The Climate Change Educational Partnership: Climate Change, Engineered Systems, and Society: A Report of Three Workshops (2014)

Chapter 7
PERSPECTIVES OF ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES, BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND NATIVE AMERICANS

Input from educators, both formal and informal, was crucial to the Climate Change Education Partnership, but the project partners also realized the importance of broadening its outreach to entities that support, hire, rely on, or prepare engineers in other ways. The project therefore engaged a variety of communities in the discussions of the intersection between education and action on climate change and engineered systems. This chapter presents the perspectives, suggestions, and efforts of engineering professional societies, business and industry, local governments, and Native Americans.

Engineering Professional Societies

William Kelly, director of external affairs at the American Society of Engineering Education, moderated a session on the activities and educational priorities of engineering professionals on climate change.⁴⁰

ABET Accreditation

William Wepfer, chair of the Engineering Accreditation Committee, vice president for education at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and chair of the Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology, spoke about ABET, a federation of 30 professional engineering and technical societies that works to accredit engineering educational programs and to promote quality and innovation in education.

ABET accredits educational programs based on outcomes that correspond with eight general criteria: (1) students, (2) program educational objectives, (3) student outcomes, (4) continuous improvement, (5) curriculum, (6) faculty, (7) facilities, and (8) institutional support. The most important of these are the educational objectives and student outcomes. The student outcomes criteria are 11 abilities that all en ineerin students are expected to have mastered by the time of graduation (Box 7.1).

_______________

⁴⁰ The agenda and slides of these presentations at the second workshop are available at www.nae.edu/Projects/CEES/57196/35146/62343/52752.aspx.

In thinking about how to incorporate climate change in engineering curriculum, it might be better to pick an educational outcome that is either relevant across engineering programs or, alternatively, targeted to specific disciplines or a new discipline. Wepfer also pointed to the flexibility of the education outcomes and curriculum criteria, specifically the requirement for a culminating major design that incorporates appropriate engineering standards and multiple realistic constraints—as might characterize a project to address climate change.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

Sustainability has been a long-term interest of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and was incorporated into its code of ethics in 1996. The group defines sustainability as “a set of environmental, economic, and social conditions in which all of society has the capacity and opportunity to maintain and improve its quality of life indefinitely without degrading the quantity, quality, or availability of natural, economic, and social resources.” Climate change is considered a component of ASCE’s sustainability efforts (although some members do not believe that it is occurring).

Richard Wright, chair of the ASCE Sustainable Infrastructure Education Subcommittee, described the Sustainable Infrastructure Education (SIE) Program, whose objectives are to provide both the body of knowledge for certification of sustainable infrastructure professionals and the knowledge basis for Envision™ (www.sustainableinfrastructure.org), a sustainable infrastructure project rating system developed through a partnership of ASCE, the American Council of Engineering Companies, and the American Public Works Association.

The SIE modules (available online or in development) cover

• fundamentals of sustainable engineering;
• sustainable project management;
• community participation;
• land use and ecological issues;
• water, air, light, mobility, noise, and waste; and
• assessment of project life cycle impacts.

Specific courses in the Fundamentals of Sustainable Engineering program (www.asce.org/fsecourse) are designed to address the following:

• Introduction: fundamentals of sustainable engineering and professional certification in sustainable engineering
• Transformational projects: examples of and rationale for the transformational approach to sustainable engineering
• Trends and issues: economic, environmental and social concerns for sustainability.
• Earth systems: the Earth’s natural life support systems and how engineers apply principles of sustainability to preserve them
• Five capitals: natural, produced, human, social, and financial
• Social factors: the community
• Social factors: individual behavior
• Sustainability quadrant: human development and its ecological footprint
• Moving toward sustainability: addressing sustainability in infrastructure sectors
• Project pathway and performance: doing the right thing and the thing right
• Life cycle cost/benefit assessment
• Life cycle environmental assessment

• Environmental policies, regulations and innovation
• World view for sustainable development
• Delivering sustainable projects
• Leadership perspectives

Envision is similar to the US Green Building Council’s LEED program for sustainable buildings but also encompasses sustainable infrastructure, which includes communications, energy, transportation, and water and wastewater treatment facilities. The system has 10 categories for rating sustainable infrastructure projects:

• Project pathway contribution
• Project strategy and management
• Communities—long- and short-term effects
• Land use and restoration
• Landscapes
• Ecology and biodiversity
• Water resources and environment
• Energy and carbon
• Resource and waste management
• Access and mobility

(“Project pathway contribution” includes consideration of both the people to be served by the infrastructure and those who will be affected by it, such as neighboring communities.)

