Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 192
Technology and Environment 1989.
Pp. 192 204. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
The Paradox of Technological
Development
PAUL E. GRAY
Technological development has had profound and permanent effects
the way we live and the way we think about the future-what is possible,
what is probable, what is to be feared, and what is to be hoped for. It
also provides an appropriate introduction to my principal theme, which is
a paradox of our time: the mixed blessing of almost every technological
development. Technological developments come about as people seek
solutions to specific problems and needs, and they often open the way to
other innovations and applications that were unimaginable at the outset.
Because we have not been able to predict all of their consequences, nearly
all such developments carry with them the potential for misuse, and many
consequences are rightly regarded as not only unfortunate but also malign
in their impact.
The new ideas and technologies resulting from the efforts of engineers
are, in some respects, like the Golem of the Rabbi of Prague. An artificial
creature, created to serve, the Golem exhibited a mind of its own, acting
in mischievous ways unanticipated by its maker. New technology will
be applied in ways that transcend the intentions and the purposes of
its creators, and new technology will reveal consequences that were not
anticipated.
Consider, for example, the "green revolution." Developments in agri-
culture have improved food production around the world. Countries such
as India, which for decades was unable) to feed its people, have become net
exporters of food. At the same time, growing reliance on insecticides and
fertilizers has contributed to widespread chemical pollution of rivers, lakes,
192
OCR for page 193
THE PARADOX OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
193
and seas, threatening the food chain itself. Other examples abound: the au-
tomobile, mass communications, energy production. All have changed our
lives for the better, and all have consequences that threaten our well-being
as individuals and as a global society.
What is it about technological development today that makes it such
a mixed blessing and leads to such widespread wariness on the part of the
public? How can this double-edged quality of technological development
be understood in ways that will help us avoid some of the pitfalls of the
past? What can we do about engineering education, engineering practice,
and public policy to help resolve the paradox and reduce the chances of
creating new problems in the future?
SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
Let me begin with some of the characteristics of technological devel-
opment that have caused us problems in the past both in practice and in
perception.
First, major new technological developments produce changes that
deeply affect societr and do so in ways that make it impossible to con-
template turning the clock back by rejecting the development. The very
power and perceived permanence of new technology surely contribute to
the wariness with which it is regarded by many; the green revolution is
a good example. Although new technologies can be adapted to address
some of the unfortunate consequences of modern agricultural methods, a
wholesale abandonment of those methods is now unthinkable; it would lead
to malnutrition and starvation on a scale unknown in human history.
Second, more recent technological developments are, in many cases,
incremental in their intended beneficial consequences. This may have been
less frequently the case in the earlier stages of development when the
benefits of a new technology, such as electrical energy distn~ution sys-
tems, were dramatic in their effect. Increasingly, the positive consequences
of a development are, or are understood as, incremental or marginal in
character. As a result, the natural human tendency to avoid change, the un-
known, and risk becomes more dominant in considering new technological
developments.
A third characteristic of technological development relates to our
steadily improving ability to quantifier very small amounts of potentially
hazardous materials in our environment, as well as our continually changing
assessment of hazards and degree of risk For example, when DOT was
developed a half~entu~y ago, it led to dramatic reductions in the incidence
of malaria and was hailed as a great benefit to humankind. Since then, our
growing ability to identifier and measure vety small concentrations of this
OCR for page 194
194
PAUL E. GRAY
and other synthetic pesticides has enabled us to recognize the harm they
do to our environment as welt
Even with our growing capabilities to identify and measure hazards,
when it comes to questions of probability, uncertainty, and long-term
consequences, scientists disagree among themselves about the bases of risk
assessment. Policymakers do the best they can, but when they get many
different opinions from experts, it becomes just that much more difficult to
know what to do. This certainly does not help public understanding and
debate on such issues.
Fourth, because we now live on a crowded planet, the consequences
of technological development have a more immediate and far-reaching
impact and are more readily apparent than in earlier times. For most
of human history, the impacts of development were masked and diluted
because that development was orders of magnitude away from stretching
the capacity of our environment to absorb pollution and other burdens.
