Professor Mike Manefield
In Australia there is an expectation from democratically elected governments that a university pull its weight in society. It is characteristically pragmatic. It’s not enough to generate and perpetuate knowledge. These are not old school ivory towers, but modern engines for innovation and education to address challenges and drive economic growth. This has been achieved through restrained government funding over decades compelling Australian universities to charge students for their degrees and court industry for research funding. It’s pragmatic and useful, but it has its limitations and is incomplete on its own.
If you’re going to pay for a degree, then you are more inclined to pursue one that lands you a glamorous and well-paid job (according to your parents who might be paying for the degree). If you are going to invest in research, you are going to invest where it gives you the best return. As much as we are all glamorous as individuals (yes, every single one of you), unfortunately the land and groundwater remediation industry is not perceived to be glamorous or profitable. We are focussed on the stains and scars human industry leaves in its wake. We undo. We are driven by moral and ethical imperatives to care for human and environmental health. This means we must work harder to attract talent and investment. The pragmatic system in which Australian universities are embedded, fails to fully recognise the value of what we do. We need to advocate.
I’ve also heard Australia lauded internationally for its pragmatic, common-sense, risk-based approach to contaminated site remediation. I’m proud of Australia for that reputation, but it can be argued that our approach comes with a cost that only becomes apparent over long periods of time. There is room for more foresight, broader oversight and coordination to accompany our business as usual, enabling resources available to site remediation to be leveraged more efficiently. We are missing opportunities to innovate and to reduce contaminant mass in our lands and waters.
Many large remediation projects are driven by land use change associated with infrastructure development. People using infrastructure will be at risk if contamination is not resolved. Tunnels, light rail stabling yards, property developments. Again, pragmatically, we are harnessing the finance that accompanies infrastructure development to remediate contaminated sites. This is great, but it invariably comes with tight project deadlines that all but rule out technology options that are effective over longer periods of time. Technology options that are more sustainable economically, environmentally and socially. Our pragmatism is constraining our sustainability ambitions.
Tight deadlines derived from infrastructure motivated remediation also stifle innovation. If infrastructure needs to be operational within two years, the opportunities to try something novel don’t exist. It nullifies industry’s inherent enthusiasm to reach out to academia to create or discover something new or develop foundational knowledge. Inventions out of industry or discoveries out of universities aspiring to commercialisation don’t get a pilot trial and remain stranded at technology readiness level 4 or 5, gazing sorrowfully over the research and development valley of death. There are government funds that address this, but these are likely to be invested in something more glamorous (profitable) than a technology for liberating an ecosystem from toxic substances. For example, despite its remit, the NSW Biosciences Fund has a clear biomedical bias over environmental biotechnologies in view of the superior profitability of the former sector (cures prevailing over prevention).
That’s the problem statement. What is the solution? Our industry needs more advocacy. To compete with the glamour of AI, quantum computing and big pharma we need a referee to recognise our value despite our lack of glamour. We need governments to allocate contaminated areas sitting idle as test beds for technology development long before they are earmarked for development on urgent deadlines. We need governments to dedicate funding for environmental technology development to finance trials. We need a stronger appetite for iterative design processes where the function of failure is recognised as an opportunity to optimise. There is a clear economic argument that investment now will reduce costs in the future. Does it make sense to remediate extinct residential suburbs one bentonite wall at a time? Alternatively, we can recognise that brownfield areas will inevitably be developed down the track and that there are opportunities to try new things and select more sustainable options with time on our side. Australia has no shortage of contaminant hotspots to serve as substrate for remediation technology innovation. If we used sites that sit idle as testing grounds for advanced technologies, we can simultaneously innovate and move toward more sustainable practise. Pragmatism is crucial, but it’s not everything.
With our pragmatic approach, we don’t recognise the risk of leaving contaminated sites sit idle for decades. The slow but inexorable adsorption that bakes in the stain. The gradual contaminant migration processes that smear the stain towards sensitive receptors and expand the distribution. This all makes our work harder, limits our options and drives up cost. If only we had the same sense of urgency as when a glass of red hits the carpet and we dash for the salt.