Rethinking climate expertise: is the title too narrow?

In Pakistan, there is a singular point of consensus on climate change: the country contributes minimally to global emissions yet suffers disproportionately from its impacts. Beyond this, agreement on other aspects of climate change - whether mitigation strategies or adaptation measures - is virtually nonexistent. While academic debate on such issues can be constructive, it often lacks a solid foundation, hindering progress toward a unified solution. For instance, there is no clarity on the balance between regulatory oversight and market-based mechanisms to address climate impacts. The government touts its ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2035, with 17% unconditional cuts and 33% conditional reductions. However, stakeholders tasked with implementing this plan disagree on prioritising key actions, such as decarbonising industries, transitioning to renewable energy, adopting climate-smart agriculture, or pursuing a robust REDD+ approach. Similarly, adaptation efforts are hampered by ineffective systems, such as early warning mechanisms that fail due to a top-down managerial approach, neglecting the participatory methods needed to incorporate indigenous knowledge. This pervasive dissent fosters climate inaction in a nation increasingly recognised for promising much but delivering little.

A new debate is emerging in Pakistan about who qualifies as a climate change expert. This echoes a similar discussion from decades ago about who could claim the title of environmentalist: those with degrees in environmental engineering or those in environmental sciences. That earlier debate was resolved by designating the former as environmental engineers and the latter as environmental scientists. However, the question of which group holds greater authority persists. Fortunately, this disagreement has not escalated significantly, as both groups perform similar roles in fields like consultancy, project management, ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), or HSE (Health, Safety, and Environment) sectors. The limited scope of environmental management as compared to combating climate change has largely settled this debate, allowing all parties to coexist productively.

In contrast, the debate over climate change expertise remains far less clear. Those who previously resolved the environmentalist debate - environmental engineers and scientists - are now collectively asserting that climate change falls within their domain. They argue that other disciplines should serve as supporting roles, complicating efforts to define clear boundaries and expertise in this critical field.

Addressing climate change involves two primary approaches: mitigating its causes and adapting to its effects. Each approach requires specific expertise tailored to its unique challenges. For instance, mitigating climate change in agriculture demands knowledge of agricultural practices, just as combating deforestation requires expertise in forestry. Beyond these direct actions, effective regulation is essential to manage and enforce climate initiatives, which calls for specialists in public administration to develop and oversee policy implementation. Furthermore, to enhance these efforts through incentive-based market mechanisms, expertise in business management and macroeconomics is necessary to design such systems. In essence, every layer of climate action - whether mitigation or adaptation - requires specialists from distinct fields to drive meaningful progress.

Environmental scientists and engineers play a crucial role in supporting climate action through their core responsibilities. They can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by implementing effective pollution control measures and designing effluent treatment plants to combat ocean acidification, thereby helping to cool marine ecosystems. Additionally, they can mitigate methane emissions from waste by advancing solid waste management systems to minimise emissions. Beyond pollution control, they can enhance their expertise by developing baseline assessments of GHG inventories for various operations. In essence, their work provides essential support to strengthen climate action at both business and policy levels.

Our academia in both environmental sciences and engineering departments is also failing to resolve this confusion, as one cannot be sure how many of them are devotedly fulfilling their primary duties. Clearly, they do not want to miss out on this fast-emerging issue of climate change, which will inevitably create demand for specialised consultancy across every sector of the economy. This is the main reason no university has yet introduced a master's programme in climate change: they don't know exactly what the basic qualifications should be for such a course. For instance, one cannot learn circular economics without a solid grasp of industrial economics fundamentals. But the key question remains: how long will this confusion persist? Unlike environmental studies, climate change involves far more variables that keep evolving and it will not slow down just because we lack clarity on who qualifies as a climate change specialist.

The primary issue in both developing and developed nations is the misguided approach of treating climate change as a single, unified problem. Climate change is not a subject or academic discipline but a dynamic phenomenon. Unlike a field like chemistry, where mastery requires periodic updates due to gradual advancements, climate change evolves so rapidly that a hypothetical "master's degree" in it would demand near-weekly knowledge updates. This creates significant confusion that environmental engineers and scientists must urgently clarify. Climate change is not a subject but a unique anthropogenic phenomenon, the first of its kind. Addressing it requires participation from all fields, which is why it has spurred the first global consensus on the need for collective action. In this context, effectively addressing the climate crisis requires more than building individual or isolated professional expertise, akin to a "one-and-a-half-brick powerhouse", which will prove counterproductive. Unlike environmental management, where partnerships with a few stakeholders can yield results, tackling this global issue demands broad, collaborative efforts across all sectors.