Our heritage in this respect has roots that go a long way back. The slash-
and-burn agriculture of prehistoric humankind required new land every
few years, but this was surely never seen as an obstacle or consideration
because land was available without apparent limits and the people were
so few. Air pollution in industrial England had severe local effects, as
in the killing smogs of London, but these problems seemed not to have
significant global consequences and were, in any case, largely dealt with
locally. The impact of technological development on our environment as
reflected in degraded air and water qualibr, warnings of possible global
warming and the depletion of stratospheric ozone, and the hazards of tone
waste is, in large measure, a consequence of the fact that there are many
more of us on this planet. Consequences that were unimportant~ven
practically undetectable when the earth sustained 1 billion or 2 billion
humans become dangerous, or even intolerable, when there are 5 billion,
rapidly heading toward 10 billion.
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
In addition to these characteristics of technology itself, the paradox
of technological development is compounded by public perceptions about
risk and by the fact that we lack an effective system for developing public
policies to help guide technological develoDment. Darticularlv as we face
these issues as a global society.
-rim --7 I- --A
The public perception of risk is sometimes unpredictable and incon-
sistent with quantitative risk assessment data. For example, the public
tolerates approximately 50,000 deaths a year on our nation's highways with
no great outcry, yet there is widespread public concern each time a plane
crashes. Although statistics show that air travel is much safer than auto
OCR for page 195
THE PARADOX OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
195
travel, the public perception is different. Both scientific literacy and com-
munication about risk should be improved so that individuals are better
educated and public perception is closer to the quantitative realities. At
the same time, we must understand and be sensitive to public perceptions
even if they do not appear to be consistent with quantitative evidence.
We should also recognize that even a public educated in the most precise
and sophisticated risk assessment techniques will distrust polio ymakers and
scientists or engineers who dismiss its legitimate fears.
As for the development of public policy, government and industry in
this country have had a largely adversarial relationship when it comes to
policies regarding environmental and economic consequences of technolog-
ical development, with a reliance on regulation rather than on cooperation.
This stems largely from the lack of clearly articulated and agreed upon
standards for safety, cleanliness, or risk. Without such criteria, it is not sur-
prising that continual conflict and misunderstanding persist between groups
and individuals with differing concerns. This, together with the lack of
technical and scientific knowledge at high levels of decision making in the
legislative and executive branches of government and in the public itself,
has meant that we do not have a consistent, well-thought-out, and clearly
articulated set of policies in this domain. Nor do we have processes that
allow us to resolve disputes in a reasonable fashion. We are caught in a
gridlock of adversarial relations among various special interest groups, a
position that exacerbates the problem rather than helps resolve it.
Creators of new technological developments and poli~nakers thus
have a particular responsibility to explore, as thoroughly and aggressively
as possible, the multiple consequences of new developments to make those
considerations an integral part of the process of technological development.
They need to develop guidelines and policies for sustainable development
that reflect concern for the long-term, global implications of large-scale
technologies and that support the innovation of less intrusive, more adapt-
able technologies at all levels.
A CASE IN POINT: THE GREENHOUSE Ells
A dramatic and current example of the double-edged quality of techno-
logical development and of a problem that will require the most concerted
technological, political, economic, and social collaboration on an inter-
national basis is the phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect an
environmental issue that suddenly moved toward the head of the list of
public concerns following the unusual weather conditions in the United
States during the summer of 1988.
The average temperature of the earth manifests a balance between the
heating effects of solar radiation and the cooling associated with infrared
OCR for page 196
196
PAUL E. GRAY
thermal radiation from the earth. The atmosphere's transparency and,
therefore, the average global temperature depend on the atmosphere's
absorption characteristics and concentrations of carbon dioxide and certain
trace gases. Some of these gases are produced by natural processes and
have been present in our atmosphere for eons. Because of their presence,
the earth is about 30°C warmer than it otherwise would be; this is the
phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect.
These gases are also produced by industrial processes, particularly (for
carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) by the burning of wood and fossil fuels,
and there is now clear evidence that the concentrations of these greenhouse
gases are steadily increasing. As a result, the average temperature of the
earth must increase to maintain the heat balance between solar input and
infrared output.
The growing concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere
due to industrial, agricultural, and other human activities are, in a sense,
directly driven by population and by the increasing intensity of development
in its present form. The earth has experienced an increase in atmospheric
carbon dionde of about 20 percent in less than two centuries. The present
rate of increase suggests that the concentration of this greenhouse gas will
increase another 10 percent by early in the next century and will double
by the second half of the twenty-first century (Bolin et al., 1986; ~abalka,
1985~.
