Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The promise of new technology
Industrial ecologists are often associated with EM. They analyse flows of material
and energy that connect business enterprise with the natural world in a continuous
feedback loop operating in roughly three stages:
1
Natural materials are extracted from the Earth and converted into raw materials
and energy.
2
These raw materials and energy flows are then worked up into usable and saleable
products.
3
The resulting products are distributed, consumed or used, and disposed of by
consumers.
All of these stages produce waste, which becomes pollution unless it is recycled or
reused. The problem with much industrial ecology, as Hoffman (2003) notes, is that
it takes an overly technical-engineering perspective that fails to accommodate the
impact of individual cognition, organizational culture or social institutions on the
direction of these material and energy flows. Hoffman writes of the value of analysing
environmental issues from an 'open systems' perspective, recognizing that no organ-
ization operates in complete isolation, protected from external interaction and control.
The application of methodological approaches from other disciplines - for example,
economics, sociology, law, ethics or systems dynamics - enables industrial ecologists
to make links and ask questions they would not otherwise have done. There is a
need to find ways of ensuring that 'organizations think and act systematically within
their social ecologies', displacing the well-established assumption that environmental
protection inevitably means a loss of economic competitiveness.
Philosophers Albert Borgmann (1984), Langdon Winner (1997) and Aidan Davison
(2001, 2004) see technological development as a complex social, cultural and political
phenomenon. Technical innovations such as the car, cell phone or solar panel
inevitably involve a reshaping of society. Change is multifaceted, so technology should
not be seen as its only cause. Nonetheless, it would be unwise to suggest that new
technical devices such as the car or mobile phone do not change social practices,
patterns of behaviour, individual and cultural identities, or the nature of work,
learning and community. We do not always perceive the influence of technology,
because devices quickly become embedded into the fabric of our lives and the overall
wheel of consumption, acquisition and accumulation. We soon see these devices as
desirable or meaningful ends in themselves, rather than as a means to live lives in
different or better ways. We may see technology as the means to combat pollution,
climate change, global poverty, civic violence and alienation, world hunger, and
disease without recognizing that the problems are not amenable to a simple tech-
nological fix and may, in fact, have been caused by technological innovation in the
first place. For Davison (2001), ecological modernization privileges this technological
fix. He suggests that the Brundtland Report's conceptualization of sustainable
development, the declarations of Rio and Johannesburg, and the many eco-efficiency
arguments expressed by governments and the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development bear witness to the resilience of this idea. The resurrection of interest
in nuclear power as a green energy source and as a means of arresting climate
change is part of this discourse where faith in, or political adherence to, technology