The Technologies for Carbon Management Project (http://fscarbonmanagement.org) was initiated in 2008 by five engineering societies (AIChE, AIME, ASME, ASCE, and IEEE) with support from the United Engineering Foundation to address the roles of the engineering community in mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. It provides information about the characterization and measurement of greenhouse gas emissions, potential effectiveness (e.g., time and cost) of options, and knowledge gaps and other barriers to implementation. The project has held two meetings for interested professionals.

In addition to the ASCE initiatives, Wright cited the NSF-sponsored Center for Sustainable Engineering: 250 engineering faculty members have attended its summer institutes for training to incorporate sustainability in the engineering curriculum.

Wright concluded with two observations. First, that there is nothing unusual about engineers dealing with climate because they have been doing so ever since they have been building structures that resist the forces of nature. Second, the lack of connection between climate models and weather models is a problem for engineers because they need quantitative data on the impacts of more severe weather on engineered structures. In the past, engineers used historical weather data to understand weather forces and probability, but climate scientists have proven that these weather trends are variable and that historical weather data will not be sufficient for engineering designs in the future.

Engineers Canada/Ingénieurs Canada

Engineers Canada/Ingénieurs Canada is a national body of 12 provincial and territorial associations that regulate the practice of engineering in Canada. It accredits undergraduate engineering programs (similar to ABET in the United States) and facilitates common approaches for professional qualifications, professional practice, and ethical conduct. The organization decided early on not to get into the why’s of climate change, but to accept that the climate is changing and that engineers need to deal with it. A National Climate Change Action Plan was established in 2003 that included communication and outreach, education, continuing professional development, adjustments to engineering practices, networking of scientists and engineers, advice to government, and funding arrangements.

Engineers have a responsibility to assess situations and manage risk; to develop and/or revise policies, standards, and guidelines; and to perform due diligence in addressing changing climate for engineering work. A multijurisdictional and multidisciplinary effort is needed to address the challenges of climate change, especially among climate scientists, engineers, geologists, and operations and maintenance specialists. Engineering-related consequences of climate change include premature deterioration, higher maintenance and operation costs, and reduced performance and life span/life cycle.

David Lapp, manager, professional practice, Engineers Canada, Secretariat, Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC), described a collaborative project with the Canadian Standards Association on climate change and infrastructure. The objective was to examine solutions, assess the current state of curriculum, determine practitioners’ awareness through a survey, and produce findings and recommendations. The project explored four infrastructure categories that affect many of the major engineering disciplines: buildings, energy, transportation, and water.

A survey of practicing engineers to establish a baseline for awareness of issues related to climate change showed that 82 percent of them believed a changing climate will affect their engineering decisions in the near future—and 73 percent felt they needed much more information to enable them to incorporate its impacts into their engineering practice. The survey also asked about their familiarity with tools and techniques related to climate change: although 77 percent were “at least somewhat familiar” with “encouraging energy efficiency and low emission solutions,” only a third said the same about “designing infrastructure that can be modified over time with the impacts of climate change” (33 percent) and “identifying locations that may be vulnerable to climate change impacts and then modifying designs accordingly” (35 percent).⁴¹ Thus although most infrastructure engineers accept that climate change will affect their practice in the future, few actively factor this into their decisions. The survey results have significant implications for infrastructure since its design life can and often does exceed 50 years.