Changes in the atmosphere during the past century should, according
to theoretical models, have produced about 0.5°C of warming. Whereas
the average global temperature has increased by about this amount, the
natural variations in temperature are of about the same order of magnitude.
Consequently, direct confirmation of the global warming associated with
increases in greenhouse gases is not yet in hand, although the observed
temperature increases are consistent with theoretical expectations. These
theoretical models predict an additional 0.5°C warming in the next 20 years
and 2-5°C warming by the middle of the twenty-first century if greenhouse
gas concentrations continue to increase as energy use increases and as
deforestation continues.
The warming is buffered and delayed by the oceans, which absorb both
carbon dioxide and heat. As a consequence of this, even if production of
greenhouse gases could be stopped dead today, global temperatures would
continue to increase for several decades. These temperature increases will
persist because most of the greenhouse gases have very long lifetimes.
Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by two processes: net
photosynthesis in plants and absorption in the oceans, with eventual de-
position at the ocean bottom as limestone. The second process is both
dominant and extremely slow, with time constants on the order of 1,000
years.
. .
OCR for page 197
THE PARADOX OF TECHNOLOGICAL DE~:LOPMENT
197
Although direct evidence of global warming attributable to green-
house gases has not yet been obtained, our present understanding of the
mechanisms and our direct observation of increasing greenhouse gas con-
centrations make eventual significant warming a virtual certainty. It is likely
that the earth will, by the end of this century, be warmer than it has been
in the past 100,000 years. Unless we change course, global temperatures
are likely to be higher by the latter half of the twenty-first century than
they have been in 2-10 million years.
The effects of global warming on climate and thus on the activities
of humankind are much harder to predict. Increases in sea level are
inescapable as the warming oceans expand and as mountain glaciers and
ice caps release water. Patterns of precipitation are likely to change, thus
bringing less rainfall in the middle latitudes where much of the world's
grain production now occurs; the viability and reproductive capacities of
plants of all kinds, particularly unmanaged forests, could diminish. Those
extreme natural events, which cause much human misery~rought, heat
waves, coastal Booding are likely to become much more frequent.
ADDRESSING GLOBAL WARMING AS A GLOBAL PROBLEM
What should be done about this? The problem of global warming
calls for both human adaptation and the limitation of pollutants. Each
requires technological support and engineering development, and both
require cooperation not only among those in the engineering profession,
industry, and government but also among nations.
Adaptation in anticipation of a warmer earth is necessary because the
most drastic course of limitation of pollutants will not offset the momentum
of past contamination; a significant degree of warming is now unavoidable.
Adaptation will require attention to agriculture, including the development
of new strains of grain, to water resources, and to protection of low-lying
coastal regions where flooding will occure
Limitation is essential if we, as a global population, are to avoid
even more extreme conditions far into the future. Further, limitation of
greenhouse gases can slow the rate of warming, which eases somewhat the
task of adaptation.
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World
Meteorological Organization recently recommended the following actions
to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the face of growing populations and
increased economic activity (eager, 1988~:
Reduce fossil fuel use by increasing end-use energy efficiency.
The experience of the past 15 years in response to the increase
in oil prices induced by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
OCR for page 198
198
PAUL E. GRAY
Countries provides us with an example of the power of conser-
vation. The UN study foresees a potential reduction in energy
consumption in the industrialized nations of 50 percent with extant
technology. Many efficiency improvements can be achieved with
net economic savings, and conservation efforts can be undertaken
right now, without delay.
Shift the fossil fuel mix from high carbon dioxide-emitting fuels to
those that produce less carbon dioxide per unit of energy. Natural
gas is better than oil, which is better than coat
Reverse current trends toward deforestation and encourage refor-
estation.
· Develop the technology to remove carbon dioxide from stack gases
of large, stationary fossil fuel-burning energy converters, such as
electric power generating plants, and dispose of it in the deep
ocean. Although such an approach would at least double the cost
of electricity, these costs are about the same magnitude as those
associated with the most stringent pollution control requirements
now in place in some nations.
Replace fossil fuels with alternative energy sources such as so-
lar energy, wind and tidal power, ocean thermal conversion, and
nuclear power. This is, to my mind, the only viable long-term ap-
proach to offset the forces of continued population and economic
growth.
