Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
ETHICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Even though the focus of this discussion is the role of industrial ecology in
developing Earth Systems Engineering capabilities, it is important to devote
some time to ethical and institutional issues. In part, this reflects the impor-
tance of avoiding the trap of too much technocratic hubris: of thinking
that, because technologies that can mitigate human impacts on the carbon
cycle have been developed, the perturbation is therefore under control. In
fact, while science and technology can inform progress toward that end,
they are not by themselves sufficient—nor, for that matter, are current insti-
tutions and ethical systems.
To begin with, there is at least in some senses a significant difference
between the concepts of stewardship, which is often adopted as the appro-
priate ethical positioning for achievement of sustainability, and active man-
agement of complex human-natural systems. Stewardship tends toward a
passive approach: live on Earth and manage human activity in such a way
that impacts on natural systems are minimized. The concept has connota-
tions derived from a pre-industrial, pastoral mental model, and it retains the
implication that humanity is set aside from (if not over) other natural sys-
tems. Earth Systems Engineering, however, requires that human institu-
tions not only accept moral responsibility for human-natural systems but
also assume an active role in the management of most global systems. For
example, a stewardship approach to global climate change might suggest
reducing global emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gas emissions to “safe” levels. An Earth Systems Engineering
approach, however, would imply developing an institutional ability to
develop, deploy, and monitor technology so as to deliberately modulate the
carbon cycle within specified bounds (e.g., to maintain appropriate atmo-
spheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) so as
to achieve and maintain a desired global state. This approach presupposes
that it is no longer adequate simply to reduce the human impact; rather,
explicit human management of relevant global systems, including both nat-
ural and human components, is required.
Even a brief consideration of the religious and ethical issues raised by
these two approaches shows how different they really are. It is one thing to
say “I will take care of the world,” another to assert “I am actively respon-
sible for the world and everything in it, and I will decide what lives and
dies.” The first approach is at the core of much of today's environmental