The project participants assumed that an existing but underused body of knowledge relevant to climate change could be integrated in the curriculum, but in fact they found very little specific climate change content and no engineering courses dedicated to the topic. They determined that risks, codes, standards, and frameworks, as well as discussions of the triple bottom line, are key areas for incorporation in climate change curriculum. And case studies and examples are crucial because they provide opportunities for engineers to get down to specifics.

The final report recommended six topic areas that should be included in undergraduate curriculum: (1) climate change science; (2) decision-making processes around economic, environmental, and societal issues; (3) climate change impacts and adaptations; (4) risk; (5) public policy and regulatory frameworks (codes and standards); and (6) psychology relating to decisions, perceptions, and behavior. The report also emphasized that flexibility and a modular approach are essential for successfully integrating these components in engineering curriculum. For practicing engineers, the report recommended that they be encouraged to customize their learning experience, that climate change topics be promoted in continuing education programs, that alternative educational methods be offered on climate change, and that engineers receive training in the areas of risk, decision making, uncertainty, and emergency planning.

Engineers Canada collaborated with Natural Resources Canada on the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC), which was tasked with (1) overseeing a national engineering assessment of the vulnerability of public infrastructure to climate change in Canada, (2) facilitating the development of best engineering practices for adaptation to climate change impacts, and (3) making recommendations for reviews of infrastructure codes and standards. The committee developed a 5-step risk assessment protocol developed for use by qualified engineering professionals to assess the risk of

_______________

⁴¹ Further results from this survey are available from Dr. Lapp at Engineers Canada.

climate change in infrastructure. Two phases of 1-day educational workshops were organized to train engineers in using the assessment protocol and educate them about climate change; the phase 1 workshops were targeted to associations of Engineers Canada and phase 2 to governments and municipalities across Canada on a cost-recovery basis.

Engineers Canada has also developed a syllabus for a 36-hour course on climate change. It is designed for continuing education but can also be used for graduate education.

Lapp concluded that there is already an established body of knowledge that can be used by engineers to address climate change, and that it must be incorporated in educational initiatives at universities or through continuing education to get the information out to mainstream engineering practice.

Business and Industry Perspectives

What do engineering businesses consider the underlying principles, skills, and experiences that will prepare future engineers to effectively meet the challenges of climate change in the practice of engineering? Five industry representatives were invited to address this and related questions in a panel at the second workshop. The panelists were Keith Williams, chief technology officer in the Materials, Corrosion, and Environmental Technology Division at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC); Jonathan T. Malay, director, Civil Space and Environment Programs at Lockheed Martin; John Carberry, an independent consultant and retired director of environmental technology at DuPont; Laurens van der Tak, vice president and water resources engineer at CH2M Hill; and William Flanagan, director of the Ecoassessment Center of Excellence at General Electric (GE) (he was unable to attend but sent comments that the panel’s moderator shared). Panel moderator Andres Clarens, assistant professor of environment and water resources engineering at the University of Virginia, facilitated a discussion based on questions sent to the panelists in advance, focusing particularly on (1) corporate responses and actions, (2) characteristics and skills for the engineers hired, and (3) case studies for teaching climate change in engineering.

Corporate Responses and Actions on Climate Change

Van der Tak reported that CH2M Hill became interested and involved in issues of climate change because of its corporate ethic of sustainability, which required a good understanding of climate science to ensure that engineered designs could withstand climate changes. So the company invested in the development of software enabling access to global circulation models and the latest climate change projections, and trained some of its engineers to use the software and interpret the information. In its climate change adaptation work, CH2M Hill has focused on infrastructure master planning, design, and construction. Whether clients request it or not, the company considers the long-range climate picture in designs for multimillion-dollar infrastructure that may be sensitive to climate changes. CH2M Hill does this because it is the right thing to do and, as Van der Tak put it, engineering for climate change adaptation is not any different than doing good engineering work.

At Dupont, Carberry’s responsibility was to figure out what environmental factors, including climate change, would affect the chemical industry, specifically its chemical plants and customers. The impacts he cited as needing consideration were energy consumption at corporate buildings and the productivity of customers’ agricultural products and practices.

