oil sands mines in Alberta, an unconventional oil source which has been responsible for horrific destruction of ancient forests across Canada and extensive water pollution?
Given that we cannot burn more than half the conventional fossil fuels without risking runaway climate change, and therefore a good part of the current balance sheets of our clients would be written off, should we not be advising strongly against continued oil extraction or guiding our clients towards renewable investments which will secure their prosperity for the long term?
Obviously, I believe we should make all industries as non-polluting as possible, and it makes little sense to avoid helping the worst offenders to improve due to a sense of moral outrage. However, my company is proud of the long-term relationships it has built with our clients, so why not use those relationships to help our clients move towards different modes of business that will put them on a secure footing for the long term, not just business as usual that will eventually bankrupt them when the oil runs out and severely polluting activities are taxed in a way that reflects the real damage being done?
See also:
You raise some very valid points, the problem may be that unless you can influence the sales teams, the company policies and ethics then the company will still go for the projects of most profit growth/less risk. I work in a department that currently does a lot of refurbishment of their clients property for national energy supplies and defence areas - great for the green addenda - refurbish than build new but as you point out the products they sell on/generate kind of defeat the purpose. It jars with personal values and ethics how do you balance the two?
ReplyDeleteSociety still needs to generate energy but how do you do it from its raw form in a sustainable way I.e solar/wind etc and not fossil fuels that commercial makes sense. Until you have a society willing to dispense with the keep up mentality of the Jones and a strong government willing to invest and give incentives to encourage individuals, companies (Im thinking of the renewable energy traffic here) then the normal approach will be to carry on as always.
As individuals we just don't think of the consequences of our decisions from buying a new phone/clothes to where does the raw energy needed for it comes from.
Hopefully in the small changes such as the sustainability groups at various Engineering companies these changes become greater and the norm over time.
There is also the question of how we improve of our existing building stock, (you refer to this in an earlier blog article) and one the various governments have tried to tackle but to little effect - some not much. May be a campaign to reduce vat on Green products might help.
Keep up the blog...its challenging.
Thanks for your comment, Justyn. It seems to me that politicians tend to follow whichever way the wind is blowing, so if we want to see the changes we really need, we need to change the wind! I'm hoping that as civil engineers we are in a good position to lead the way, because we are used to designing for the long term (and we know that when we say a bridge or tunnel has a 120 year design life, it might well be still in use in 300 years time so it had better be robust!)
ReplyDeleteYou are certainly asking the right sort of questions; and the quandary in trying to arrive at sustainable solutions.
ReplyDelete