ВУЗ:
Составители:
Рубрика:
To begin with, traditional environmental jobs that is, those based on current regulatory and policy struc-
tures, primarily cleanup and end-of-pipe emissions control will be with us for a long time, especially in devel-
oping countries. They are necessary. But this field is not growing, offers few intellectual challenges, and will
have little to do with solving the larger problems of the anthropogenic world albeit improving health signifi-
cantly in developing countries. So if you really want to help the environment in the broader sense – perturbed
climatic and oceanic systems; anthropogenic carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and hydrologic system changes; bio-
sphere disruptions – this is not the place for you.
The next step up is a position in the "sustainability industry." Superficially, at least, such jobs, which are
frequently with niche consulting firms, are broader in scope and offer more intellectual opportunities. But cau-
tion is in order. The term "sustainability" has now grown to be so politically correct, and at the same time flown
so far beyond mere ambiguity, that there is no substantive content to much of this work. In too many cases, it
now amounts to a somewhat patronizing, highly ingrown dialog within a small circle of friends that tend to re-
gard themselves as the great and the good, and spend a lot of time reinforcing one another's mental models.
The result is a nouveau utopianism that has tenuous connections with the real world, except for the few that are
already True Believers. Thus, for example, I recently participated in a sustainability workshop where one conclusion
was that firms should exist not for profit, but only to redistribute income (and that, by the way, money should be
banned). Those with any historical background will recognize that this proposed policy closely tracks that of the
early Leninist/Marxist Soviet Union. They did ban money – and the economy collapsed. Moreover, you can imagine
how the typical executive would greet such a proposal as a model for how his/her firm could be "sustainable."
So, be careful if you want to work in this area. Before you jump in, you may want to work inside a firm
first to get an idea of what companies really are like. It will help you maintain perspective. There are a few real
opportunities – but caveat emptor.
So what to do? Back to first principles. The challenge of environmental (and related social) issues is pre-
cisely that they have become so all encompassing. They are not separable from the messy, multidisciplinary
worlds of commerce, of ordinary life, of birth and death, of long natural cycles. So the kinds of things that con-
tribute most to social and environmental progress – employee telework options, efficient network routing algo-
rithms for air and ground transport systems, low-energy and reduced-water manufacturing technologies – come
not from the environmental staff, but from the core operating competencies – engineers, business planners,
product designers, and others. So, by all means remain committed to sustainability, but get expertise in interna-
tional business, chemical engineering, or finance. Then, when you get your non-environmental, line position,
you can start to change the world.
9. WORKING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT –
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
A while ago, I was reading an article on pollution prevention written by an ex-EPA consultant, and was
both amused and somewhat surprised to see "industrial ecology" identified as industry green wash.
My first response, of course, was dismissive: didn't the author realize that meaningful environmental pro-
gress could be achieved only through such systematic approaches as industrial ecology, and its implementation
through (for example) Design for Environment and Life Cycle Assessment methodologies?
Indeed, pollution prevention as usually interpreted by environmental regulators is a singularly limited con-
cept, a relatively insignificant extension of end-of-pipe approaches, and it requires something like industrial
ecology to energize it.
But my initial reaction was both unfair and superficial. The author was not really reacting to industrial
ecology as laid out in existing texts or as being implemented in some firms today. Rather, the article implicitly
made an important point about the nature of "environment" itself: the very concept (and closely related con-
cepts such as "wilderness" and "nature") is constructed from underlying mental models, which may differ sig-
nificantly and carry very different policy and governance implications.
Thus, "industrial ecology" does not enter the environmental discourse as an objective concept (although in-
dustrial ecology studies strive for objectivity and good science). Rather, an environmentalist will see it as a re-
sponse to growing political pressure by powerful administrative and bureaucratic systems, with a belief system
based on scientific and technical rationality – as, in short, a defensive thrust based on a state/corporatist man-
agerialism mental model.
Страницы
- « первая
- ‹ предыдущая
- …
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- …
- следующая ›
- последняя »