Characteristics and Skills of Hired Engineers

Malay pointed out that while Lockheed Martin is known for its work on airplanes and military technologies, but is also very involved in engineering for environmental science and environmental

monitoring. However, they are an engineering firm and thus when it comes to hiring engineers the company cares primarily about their technical engineering skills rather than if they know about climate science.

Van der Tak explained that CH2M Hill has divided its business related to climate change into two parts: adaptation and mitigation. For hiring in adaptation the company looks for civil and environmental engineers as well as agricultural engineers and environmental scientists. Most of those hired have a master’s degree, and some a PhD; bachelor’s-level engineers are rarely hired. The company also provides training for its engineers in risk and risk assessment methods.

Carberry made the case that the industry needs engineers that start out as high school students who understand that climate change is real and will have wide-ranging impacts on society. When they become trained engineers they will be better prepared to understand how climate change will impact the engineering work—for instance, that there will be wider swings in temperature and therefore a need for products that help mitigate the temperatures, such as air conditioners and insulation. Engineers must also be able to think critically and take a long-term view of their work.

Clarens reported that GE seeks graduates with an ability to think on a systems basis. They should pay attention to global trends and drivers, emerging regulations, industry standards, customer requests and requirements, green public procurement policies, competitive behavior, and product ingredients.

Carberry, Van der Tak, and Williams agreed that universities and educators should incorporate climate change in sustainability education and that more engineers should be educated about sustainability. To that end, Carberry called for faculty access to resources that will enable them to identify how climate change will affect the teaching of their subject area. He also observed that recent graduates going into industry should be aware that their concerns about a company’s environmental responsibility will be better received if they present them in terms of impacts on the business and its relations with customers.

All the panelists agreed that continuing education is important to ensure that working engineers have current information about climate change impacts. They can access such information through professional societies, online, or in university classes.

Cases Studies for Effectively Exploring Climate Change in Engineering

Representatives from GE suggested cases on (1) corn-based ethanol; (2) the cost of ownership and comparative environmental burdens for a hybrid versus diesel versus gas vehicle; (3) cost analysis of electricity generation for nuclear, gas turbine, coal, and renewables; and (4) business and root cause analysis for energy engineering disasters (e.g., oil leaks and spills).

Carberry proposed two cases: a comparison of the Kyoto and Montreal protocols and why one failed and the other succeeded; and a review of the US sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides cap and trade system.

According to Van der Tak, cases on the climate impacts of just about any type of public infrastructure project would be useful. They would need to be very site specific, but would reveal broadly applicable concerns such as how long the facility was supposed to last when thinking about sea level rise, increasing storm surges, and changing power demands.

Malay suggested a case on the California freshwater distribution system and seconded the idea of comparing vehicle choices.

Local Government Perspectives

At the County Level

Katy Simon, manager of Washoe County, Nevada, spoke about her local government’s engagement in sustainability efforts. The county commission’s strategic objective is the sustainability of the community’s financial, social, and natural resources. Although some elected officials do not believe that climate change is occurring, support for sustainability has crossed political parties there. It was a focus on financial sustainability that brought the elected officials to the table to discuss sustainability in all aspects of the city—water conservation, flood control, snow pack monitoring, water reuse, environmental building practices, wildfire risk management, habitat and air quality management, and local food production.

Simon cited the importance of public participation, accurate and transparent communication, and trust in decision makers. She also said that citizens will support expensive infrastructure funding and policy changes if they know the local government is doing everything it responsibly can before resorting to expensive changes. Last, a characteristic specific to Washoe County that has helped in its sustainability efforts is the residents’ close connection to the natural environment.

Nancy Gassman, natural resources administrator for Broward County, Florida, described climate-related challenges in South Florida and actions at multiple levels of governance. The county is experiencing weather events such as extreme rainfall, drought, cold, and high temperatures, some of them at the same time; in 2011, for example, significant rainfall on Halloween coincided with high tide and overwhelmed storm drains. Coastal flooding and storm surges are threatening drinking water because of salt water intrusion as well as power plants vulnerable to flooding from only a 1-foot rise in sea level.

