Sustainable Development — Time to Act


EDITORIAL

Sustainable DevelopmentÐ Time to Act

Sustainable Development has been adopted as a central
environmental strategy for the UK (see, for example,
Richard Grif® ths’ editorial in last November’ s PSEP, 75
(B4): 199). The Environment AgencyÐ as well as several
Government Departments and Non-Departmental Public
BodiesÐ has a speci® c remit to have a regard to Sustainable
Development in discharging its duties. The Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)
has issued a wide-ranging consultation paper asking for
comments on everything from measures of sustainability to
resource management, transport, tourism, wildlife, research
and education. Professional bodies and industry also
recognize the importance of the concept, and statements
of goodwill abound. It appears that the bandwagon is rolling
and, given our con® dence in human ability to solve
problems, a brighter future should be just round the corner.

However, there are three signi® cant questions to be
addressed:

· What is Sustainable Development?
· What do individuals, organizations and countries need to
do to deliver itÐ and if we can work out what to do, will
those involved (that is, everybody) have the will to do
anything about it?

· Even if the will exists, can we move to a sustainable
situation given the explicit and implicit constraints on the
solutions?

It would be easy to suggest that since we don’ t know where
we’ re going, or who’ s coming with us on the journey, or
whether the route to our destination is open, that we’ re
unlikely to arrive.

On the ® rst question we can make some progress. We
can envisage some distant future where human needs are
met by solar energy, our population is in balance with
the carrying capacity of the planet, everybody is con-
tented and wars have been abolished. Sustainable
Development must just be a path between where we are
now and where we want to be. Simple. Except that we
don’ t yet appear to have the technology, organization, social
skills or scienti® c knowledge to do it, and we may run out
of resources trying. In other words, even if we could de® ne
Sustainable Development, making it happen could be
beyond us.

To the questions above I’ d like to add one moreÐ how
should we set about solving the problems? This is more than
idle musing. To date, we have in general solved problems
of balancing resource use, bene® t and harm by setting limits
at the boundaries of activities. A process can be operated
provided it doesn’ t release more than a ® xed amount to
the environment. Implicit in Sustainable Development is
co-ordination and collaboration. For example, it would be
logical to move from the current paradigm of once-through
materials use (obtain±use±dispose) to the more sustain-
able idea of using resources to drive a cycle of use and reuse.

This involves taking a systems view of activities that
may span several processes, organizations and possibly
countries. It also involves the ability to co-ordinate the
application of several different technologies.

Despite the need for co-ordination, there is an inherent
fragmentation in the way the problem is being addressed.
Fragmentation arises naturally from the divisions in the way
we organize societyÐ into companies, regulators, univer-
sities, regions, countries, chemists, engineers, social scien-
tists, etc. There is also a problem of time-scale. Long-term
thinking in politics is ® ve years, in industry it is the length of
a director’ s rolling contract and in the currency exchange
markets it is a few weeks (at most). Swings of leadership,
market sentiment and public opinion mitigate against a clear
long-term strategy.

A microcosm of these issues exists in the research/
technical community in the UKÐ discipline-based research
councils, the tension between fundamental and applied
research, the lack of a coherent vision for the research
community, the search for well-de® ned value for money
in industrial research and so on. Initiatives searching for
direction (for example, Foresight) produce a mixture of
clear, sensible consensus and wild dreamsÐ diluting their
credibility by not wishing to upset any of the contributors.
Rapid change is dif® cult because of the substantial inertia
of existing systems. New initiatives, philosophies and
directions come and go, typically on a 3 ±5 year time-
scaleÐ often without seeming to deliver anything particu-
lar. If the research community is to contribute effectively to
delivering Sustainable Development then it will need more
than isolated, small-scale initiatives. Research must be
fostered that crosses disciplines and is not constrained to
sit in the traditional academic subject pigeon-holes. To do
that, the in¯ uence of numerous interest groups must be
loosenedÐ a substantial challenge. Yet if we cannot ® nd
ways to change the attitudes and work practises of a
small, well-educated community, what hope is there with
Sustainability?

Not only do we seem to be ill-organized to meet the
challenges of Sustainable Development, but recent history
doesn’ t lend any particular weight to the view that we are
capable of solving such problems. The energy `crisis’ of the
70s and 80s, when exhaustion of fossil fuel reserves was
anticipated, led to little more than some energy-ef® ciency
measures and a search for more oil. We have so far proved
unable to deliver fusion energy, cost-effective solar energy,
etc. Clearly the time-scale to solve these technical problems
is tens or possibly hundreds of years. This is much longer
than the attention span of almost all governments. Yet, the
problems we now face are much more dif® cult than those
of 100 years ago. Indeed the time required to develop
solutions is increasing while, under the weight of growing
world population and living standards, the time available
to solve them is decreasing.

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part B, May 1998 79

Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/


So what, if anything, does the chemical engineer have to
offer? The contents of PSEP, both in this issue and past
issues, can all be seen as being relevant to Sustainable
Development. We can credibly claim core skills that
span processing, technology, economic evaluation, human
behaviour, risk assessment, systems and control. We are
experienced in dealing with complex, many-variable
problems. We are brought up to live with uncertainty.
However, in the context of Sustainable Development
perhaps our greatest asset is the ability to co-ordinate.
With such a CV it would be natural to be at the centre of
the debate. Despite this, it seems likely that the issue will
be driven by social scientists, ecologists, lawyers and
economists.

So why not do your discipline (and perhaps the planet) a

favour? If you have time before the deadline (29 May 1998)
you could read and respond to the DETR consultation. It
doesn’ t matter if you’ re not from the UKÐ a signi® cant
issue raised by the consultation is international co-operation
and development. The document can be found on the DETR
web site (http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/sustainable/
consult1/index.htm) or obtained from the DETR. If you
can’ t respond in time, do watch the site for reports and
developments. Moreover, further consultation on this
dif® cult issue is more than likely. Not only can you help
to raise the pro® le of chemical engineering, but you may
well help the consultation to come to appropriate and
realistic conclusions.

Paul Sharratt

80 EDITORIAL

Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part B, May 1998