When it comes to sustainability, engineers are skeptics. But is that such a bad thing?
In its third annual survey exploring how mechanical engineers view the world of sustainability, the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) found that engineers, true to their nature –are still trying to solve the sustainability puzzle. As reported in Mechanical Engineering’s November issue, prevailing attitudes among engineers are that they see the value of sustainability, show skepticism about the hype, and are searching for a better way to quantify what they are doing.
To which I say, “Bravo!” Kudos to the engineering community for being the skeptics that they are – for requiring that sustainability – and, in particular - sustainable design and manufacturing – deliver more than just promises.
As one ASME survey respondent points out:
“We do not subscribe to the politics behind the green/sustainable movement,” one engineer wrote. “We believe in using sound engineering judgment to deliver the most cost-effective means to lower our customer’s energy consumption to save them money. The CO2 savings, a meaningless metric, is simply a function of lower energy consumption.”
Engineers, by definition, are trained to question – which is why, I think, we see such a strong resistance among the engineering community to embrace sustainability simply because it is “the right thing to do.” The reality is that every day, engineers are tasked with addressing challenges like safety, reliability, and performance – and to the extent that sustainability issues have an impact on such design criteria – then sustainability matters.
It matters, for example, if counterfeit parts enter the supply chain and threaten to compromise the performance of a critical engine or electronic component. It matters if a product is dependent on the availability of a rare or scarce material, or if the cost of producing a part or product is at risk of skyrocketing due to rising energy costs. In short, the metrics that are important to engineers effectively remain unchanged – cost, performance, safety, reliability. What has changed is that there are an increasing number of external factors impacting engineering and design that lie outside the control of the engineer.
“We do not subscribe to the politics behind the green/sustainable movement,” one engineer wrote. “We believe in using sound engineering judgment to deliver the most cost-effective means to lower our customer’s energy consumption to save them money. The CO2 savings, a meaningless metric, is simply a function of lower energy consumption.”
Engineers, by definition, are trained to question – which is why, I think, we see such a strong resistance among the engineering community to embrace sustainability simply because it is “the right thing to do.” The reality is that every day, engineers are tasked with addressing challenges like safety, reliability, and performance – and to the extent that sustainability issues have an impact on such design criteria – then sustainability matters.
It matters, for example, if counterfeit parts enter the supply chain and threaten to compromise the performance of a critical engine or electronic component. It matters if a product is dependent on the availability of a rare or scarce material, or if the cost of producing a part or product is at risk of skyrocketing due to rising energy costs. In short, the metrics that are important to engineers effectively remain unchanged – cost, performance, safety, reliability. What has changed is that there are an increasing number of external factors impacting engineering and design that lie outside the control of the engineer.
That said, what IS becoming more important to the engineering community is the ability to better predict how such external factors stand to impact their design decisions or threaten the safety or reliability of the products they make.
Which is why tools that, for example, enable engineers to more easily identify and specify sustainable or alternative materials in their design efforts, matter – and why tools that allow them to evaluate and understand the performance of these materials in context, matters. It’s why tools or processes that allow engineers to more easily develop products that either consume less energy during the use phase, or use less energy in the manufacturing or production phase, matter. It’s why if it becomes clear that “doing things the way it has always been done” is no longer sufficient, that we can expect to see our engineers come up with a new, more innovative approach to solving the problem, whether that problem relates to sustainability or something else.
So – a tool that allow us to reduce our carbon footprint may prove useful not necessarily because it shows us how to reduce our environmental impact – but because it shows us how to reduce our energy use. But is that a bad thing? Either way, whether companies are motivated to reduce their energy use to cut costs or to reduce their environmental impact, does it really matter? At the end of the day, what matters is that less energy is used, and there are quantifiable benefits.
Which is why tools that, for example, enable engineers to more easily identify and specify sustainable or alternative materials in their design efforts, matter – and why tools that allow them to evaluate and understand the performance of these materials in context, matters. It’s why tools or processes that allow engineers to more easily develop products that either consume less energy during the use phase, or use less energy in the manufacturing or production phase, matter. It’s why if it becomes clear that “doing things the way it has always been done” is no longer sufficient, that we can expect to see our engineers come up with a new, more innovative approach to solving the problem, whether that problem relates to sustainability or something else.
So – a tool that allow us to reduce our carbon footprint may prove useful not necessarily because it shows us how to reduce our environmental impact – but because it shows us how to reduce our energy use. But is that a bad thing? Either way, whether companies are motivated to reduce their energy use to cut costs or to reduce their environmental impact, does it really matter? At the end of the day, what matters is that less energy is used, and there are quantifiable benefits.
If embraced in this way, perhaps sustainability would have more followers among the engineering community. Perhaps we simply need to ask the question, “What are the engineering benefits of sustainable product design and manufacturing?” Or as Mechanical Engineering magazine’s recent article on this topic asks, “what could be more sustainable than improving efficiency and eliminating waste to lower the cost of new products and manufacturing processes?”
What do you think? Tell us. It’s not too late! We’re still seeking participants for our study, “Sustainable Product Design and Manufacturing: What’s Happening Now… and What’s Ahead?”
What do you think? Tell us. It’s not too late! We’re still seeking participants for our study, “Sustainable Product Design and Manufacturing: What’s Happening Now… and What’s Ahead?”
See also:
Sustainability (Mechanical Engineering magazine, November 2011 issue)