To address and plan for these events Broward County (1) has done an inventory of the county-owned infrastructure at risk and assessed climate change impacts, (2) is encouraging green and climate impact resistance construction practices, and (3) is adopting adaptation standards that require consideration of climate change and sea level rise in the design of all new public buildings. The county works at every level of government to address climate issues, to plan to maximize the useful life of existing infrastructure in the short term, and to incorporate climate considerations into longer-term master planning and land use decisions.

At the City Level

Jonathan Koehn, environmental affairs manager for the City of Boulder, Colorado, described challenges and actions Boulder is dealing with, including wildfires, floods, and energy plans. He agreed with Simon’s suggestions and comments, and added that local government officials share strategies for making changes and moving toward a more sustainable community. When taking action it is important for local officials to connect with the community about what it values and to communicate that changes in the environment are the new norm.

He cited the following areas in which impacts from climate change will be felt in Boulder and other US cities:

• Water and energy demand/costs
• Vulnerable populations (cooling, working conditions, inadequate housing, etc.)
• Built environment (design considerations and extreme weather impacts)
• Livability/health (air and water quality, recreation, habitat)

• Economy (tourism, transportation, business disruption)

The city learned firsthand about reaching the local community with information about climate change impacts when wildfires encroached. City officials connected what had been abstract and global perceptions of climate change with the local experience by pointing out that, while climate change did not cause the wildfires, it made the community more vulnerable and susceptible to them.

Kevin Burke, city manager for Flagstaff, Arizona, explained the development of the city’s Resiliency and Preparedness Initiative. The initial question in the planning was “How can the city of Flagstaff reduce its vulnerability and build local resilience to climate variability and climate-related disasters?” But because of resistance to climate change in their community and government, the topic was reframed as emergency planning, which made people more receptive to the project. The effort considered leadership, management, and operations perspectives, and sought ways to avoid the unimaginable; manage the unavoidable; capture future natural hazard scenarios; continue the government’s mission to protect life, health, property, and infrastructure; and reduce the severity of risk. The project also identified primary systems that would see impacts from climate change and then mapped those to the key government planning areas (Box 7.2).

Box 7.2

One way to effectively communicate the impact of predicted temperature changes was to identify a nearby community that was already more arid and had the environmental characteristics that resembled those projected for Flagstaff in the future. Environmental conditions in the nearby community were noticeable and serious enough for community members to realize the impact of even a small change in temperature.

Burke concluded with some lessons learned for similar efforts: (1) follow a team approach with broad representation; (2) look first at things you can control; (3) adapt the process as you go along; (4) focus on implementation; (5) identify opportunities to prepare; and (6) concentrate on impacts to avoid getting bogged down in questions of whether, how, and why the climate is changing.

Sam Lipson, director of environmental health for the City of Cambridge Public Health Department in Massachusetts, discussed public health impacts associated with climate change:

• Heat-induced power loss and patient surges from heat-related illness
• Gastrointestinal and respiratory illness from pathogens, mold, bacteria, and asthma
• New or expanded vector-borne risks of West Nile virus, Lyme disease, and Dengue fever
• Emotional and psychological effects such as stress, depression, loss of community, and grief
• Flood-induced loss of water and power at medical facilities and limited access to medical services
• Heightened risks for home-bound residents
• Postflooding consequences such as sewage-tainted water, mold, and bacteria

The challenges of addressing these public health concerns involve planning for rare but high-impact events and engaging agencies and utilities in work across sectors and disciplines. Cambridge has begun taking action by conducting a vulnerability assessment of at-risk populations, at-risk areas, essential services, public infrastructure, and transit and power systems. It is also working to ensure public health and public safety preparedness and to assess and anticipate health burdens now and in the 50-year time frame.

Native American Perspectives

Tracey LeBeau, director of the US Department of Energy’s Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs (OIEPP), described the office’s efforts to address the priorities of Indian tribes for energy development in the context of climate change. The office was authorized in 2005, received a budget in 2009, and develops its priorities based on feedback from over 250 tribes. Public meetings with tribes indicate strong interest in renewable and clean energy, so the office is establishing programs in finance and markets as well as ways to develop infrastructure for sustainable economies, areas in which tribes need training.

