A man’s nightmare can be other man’s utopia.
A man’s nightmare can be another man’s utopia. Before starting, ask yourself a question: wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t have to worry about switching off the lights every time we leave the room? Or if we could draw out as much fuel as we need at nominal rates? Or if we didn’t have to worry about the aquatic conditions of the river before sending waste into it? Many of us still don’t downright worry about this, but at least we have started to develop a sense of guilt. Wouldn’t it be great if we could get rid of this guilt and use the world the way we want?
A person living in the twentieth century had just these privileges. They had open skies, pristine rivers, and a healthy atmosphere capable of quenching mankind’s rising thirst for development. Industries were coming up at an unprecedented rate without any regard for the environment. Skies and rivers were considered an incessant dump for any industrial or household by-product, and the agenda of sustainability could never top the priority charts. This unscrupulous act made mankind slither into a situation where the above questions cannot be ignored. We might sometimes think, “If only our forefathers had any regard for the environment, we would have a lot more of a planet to live on!”
Now, try to view this case from the perspective of a person living two centuries ahead of us. They might ponder, “Wouldn’t it be great if we could get electricity throughout the day or if clean water was a free commodity? Also, I don’t like the idea of wearing a mask every time I leave home; I wish the air could have been cleaner.” If only our forefathers had any regard for the environment, we would have a lot more of a planet to live on! The situation two generations beyond that can be a lot more precarious. [It’s not rhetoric but very real – Beijing Tragedy]
Well, this is why the threat of climate change is so dangerous; we have to look at the trends over centuries to understand its implications. This can be the scene only if we continue on our current path of environmental deterioration. A lot of effort has been made around the world to avoid such a scenario, and I encourage all of you to be a part of it in your capacity.
From the Books
When asking what sustainability or sustainable development is to ourselves, generally, a fifth-grade definition pops up, which goes something like:
“…it is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
This is one of the most quoted definitions of sustainability and was first issued in a report by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, entitled “Our Common Future” (also known as the Brundtland report).
The Brundtland definition, however, is too abstract for project planning, and executive orders have developed more functional definitions that are aligned with their specific goals and values.
“Sustainability” and “sustainable” mean to create and maintain conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, permitting the fulfillment of the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations (Federal Register, 2009).
Note that the definition includes the economic aspect as well. Many state that there are just two sources of pollution: luxury and convenience and may suggest the life of abstinence is what sustainable development demands. That, although true, does not provide a very practical solution for tackling the problem at hand. We cannot make sustainability an integral part of development cog unless there is a sense of profitability attached to it. Abstinence can be an individual’s choice but can never be that of an organization.
The IPAT Equation
Sustainability more often than not depends upon the synergy of the system with its environment. The synergy of the people with the environment is characterized by the IPAT equation, according to which the overall environmental impact is the product of population, affluence, and technology.
I = P × A × T.
Where I = the overall environmental impact, P = population, A = affluence, and T = technology.
The affluence in the above equation can be denoted as the GDP produced per capita.
i.e. A = (GDP) / Person.
This is roughly the estimate for the quality of living. This factor varies substantially among different countries and regions, responding to the forces of local and global economic conditions, the stage of historical and technological development, government factors, and so on.
The third and the most important term in the equation is primarily the representation of technology and can be expressed as the ratio of environmental impact made per unit of GDP created.
T = (Environmental Impact) / (Unit GDP).
When we talk about sustainable technology or an engineer’s role towards sustainability, we primarily focus on this particular term. Better and efficient technology means higher production while keeping the impact constant or reducing the impact while keeping the production constant.
For instance, it is likely that a shoe industry working with rudimentary instruments and techniques would produce more environmental impact than the next-door industry with state-of-the-art energy-efficient tools to produce the same units of goods.
So the more popular form of the IPAT equation can be expressed as follows:
Environmental Impact = Population × GDP/Person × (Environmental Impact) / (Unit GDP Created)
The triple Bottom Line.
As the above equation suggests, sustainability is about three Ps: People (Social Implications), Planet (environmental implications), and Prosperity (or profit, the economical implication). Ignoring any of these would not fulfill its true essence.
So, you can check for the sustainability of any design or system by keeping in mind the following four points:
- The design should make significant progress towards an unmet and important environmental or social challenge.
- Can this design produce some undesirable consequence in its lifecycle that overshadows the environmental/social benefits?
- Is the design likely to be adopted and is self-sustaining in the market?
- Is the design so beneficial to society that due to the rebound effect, the planetary or social system would be worse off with the design?