It is clear that we are not talking simply about technological solutions.
Global warming is, obviously, a global problem; any effort to limit future
emissions of greenhouse gases must be global in character if it Is to be
effective. The degree of cooperation required is without precedent because
it must encompass both the highly industrialized nations, where present
energy use is most intensive, and the less developed nations, where hopes
for a better future appear to require greater intensity of energy use. For
example, what response should the West expect from China if we, who have
contributed most of the present carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere,
suggest that the Chinese, in the interest of a less degraded environment a
century from now, should forgo the exploitation of their enormous reserves
of coal?
Our traditional political processes tend to deal with near-term issues
and immediate problems. We must develop political processes capable of
producing sensible responses to problems where the time constants are on
the order of a century.
OCR for page 199
THE PARADOX OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
ONE COURSE OF ACTION: NUCLEAR ENERGY
199
Whereas economic, political, and social forces must be brought to bear
on this problem, it seems self-evident that amelioration of this problem
requires new engineering creativity and technical developments aimed at
the several courses of action described in the UN study. Although this is
not the place for a careful exploration of possible future developments and
directions, I would lee to comment briefly on one aspect of amelioration,
which seems to me to be compelling: the greater use of nuclear energy as
an alternative to fossil fuels.
It has become a commonplace to assert that the nuclear industry in
the United States is now dead, that its death was probably suicide, and
that the public is both passionate and unified in its determination to see
that it stays buried. The present state of affairs needs no explication.
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl cannot be expunged from our collective
consciousness. Seabrook and Shoreham are real-time examples of the
depth of the conviction held by our political leaders, perhaps even by a
majority of the public, about the risks and benefits of nuclear power.
Certainly, mistakes have been made in the past, both in technology
and in the ways public concerns about nuclear energy have been addressed.
We must be willing to learn from these mistakes, to explore different
approaches to the design of nuclear energy plants, and to improve public
awareness and understanding of these issues if nuclear energy Is to play a
role in our future.
Let me speak first about reactor design. Light-water reactors (LWRs),
which are used in nearly all of the plants in operation or under construction
in the United States, place heavy demands on the builders and operators
of these plants. The principal safety hazard is a loss-of-cooling accident,
which could lead to the melting of fuel elements and subsequent release of
radioactivity o prevent such an occurrence, the design and operation of
an LWR must provide an absolute guarantee of the presence of adequate
quantities of cooling water, and the guarantee must reflect the worst
possible scenarios, including rupture of pipes, pump failures, failure of
outside electrical power, and operator errors. ~ reduce the probability of
loss of coolant to acceptably small levels, LWRs rely on multiple redundant
backup systems or "defense in depth." It is the nature of these complex
and tremendously costly protective systems that their effectiveness under all
accident conditions cannot be demonstrated experimentally. Consequently,
questions about modes of failure can be answered, at best, only in analytical
and probabilistic terms, which is a major reason for much of the public
skepticism about nuclear power in its present form.
It is possible to design and build reactors that can survive the failure
of components without the possibility of fuel damage or the release of
OCR for page 200
200
PAUL E. GRAY
radioactivity. This can be accomplished by employing forms of fuel able
to withstand very high temperatures, by limiting the power density in the
core, and by arranging for sufficient heat removal by natural processes
to prevent fuel damage. Such "passively safe" reactors can be designed
to suffer simultaneous failure of all control and cooling systems without
endangering the public (Agnew, 1981; Faltermayer, 1988; Lidsky, 1988~.
Reactors designed in this manner produce less power output than light-
water reactors: 10~150 megawatts of electrical power output compared
with 1,00~1,500 megawatts. A number of individual power-producing
modules will be combined on each site to produce the required amount
of power. These small, identical modules can be factory built instead of
being custom made on-site, as is the case for the much larger, much more
complex LWRs. The economy of serial production will replace the economy
of large scale.
Because the individual reactor modules are identical and centrally built,
licensing can be standardized and can be based on full-scale testing of an
actual device rather than on detailed review and inspection of the defense
in depth required for LWRs. This is an enormous advantage because it
permits actual demonstration of the response of the reactor to the most
severe and demanding hazards. Reactors of this kind present a vanishingly
small operating risk to the public a risk much smaller than that associated
with most everyday activities. Coal-fired electric power plants produce and
release more low-level radioactivity (carried in fly ash) than do nuclear
reactors (Hurley, 1982~.