Tribal communities face challenges from subpar infrastructure, but a 2012 report about tribal lands indicated substantial potential for large-scale commercial renewable projects, and in 2013 the office and tribes began to focus on small-scale development.⁴² Conversations are just beginning. With massive tribal land areas, what are the potentials for carbon capture and storage? What technical assistance is needed for very small Alaskan communities to develop a resilient infrastructure that can be completely off-grid? The tribes need to examine the relationship of climate change and their energy choices, but that examination has barely begun.

A panel then provided perspective from three Native American organizations; Patricia Mariella, director of the American Indian Policy Institute, ASU, chaired the session. Ann Marie Chischilly, executive director of the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP), reported that climate change has a disproportionate impact on 566 tribes and Alaskan natives for reasons that range from relative poverty to impacts on subsistence living and sacred sites, and cited a number of challenges facing particular tribes and regions. ITEP provides training, assistance, and educational resources to tribes on climate change issues, focusing on adaptation planning, tribal climate change profiles, traditional ecological knowledge, participation in the national climate assessment, and the First Stewards organization. Its environmental education outreach program reaches students from kindergarten through college. It partners with numerous organizations and tribes to host the Tribal Clean Energy Resource Center, which provides energy planning and technical and policy analysis to the tribes, and sponsors internships and professional development.

Pilar Thomas, deputy director of the DOE Tribal Energy Office, noted that traditional energy resources and transmission are largely owned by nontribal entities. New energy sources can change this ratio and enhance the capacity for energy security and climate change mitigation and adaptation in Indian country. She listed a number of capabilities that are essential to develop this potential, from planning to emergency response and funding. Technological and organizational capabilities are also necessary, particularly if opportunities for adaptation are to be recognized and incorporated into infrastructures.

Jose Aguto, legislative secretary for sustainable energy and environment at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, reminded the audience that tribal governments are beginning to exercise their rights and need to be consulted as governments. However, tribal authority within their jurisdictional boundaries

_______________

⁴² December 2012. DOE Office of Indian Energy Developing Clean Energy Projects on Tribal Lands Data and Resources for Tribes (www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57048.pdf).

is very difficult to exercise, as is evident in questions of jurisdiction concerning nonmembers’ land within tribal boundaries, and special requirements from federal agencies such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

He cautioned against overuse of generalizations about tribes but acknowledged common issues and priorities. Two characteristics fundamental to indigenous people grow out of their place-based values: their close relationship with their natural resources and the desire to transmit these resources to future generations. To uphold their values many tribes exercise best practices in natural resource management; for instance, traditional ecosystem practices underlie salmon harvest and renewable forestry programs. The tribal world view emphasizes the links between the protection of ecosystems and prosperity, happiness, and survival, and Aguto called on the larger community of experts and interested citizens to develop cooperative efforts to support and expand these opportunities.

The discussion after the panel covered numerous topics—provision of engineering education in and for tribal colleges; development of STEM capacity for Native Americans in nontribal colleges and universities; incorporation of Native American perspectives in the focus on climate change, engineered systems, and society; and development of new models that incorporate education about systems management and policy in a wide range of undergraduate and graduate programs to provide students from all disciplines a systemic approach to management decisions about scientific and technical training.

In Summary

Broadening participation in this CCEP Phase I project educated project participants about the approaches each took to the topic. They were able to articulate their organizational needs and priorities, results from relevant research and related activities, and the challenges and opportunities that the issues posed for them. Placing these discussions in the context of sociotechnical systems demonstrated that solutions would demand the engagement of all of these communities in responding to the multi-faceted interactions among climate change, engineered systems, and society. All project participants are grappling with these issues, and with the associated questions about sustainability, governance, justice, and public trust that any interventions pose. The summaries presented in this chapter and in the report allow readers to examine the results of this process – what has been accomplished and more important perhaps what next steps might look like. Professional societies, business and industry, local governments, and Native American tribes are developing responses that others might consider.