Building a sustainable world is not just about cutting emissions. It is also about feeding a growing and increasingly affluent global population without exhausting soil, water, and resources. This article explains why good intentions can still lead to poor outcomes, why public debate often stalls after climate conferences, and why engineers think differently to scientists when risks are urgent. It then introduces wicking beds as a practical tool for carbon capture, better food production, and waste recycling.
A Sustainable World
The world has made very little progress since Kyoto, as shown by Copenhagen. Often this lack of progress is due to well-intentioned viewpoints which are understandable in principle, but which lead to damaging consequences in practice.
For example, the use of ecosystems and soil carbon capture as an offset was strongly opposed by certain green groups. Their reasoning was that it would allow rich, polluting countries to continue extravagant lifestyles without making serious reductions in greenhouse gases. It is a good intention, but it can lead to a bad outcome if it blocks practical solutions that could reduce harm and buy time.
A Holistic Perspective
It is worth taking a moment to step back and create a holistic view of what is happening. Currently we have a global population of over 6 billion, expected to rise to around 9 billion by 2040. But those figures do not show the real issue.
The current rise in greenhouse gases has been driven mainly by the roughly 2 billion affluent consumers in developed countries. Developing countries are becoming more affluent by the day—look at the progress in China—so we can expect that by 2040 we may have around 8 billion affluent consumers. That means not only higher emissions, but far greater consumption of finite resources.
Mankind has shown remarkable resourcefulness in tackling major problems, and there is widespread optimism that science will somehow resolve our challenges. This view is often strongest among the population at large, who may not be familiar with how science and technology work in practice. Our political leaders have also learned to avoid moving too far ahead of public opinion, becoming trend followers rather than true leaders.
Truth, Certainty, and the Limits of Communication
Science is concerned with truth. Scientists go to great lengths to guard their statements, often to the point where the real meaning becomes unclear to the public. I have had a passionate interest in the process of science, but I was trained as an engineer. One of the first lessons a rookie engineer learns is that engineering is not about unassailable truth. It is about managing ignorance.
Engineers learn quickly about “safety factors”: the margin between designed (or predicted) performance and expected requirements. Engineers are not famous for public relations, but they did have the sense to use “safety factor” rather than the more accurate term “ignorance factor”.
Consider an aircraft wing. Engineers do not really know how strong the final geometry will be, how uniform the material will be, or what load might be experienced in a severe storm during flight. So they use safety factors to design a wing that does not fall apart. The fact that air travel is incredibly safe—planes do not fall to bits in the sky—is due to the skill of engineers in managing ignorance.
Managing Truth vs Managing Ignorance
Science is about managing truth. Engineering is about managing ignorance. My television has been bombarded with large-scale tragedies: floods in Pakistan, China and Europe; fires in Russia; heat waves in the US; and our horrendous bushfires in Australia.
No respectable scientist, with a concern for truth, is going to say these tragedies—in which thousands of people have died—are definitively the result of climate change. The best they can say is that the events are consistent with what is predicted under climate change.
Those words can be reassuring to the general public. Many people interpret it as: the tragedies are not proven to be caused by climate change. This interpretation can lead to a policy of inaction.
An engineer, used to managing ignorance, would speak differently. They would say these tragedies are extraordinarily likely to be linked to climate change, and that things look as though they could get much worse. The conclusion is simple: we had better start taking real action now to minimise and mitigate disasters in the future.
It is the same probabilities, but different interpretation—and that difference creates very different outcomes.
You may not like the engineer’s caution, but before you dismiss it, remember this is why you can step on a plane knowing it is not going to fall to bits in the sky.
When Economics Overrides Safety
Now look at the situation when it is the other way around. You have probably experienced some product you paid good money for, only to find it simply does not do the job you bought it for.
The reason is often that the company is run by a finance person. They ask the engineer why the product costs so much, and the engineer says it is because they are managing their ignorance. The finance person then says they are not paying the engineer to be ignorant, and orders them to design the product to a lower price so it can be sold at a profit.
This is not a joke. This is how the real world works.
But do we really want a world where people are drowned, burned, or starved to death simply because the economics make it convenient to delay action?
Climate Change is Only One Part of Sustainability
Climate change is just one component of having a sustainable world. Here I want to look at a technology—the wicking bed—that can help us become more sustainable in several ways at once.
Wicking beds have the potential to remove significant quantities of carbon from the atmosphere, helping to mitigate climate change. They also improve food production capacity, recycle waste back into food, and reduce water pollution.
This approach may offend the delicacies of the purist, because it could be seen as giving an excuse for polluters to continue to pollute. But it is pragmatic. The problem we face is too urgent to reject workable solutions because they are not ideologically perfect.
Pragmatism vs Perfection
Think of it like having a picnic on a railway line. You can debate the probabilities of a train coming, and become worried and miserable. The pragmatist simply makes the effort now: they get up, move to a safer place, and then enjoy life.
Sustainability needs that same practicality. We need tools that work now, at scale, while we also work on the longer transition of energy systems, industry, and transport.
