Individualization: Plant A Bike, Save The World Analysis

In “Curbing Overconsumption: Challenge for Ethically Responsible Engineering,” professor E.J. Woodhouse discusses modern overconsumption, and claims that engineers should be responsible for aiding the environment. At one point, he asks, “if it is technically feasible to arrange consumption far more efficiently, […] does that imply that the engineers who help arrange the wasteful approaches are violating certain ethical standards?” (24). Woodhouse claims that it is the ethical role of engineers to use their positions and resources to decrease the waste production of American overconsumption. Meanwhile, in “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” professor Michael Maniates discusses modern environmentalism, and in particular

focuses on the flawed thinking behind the present movement, and then proposes an alternative lens through which to evaluate environmental policy. The lens he proposes is a formula highlighting several points of environmental consideration, “‘IWAC,’ which is environmental Impact = quality of Work X meaningful consumption Alternatives X political Creativity” (47).

Maniates later elaborates on each factor of his formula, and then suggests that it be used for evaluating environmental policy proposals. The IWAC framework is able to provide an effective critique for Woodhouse’s work, indicating where his argument is sufficiently detailed, and where his argument could be expanded upon.

Maniates’ views on what he refers to as work are effectively mirrored by Woodhouse’s article. Maniates’ concept of “quality of Work” refers to how individuals inherently care about various aspects of their job, such as “questions about job security, worker satisfaction, downsizing, overtime, and corporate responsibility” (47). He also relates this concept more directly to environmental issues by claiming that when workers feel powerless in their jobs, they prefer to wield their power as consumers instead of attempting to resolve issues in a vocational capacity (48). Woodhouse relates to the first point by discussing the working conditions of engineers. “Engineers work within a web of constraints created by employers,

consumer tastes, government policy, and other social forces” (27). He acknowledges that engineers work under many different pressures, and recognizes that not all engineers have the power to create change from a professional position. Woodhouse provides suggestions for how environmentally conscious engineers in positions of power can take action, as well as another option for those who either do not or believe that they do not have the ability to do anything as engineers. His proposal is to “Take a collective rather than individual approach, expecting schools of engineering and professional organizations to take the lead; […] Rather than thinking of professional responsibilities as occurring only at work, envision ways that engineers can act responsibly as citizens and consumers” (29). Woodhouse’s proposed solution provides options for any engineer to take action to help the environment if they so desire. He implores higher ranking engineering employees and heads of engineering schools to use their position to lead the conversation on reforming engineering ethics that Woodhouse considers to be vital. However, if as Maniates predicts, the less important engineers give up on making changes from a position of leadership within their industries and prefer to act as consumers, then Woodhouse has an alternative. He advises that they act responsibly as consumers and contribute to the general conversation on ethics reform as citizens. Woodhouse’s suggestion therefore manages to fulfill Maniates’ criterion of addressing work conditions by recognizing the powerlessness of many engineering employees and harnessing it by providing multiple plans of action.
Potential answers to Maniates’ concerns about “meaningful consumption Alternatives” can also be found throughout Woodhouse’s article.

Although Maniates labels the “A” in IWAC as “meaningful consumption Alternatives,” his thoughts on the matter refer more to the institutional influences on product development. In Woodhouse’s words, “The public’s failure to embrace sustainable technologies has more to do with institutional structures that restrict the aggressive development and wide dissemination of sustainable technologies than with errant consumer choice” (48). Instead of attributing the lack of environmentally friendly products to happenstance, Maniates claims that there are production-side structural aspects which hinder the development of green products. Woodhouse mirrors Maniates in this aspect by recognizing the influences on engineers to overlook environmental concerns. “Neither law nor professional norms make [sustainable] design tasks a required aspect of most engineers’ responsibilities, and most employers place substantial obstacles in the way of engineers taking those design elements farther than law and market competition require” (27). By and large, companies are driven by the desire to maximize profit above all else, and from the perspective of employers, adding in environmental concerns is merely an additional constraint on potential profit margins. If engineering ethics and government regulations are sufficiently detailed on sustainability, then employers

are begrudgingly willing to oblige, but otherwise such considerations are perceived as an unnecessary drain on company resources. For this reason, Woodhouse argues that being environmentally conscious should be added to engineering codes of ethics, because then engineers would be expected to focus on sustainable technologies, regardless of employer desires. In this manner, Woodhouse not only parallels Maniates’ thoughts on institutional inhibitions on the production of environmentally friendly products, but even seems to focus his entire article around that reality.
In comparison, Woodhouse’s article does not fully incorporate Maniates’ ideas of political creativity, but there are nevertheless some similarities. When Maniates discusses political creativity as part of a plan to help the environment, he refers to the importance of political thought, and the need to reevaluate what we consider to be feasible (49). Maniates provides specific examples of this application, but more generally, he hopes to challenge conventional wisdom on what possible solutions to environmental woes are feasible. In his article, Woodhouse does bring up the influence of government policy on the actions of employers of engineers (27). However, he never suggests political action as part of the solution to his problem, for example, to force engineers to follow stricter environmental policy. In the one instance he does mention any sort of collective action, he is recommending it as a way to support proactive engineers, instead of as a force for change on its own (29). But while Woodhouse’s argument does not implement political action, it challenges the status quo, in particular pushing the idea that engineering codes of ethics should include environmental responsibility. “The Australian Institution of Engineers explicitly promotes environmental sustainability, for example, a reminder not to take U.S. practice as the primary standard” (29). American engineering standards might not be concerned about sustainability, but the Australian example indicates that the current state of American standards is not necessarily ideal. In fact, Woodhouse explicitly claims that the widely accepted American codes of ethics are crucially overlooking environmental responsibility. Maniates’ framework notes the absence of political action as a vehicle of change in Woodhouse’s argument, although the latter still embraces the spirit of questioning the current state of affairs.
Woodhouse’s argument appears to complete the three main criteria of Maniates’ IWAC framework, albeit to varying degrees of success. Woodhouse’s argument strongly parallels Maniates’ discussion about quality of work and meaningful consumption alternatives, but while Woodhouse appears to follow the spirit of Maniates’ thoughts on political creativity, the comparison is less direct. Admittedly, Woodhouse’s argument does not need to perfectly follow IWAC, and Maniates himself says that IWAC is not perfect (49). However, given that Woodhouse himself brought up the influence of government policy on engineers and on consumption trends in general, there appears to be room for an added facet of political action in his solution. At least in the case of Woodhouse’s article, Maniates’ IWAC framework seemed to be useful, since it managed to note the positives of Woodhouse’s argument and get a better understanding of the key points. However, a proper critique should have some positives and negatives, and IWAC also pulls off the latter by highlighting the potential for political activism as an additional part of Woodhouse’s plan to reform engineering codes of ethics. If Woodhouse actually chose to edit his article based on the results from the application of the IWAC framework, his argument might end up stronger for it.