Public attitudes about the acceptability of nuclear power are based
as well on concerns about high-level nuclear waste handling and disposal.
Decades of temporizing and indecision in the United States have aggravated
this problem. What is required here is not simply technical innovation, but
political creativity as well, to address the dilemmas posed by the "not in my
baclyard" concerns. Several nations in Western Europe have shown that
solutions to this problem do indeed exist
I am convinced that several undertakings are essential if nuclear power
is to have any role in the U.S. energy future:
1. We must make an earnest and sustained effort to educate the
public about the risks and benefits of nuclear power in terms that permit
quantitative comparison with other energy sources.
2. We must achieve technically, politically, and environmentally ac-
ceptable solutions to the problem of nuclear waste handling and disposal-
solutions that take into account the associated concerns about nuclear
weapons proliferation.
3. We must develop, build, and test radically different reactor designs
that pose negligible risks of the accidental release of radioactive materials
OCR for page 201
THE PARADOX OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
201
as a result of overheating. Several possibilities exist, including new water-
cooled and liquid-metal~ooled designs as well as gas-cooled designs. These
designs hold the promise of passively safe operation.
Nevertheless, it is clear that none of these designs will be acceptable
until such reactors are built at scale and thoroughly tested under the
most extreme conditions Murphy's Law can produce. Absolutely risk-free
operation cannot, like absolutely anything else, be guaranteed: one can
postulate a meteor falling on the reactor, after ale Nevertheless, the
degree of risk to the environment and to human life can be driven down
below the levels of corresponding risk inherent in the present alternative
of fossil fuels.
ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACI1CE: WHAT NEXT?
Richard de Neufville, chairman of the Technology and Polipy Program
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has suggested that many
people who seek solutions to complex, important issues, such as toxic waste,
nuclear power, or global warming, tend to resect one of two perspectives:
some assert that every problem has a technical "fix"; others, that each of
these same problems has a moral fix.
Unfortunately, neither perspective admits to the complexities and to
the social, technical, and moral implications of most important, real prob-
lems. Silver bullets exist only in myths, and responsible solutions are
developed only by knitting together the technical and moral perspectives.
Those of us who develop, promote, and apply technological innovation
have the moral responsibility to explore arid consider, to the greatest ex-
tent possible in the light of our best effort, the full consequences of any
innovation. It is both professionally and morally irresponsible to define the
problem so narrowly as to leave these considerations to others.
What can be done in engineering education and practice, and in the
domain of public policy, to recognize this conflict between the potential
and the problems of technological development, to deal realistically with
public apprehension about the risks attendant on change, and to minimize
the degree to which future developments are burdened with unforeseen
negative consequences?
with regard to engineering education, a number of things could be
done:
1. Instruction in the humanities, arts, and social sciences should
be structured and undertaken to require the engineering student to gain
some understanding of societies and cultures, of the complex relationships
between society and technology, and of human values and relationships.
..
OCR for page 202
202
PAUL E. GRAY
Engineering is, obviously, a socially derived and culturally influenced ac-
tivity, and engineers cannot function effectively without being steeped in
those contexts. This is not the only reason for studying the humanities,
arts, and social sciences to make better engineers. However, an engineer
who has cultivated an interest in one or more of these fields is, I believe,
more likely to bring to his or her practice a sensitivity to the social context
of engineering and attention to all the consequences of new technology.
2. Although all engineers should have an appreciation for and sensi-
tivity to the social environment in which they operate, some engineers who
might be called interface engineers will work directly on issues of appli-
cation, impact, and implementation in a broader context. They need direct
engagement with these issues in their education. These students should
tackle subjects and engage in research on topics that directly address the
political, economic, and social considerations integral to scientific and tech-
nological developments.
3. Engineering design courses, particularly at the upper level, should
move beyond requiring significant individual effort to requiring collabora-
tion among teams of students formed to work on problems that are not
artificially isolated from their social context. A part of that team effort
should bear on the exploration of social consequences and the problems
that arise when technology is used for different purposes. Although such
projects are inevitably constrained, it is important that engineering students
begin to work as engineers in ways that reflect to some degree the way
actual engineering work should be done.
