Someone asked me:
“What is the contribution that good structural engineering can make to reducing our carbon footprint?”
The answer (which surprised me once I’d written it) went:
It seems that structural engineering can only contribute a statistically small amount to the climate change debate.
By the time structural engineers are involved in a project the key ‘climate change’ decision – what to build and whether to build it at all – will have been made by other people. The main way for structural engineers to contribute is to drive for minimum material through efficient design but this is only available because efficient design happens to be cheaper. The client wants ‘minimum cost’ first, ‘minimum material = helping climate change’ is a happy coincidence.
As soon as material efficiency is no longer a client’s desire, structural engineers must forget it too. Witness the structurally unoptimised (but very quick to construct) concrete high-rises in the middle east – at the flick of a client’s pen, ‘fast to build but inefficient’ takes precendent over slow and sustainable. Structural engineers’ service are bought by, and hence respond to, the client’s wishes, and sustainability is likely to be bottom of their list.
We can (and probably should) try to shave 10% off a building’s materials by efficient engineering, but it’s possible that if an individual structural engineer really wants to help mitigate climate change they should consider a move to a new field – renewable energy, new materials research, politics, climate science or possibly just join a low-energy commune and live a life of quiet minimal-consumption!
We’re hooked on a long line, and it’s rare that the fish can persuade anyone to stop fishing…
P.S. I’d love to be convinced that the above is wrong – anyone care to restore some optimism to this blog?
The Paper Project 
January 4, 2010 at 1:27 am
I really enjoyed reading your post, keep up making such exciting posts!
December 23, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Hi James,
Great blog, I read your comment on http://inhabitat.com/top-5-most-innovative-green-bridges-on-the-planet/, and am now a big fan of yours.
I am a Civil Engineer, and work in the exciting field of Structural Health Monitoring (SHM). We monitor the structural health of buildings, bridges, dams, tunnels, and other large infrastructure pieces. I have been working on infrastructure life-cycle cost analysis, particularly cost models concerning deferred maintenance vs. replacement vs. controlled life-extension of existing structures using SHM.
I think there are several ways as engineers to answer your friends question “What is the contribution that good structural engineering can make to reducing our carbon footprint?”
1. Design to last. Design buildings to last 100 years vs. 20 years, etc. Each year you use an existing building, you reduce your footprint.
2. Recycle, recycle, recycle. I’m not referring to recycling demo materials (although that is great), I am referring to keeping existing structures in service. For example, instead of replacing deficient bridges with new ones, the challenge for structural engineers should be to maintain, repair, and come up with ways to safely extend their design life. Most structures are over designed by structural engineers, for factors of safety, and have a hidden reserve that is often underutilized.
I realize this is a simplistic look at a large problem, but it could be a basis for change in design considerations.
Please keep up the good work!
Thanks, Joe