Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday March 18 2017, @07:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the your-phone-is-ringing dept.

Discussion around limiting climate change primarily focusses on whether the best results can be gained by individuals changing how they act, or governments introducing new legislation.

Now though, University of Leeds academics Dr Rob Lawlor and Dr Helen Morley from the Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Applied Centre suggest engineering professionals could also play a pivotal role, and could provide a co-ordinated response helping to mitigate climate change.

Writing in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics, they say engineering professional institutions could take a stand in tackling climate change by developing a declaration imposing restrictions and requirements on members.

"A strong and coordinated action by the engineering profession could itself make a significant difference in how we respond to climate change," they said.

"We know many engineers and firms make great efforts to be as environmentally friendly as possible, and research is carried out and supported by the sector to help reduce its impact on the world. We're suggesting that concerted action could improve this process further."

Quoting 2014 research by Richard Heede from the Climate Accountability Institute, they say nearly two-thirds of historic carbon dioxide and methane emissions could be attributed to crude oil and natural gas producers, coal extractors, and cement producers. These are industries typically enabled by the engineering profession.

They're looking at you, VW engineers.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday March 19 2017, @08:22PM

    by VLM (445) on Sunday March 19 2017, @08:22PM (#481245)

    Climate change is not, in any way, a religion. Your insistence that it is

    You make a fair point. I mean you completely fail to explain why I'm wrong other than you say so, but I did a pretty poor job explaining how one of many definitions of religions fit. In that constructive criticism you do me a service, thanks.

    Lets have some Durkheim fun. Durkheim is always better after a couple bottles of hard cider and I rarely drink so this should be a fun one to write.

    a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practises which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to them

    Well obviously he wrote that in hebrew or french but translation issues shouldn't matter as much as philosophical disagreements over the actual content. None the less:

    "a unified system of beliefs and practices" That would be the whole climate change, um, issue, along with its rituals of struggle sessions like the red guards and massive greenwashing in marketing.

    "relative to sacred things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden" That would be forbidden joys such as capitalism, industrialism, optimism, material prosperity, pretty much anything other than being hipster and anti-white.

    "beliefs and practises which unite into one single moral community called a church" That would be blind faith in climate change, catastrophic change, end of the world class of change, the moral superiority of driving to ecology protests in one's SUV, social justice, veganism will save us all or whatever other form of ridiculous greenwashing.

    "all those who adhere to them" Ah the good ole us vs them. Love it. Divide and conqueror, baby. We have some common cause in not wanting to F up my favorite hiking trails, but its more important to be divisive, to use vs them, to other, to argue over politics and in this case religion.

    I didn't use the famous Stackhouse quote on purpose because its just too brutal but here it comes anyway. "accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted" I mean that's practically the self definition of the climate change movement as provided by itself. It must be binding on all, right or wrong thinkers alike enforced in the style of Mohamed's sword if necessary, by definition its statement makes it true, if it's progressive left which it is then its morally just because its progressive, and certainly none of the claims can be confirmed or denied but plenty of conversions at the point of a sword to believe the right facts...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2