4. Finally, students should be prepared for active leadership in the
definition and resolution of issues that arise at the intersection of technology
and society. Neither we nor they can afford to sit back and expect other
professions to imagine, create, and implement the kinds of solutions that
are both socially responsible and firmly grounded in technical realities.
Engineers do not hold the sole responsibility here, but the profession must
consciously prepare and train itself to do its part: effective leadership must
be learned.
Now this speaks as well to the role of the engineer. Engineering prac-
tice must, in the work of the engineer, reflect a broadened role and more
comprehensive concerns. The engineer should bring to his or her work
not only sound technical knowledge, disciplined technique, and a focused
search for creative solutions to novel problems but also a concern for the
ecology of technology. Not all consequences of technological development
can be anticipated; not all unfortunate extensions can be anticipated. Nev-
ertheless, the imperative to understand the implications of a development
in its broadest and most encompassing terms is a professional responsibility
of the engineer, which must be incorporated into the task from the outset.
OCR for page 203
IKE PARADOX OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
203
On the other hand, I am not suggesting that this responsibility rests
with me engineer alone. The engineering profession should not only
incorporate social and economic considerations into its work but also work
together win government, industry, and the public to develop long-term,
global strategies for addressing these issues.
COOPERATION FOR THE FUTURE
The issues raised by the paradox of technological development are
profound and difficult. Nonetheless, I am optimistic that, in this era of
global interdependence, responsible people will recognize that appropriate
public policies to ensure sustainable development can and must be devel-
oped from an iIlternationa1 perspective. We should begin now to lay a firm
foundation for the future.
In particular, the following challenges should be considered:
.
to educate engineers to consider the far-reaching implications of
their work for the social and physical environment, and also to
educate those in the humanistic disciplines to fully appreciate the
nature of science and engineering;
to develop technology for sustainable development, appropriate
allocation of resources, and risk management;
to advance the art of policymaking at all levels, which includes
realistically reflecting the implications of technological innovations
in both the substance of decisions and the process of decision
making; and
to recognize the need for communication, firm resolve, and mutual
respect among policymakers, engineers, industrialists, and the
public, who will ultimately be responsible for our common future
in the democracies.
Most important, we should not let the need for adequate preparation
be an excuse for inaction. Just as long lines at the gas pumps in the winter
of 197~1974 triggered public awareness of the need for conservation and
alternative energy sources, the hot, dry summer of 1988 may inspire the
search for technologies and public policies that respect the limitations of
the environment and allow for economic growth.
CONCLUSION
Engineers have changed the world we live in. Engineers with vision
can provide the means to realize strategies for a viable future in our
economically, culturally, and ecologically intertwined world.
OCR for page 204
204
PAUL E. GRAY
The great hope and the great challenge before us are to bring engi-
neering education and practice, industrial priorities, and public policy into
alignment in ways that eliminate the paradox of technological develop-
ment. We have an opportunity now to turn that paradox around and forge
a new concept of how the engineer works and views the world. Furthering
technological and economic development in a socially and environmentally
responsible manner is not only feasible, it is the great challenge we face as
engineers, as engineering institutions, and as a society.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to the following persons for discussions that were helpful
in the preparation of these remarks: Hermann Hans, Lawrence Iidsky,
Kathy Lombardy Richard de Neufirille, Ronald Prinn, Daniel Roos,
Walter Rosenblith, Peter Stone, Neil lddreas, Leon Hilling, Robert White,
and Gerald Wilson.
REFERENCES
Agnew, H. M. 1981. Gas cooled nuclear power reactors. Scientific American 244:55 63.
Bolin, B., B. R Doos, J. Jager, and R. A. Warrick. 1986. The Greenhouse Effect, Climatic
Change, and Ecosystems. New York: John Wiley ~ Sons.
Faltermayer, E. 1988. Taking fear out of nuclear power. Fortune 118~1 August):10~118.
Hurley, P. M. 1982. Living with Nuclear Radiation. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of
Michigan Press.
Jager, J. 1988. Developing Policies for Responding to Climatic Change. WCIP-1, WMO/ID-
No. 225, April. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization and United Nations
Environment Program.
Lidsky, Lo M. January 10, 198~3. A safe atomic plant for the future? Washington Post C3.
I~balka, J. R. 1985. Atmosphenc Carbon Dioxide and the Global Carbon Cycle. DOE/ER-
0239. Washington, 13.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
global warming
