When I think about the UNFCCC gathering of 15,000 climate change scientists, politicians, bureaucrats and activists that begins today in Bali, I can't help wondering about the complicity of planning and design professionals in the lack of progress in reducing global carbon emissions since the Kyoto Protocol was established ten years ago.
The IPCC tells us that climate change is a direct result of billions of lives lived today and over centuries past. The way those lives have been lived has determined the level of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Some of those billions of individuals have been able to exercise considerable choice over the carbon intensity of their lifestyles, while others have had almost no choice at all; but the vast majority been influenced by the decisions of a much smaller group of people - architects, engineers, planners and others who design the built form around us.
When I studied for my civil engineering degree, I had a sense that it was important to learn about the context in which I would be working. I would, after all, be designing "public works" to improve conditions for society, so shouldn't I know what was good for society? I wanted to add subjects from the humanities to my technical courses, but the degree was too restrictive and the best I could do was squeeze in a couple of half-year courses on geography and African studies. That hardly constitutes a well-rounded education.
Some would argue that it's more important that society can trust the technical competency of engineers, and rather leave planning and related disciplines to others. The professions dealing with roads, bridges, buildings and other structures have become more and more specialised over the years in order to be able to deal with increasingly complex design challenges. Design teams these days include a range of specialists, and together they should be able to arrive at an appropriate solution.
That's all very well, but assumes an integrated design process, which rarely happens, despite years of rhetoric on integrated planning. And even when it does happen, engineers are too narrowly focused to accept some of the planners' inputs. And when I say narrowly focused, I refer not only to our state of mind or to our limited education.
True, we talk about the need for a conservative design approach that is safe and efficient and based on tried-and-tested methods, making it difficult for us to accept alternative points of view. And we ignore the fact that many of our professional colleagues around the world have developed new approaches that adhere more closely to sustainability principles. Really, "professional conduct" is no excuse for digging in our heels. If we had a fuller understanding of the implications of our contribution to design, we would be open to new ways of thinking about challenges, while maintaining our civic duty in safe design.
But we are also constrained by design guidelines and standards that are imposed on us, and by client instructions that limit our roles in the design process.
This applies particularly - but not exclusively - to my field of transport planning and traffic engineering, which has a significant impact on city development, social wellbeing, economic development and the health of the natural environment. In many cases the impact of current best practice is negative, because the standards we use were developed before carbon became a currency.
Although I have just said that those standards are imposed on us, that's not quite true. As a profession, we are collectively responsible for developing and maintaining standards to ensure that we are acting responsibly in our design decisions.
From the perspectives of climate change and energy supply, it's time to update those standards. We have helped paint cities and towns into an unsustainable corner. If we were more aware of the implications beyond our narrow technical training, that might not have happened. So society's trust in transport planners is, to some extent, misplaced.
Similarly, structural engineers should be specifying materials, designs and construction methods that reduce the climate impact of buildings and other structures. We need to reduce their embodied energy, reduce the need for carbon-intensive heating and cooling systems, and make it easier to deconstruct structures and resuse their materials at the end of their useful lives.
Engineering is no longer just about applying mathematics and science to find the most efficient design solution for a narrowly defined practical problem. (See Wikip edia for a more rigorous definition of engineering from the American Engineers' Council for Professional Development.) The challenge is to frame the problem in terms that address broader sustainability imperatives. That means education and awareness in our professions and among our clients. We have actually reached a point where some developers have leaped ahead of the design professions, specifying more sustainable engineering systems in buildings, to meet the expectations of a much more discerning market. If engineers and architects don't catch up fast, they will be left behind.
To date, most engineers committed to sustainable development have been self-educated on the technologies, methods, legalities and related issues. Here I have to single out Vernon Collis in Cape Town, who happens to be a former classmate of mine from the University of Cape Town and is now forging new paths in building construction methods, using sheer force of will to overcome the resistance that he and his practice inevitably face in this early stage of turning the industry around. Vernon and his partner Anna Cowen have taken urban sustainable building design to new heights.
Beyond education, we need vision and committment, as Vernon demonstrates. There must be trailblazers, and there must be people following closely on their heels. It's difficult for an entire industry to turn itself around, so I suspect that true sustainability will only become ingrained in the various branches of engineering when there is both vision that has been translated into new guidelines, and legislation that mandates the adoption of new standards to be followed in the design disciplines.
Whatever comes out of Bali for the post-2012 phase of the Kyoto Protocol, success will depend on addressing these challenges.
