If COVID-19 taught us anything about policy making, I would argue that it has to be that the scientists, engineers, and innovators should always remain at the centre of it.
In the 1820s, the “greenhouse effect” for the first time was described by the French Physicist Joseph Fourier. Some 40 years later, Irish scientist John Tyndall explored what kind of gases played a role in the greenhouse effect. The laboratory tests that the coal gas containing Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and volatile hydrocarbons was especially effective at absorbing energy. He eventually illustrated that CO2 alone acted like a sponge in the way it could absorb multiple wavelengths of sunlight. He realised that any change in the amount of water vapour or carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could change the climate. His work, therefore, set a foundation for our understanding of climate change and meteorology.
There has always been a general scientific consensus throughout the world that the climate change threat is imminent and one that affects us all. However, there has never been a consensus on what the optimal policy approach might be. Consequently, climate policies are highly fragmented across different jurisdictions (Figure-1).
Subscribe to PII and receive:
Our long-established bi-monthly digital magazine *Process Industry Informer*, featuring exclusive articles, news and updates across the Process Industries, plus commentary from our three industry experts:
Sean Moran
Gavin Smith
Dave Green
PLUS:
- Process Industry Update — our weekly e-newsletter
- PII Podcast
- Special messages from our advertising partners
Figure-1 – Source: World Bank Carbon Pricing Dashboard (https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/)
*ETS represents Emissions Trading Schemes
Despite this, deservedly, the climate has now consistently been in the spotlight and started appearing on the agenda at major events like the World Economic Forum 2021 summit, and more recently was seen on the G7 summit agenda. The UK government has set the country on a pathway to net zero emissions by 2050 and is due to hold one of the most awaited climate events, COP26 (United Nations Climate Change Conference), later this year.
The Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change, adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris on 12 December 2015, is now into its sixth year; however, in its NDC Synthesis Report, the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) recently published that the world is ‘not on track’ to meet Paris Agreement Goals.
So, what exactly is the issue? Well, firstly, acting on climate change requires policy makers and governments to make a trade-off between short- and long-term advantages, which is the most difficult trade-off to make. Individuals and organisations gain from ignoring climate change in the short run. Individuals who ignore their carbon footprint's impact on the globe are not required to make adjustments in the automobiles they drive, the items they buy, or the dwellings they live in. If companies don't have to invent new procedures to reduce carbon emissions, they can keep production costs low.
Governments can save money now by relying on combustion-based power generation methods rather than developing and improving green energy sources, even if they are more cost-effective in the long run. Secondly, we urgently require investing more into technologies that promise to reduce our emissions now and in future. In some instances, the technology that isn’t there yet. But looking at history, we know what should come to the rescue together with collective effort and policies- Engineering!
Engineering will be crucial to reduce our impact on the climate and look at ways to reverse the damage. While scientists and engineers work in the background to develop new technologies and solutions to kerb climate change, we urgently need effective policies around the world to significantly reduce our emissions. What exactly should an effective policy be based around?
Over the last two decades, Evidence-Based Policy (EBP) has grown into a global movement, aided by the arrival of behavioural insights and big data, both of which promise to allow policymakers to assess their effects more precisely than ever before. Unfortunately, there is sometimes too much evidence for anybody to evaluate, and policymakers’ resort to shortcuts, basing decisions on a single piece of research or the advice of a single expert, which defeats the purpose.
Finally, in the high-pressure realm of politics, the EBP norm is unattainable – this is exactly why we need scientists, engineers, and innovators at the heart of policymaking. The goal is to empower social interventions using fair thinking and use public funds more efficiently. In an era when some politicians seem to think the truth isn't important, EBP promotes the necessity of getting the facts straight.
It should, however, be acknowledged that policy making could never be purely or perhaps even largely based on scientific evidence. Policies are decisions made by policymakers on what they intend to achieve. Policies are founded on values, emotions, and the desires of interest groups, among other things, in addition to scientific fact.
In some circumstances, policy makers even pay more attention to the voters than objective evidence. Maybe I am biased towards science, but I hope that we will see more engineers, scientists and innovators at the centre of policy making – because one thing’s for sure, that policy processes will remain complex and rarely linear or logical, and science has consistently stepped in to solve world problems targeting exactly that!
