Scott Elliott

25 June 2009 at 08.30

This qualification wreaks of nothing but money making by the institution. The environment should form a major part in someone obtaining IEng and CEng status.

The Institute should be doing far more within goverment and the industry to protect the engineering fraternity and provide more status/recognition to the titles they hand out rather than creating new ones with no value (i.e. CEnv) that are likley to de value the traditional and most important designations - ENGINEER

I for one am considering and have been for a while removing myself from the institute as I see no dynamic within the organisation for recognising engineers.

Where are the business leaders who are in the limelight that will give weight to the organisation and its need to recognise engineers more?

utterly dismayed as I am sure many others are.

Peter Barry CEng MIMechE

25 June 2009 at 08.30

Whilst I don't want to be negative and discourage anybody from actively persuing a career addressing the environmental issues I believe are the most important facing humanity today, I must confess I share the sense of bewilderment and dismay expressed in the first feedback comment.

Surely the people who should be listened to on this topic must be CEng qualified, i.e. ENGINEERS. This is the real mark of professional qualification, not some pseudo tag designed to fool those who don't look at it too closely that they are talking to the real thing.

I cannot believe that the Institution is undermining true professional engineers in this way, and as expressed in the previous comment, it is being done for the blatent purpose of generating additonal revenue.

As someone who is a member of more than one engineering institution I must seriously consider whether I can continue to belong to one which has devalued my professional standing in this way. At the moment, I don't think I can.

Tim Manners

26 June 2009 at 09.09

I completely disagree with the two previous sets of comments.

It is indeed a dismal state of affairs when engineers feel threatened by an institution tackling such an important issue. The standards for obtaining CEnv are far from easy but Engineers in all sectors can make a contribution. This qualification recognises environmental credentials and is able to make the award in addition to CEng and IEng. The environmental qualification adds to the institution's credibility.

EurIng Prof Ian M. Arbon CEng, CEnv

26 June 2009 at 11.21

Since when did true engineers simply jump to erroneous conclusions, as your first two commentators have done, without even bothering to obtain the facts of the matter? Several other engineering institutions, e.g. ICE, have offered CEnv for some time now and it has to be excellent news for IMechE members that our Institution has finally caught up with a serious qualification in this vitally important field. The whole point of this is that engineers have traditionally been seen as the problem, rather than the solution, by many so-called but unqualified ‘environmentalists’. I now find that being both CEng and CEnv has made my views more credible to Government and has enhanced my status as an engineer, certainly not diminished it.

Meanwhile, engineers would probably be taken more seriously by everyone else if we at least learned to speak our own language properly! “Wreaks”, instead of “reeks” in the first comment and “persuing” instead of “pursuing” in the second do nothing to improve the status of our profession.

C Aghedo AMIMechE

26 June 2009 at 11.21

I completely agree with the third comment that for too long, Engineers have been seen as the major contributors to the enviromental issues we face today. A recognition such as CEnv for members will redress this global perception. All members should therefore acknowledge the CEnv as a welcomed initiative by the Institution and therefore embrace and promote it.

Eur Ing Daniel Kenning CEng CEnv

26 June 2009 at 17.47

Happily engineers are not so dry that we can't have a good dose of opinion to share! I see some right and some wrong in the comments, and I hope other engineers can focus on "improving the world through engineering" rather than trying to prove who is the cleverest.

S. Elliott is right that "the environment should form a major part in someone obtaining CEng status". UK SPEC criteria already state that "today’s engineering professionals demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to ... the environment", and the IMechE Energy, Environment and Sustainability Group have been working with the Engineering Council on the new, stronger, "Principles for Sustainability", available at www.engc.org.uk/sustainability.

Nobody will listen to engineers if we stamp our foot and insist they should, but the voice of IMechE is being heard at least partly because of engagement with SocEnv, and with the difficult challenges that NEED engineering input. I urge you to engage with EESG.

Prof G E Findlay

26 June 2009 at 18.22

I am amazed with the first 2 comments.

I used to practise in the UK Water Industry where the Environment is considered every day in life.

We have to get the environmental issues right if the planet is to survive.

In the early 1970's before the formation of the water authorities there was evidence of children contracting mystery illnesses through bathing in contaminated waters. One reason was because of the limited investment in wastewater treatment during the Thatcher Era. That problem was resolved by massive investment following the formation of the Water Authorities in 1974.

Had things not changed I shudder to think what sort of mess we would now be in.

We now have to concentrate on Sustainable development and CEnv is very much part of that.

With the limited funds available and the growth in population it is extremely important to produce quality goods at an economic price and to focus on the long term.

The I C E have offered CEnv for a long time now. It is also offered by the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management. The risk the Mechanical Engineer faces is that unless he looks to the future he will fall further behind that member of those two other institutions.

Not all applicants will pass C Env but those who can must whole heartedly support this if they are to maintain pace with their colleagues in other institutions.The alternative is to fall behind!

Prof G E FINDLAY BSc, LLb, CEng., CEnv., MICE MIMechE., MCIWEM., MWISA.

Graham Cooper

27 June 2009 at 07.03

I have always been disappointed by the disproportionate coverage of Defence, Automotive, Aerospace and Rail sectors in our magazine, because they were the big employers and traditional 'engineering territory'. This has now changed as the environment has been raised in the public consciousness and with it, an opportunity for Engineers to provide the solutions.

Ian Arbon and I are unpaid assessors for CEnv. In some cases the applications make for depressing reading. Simple instructions ignored, an inability to string sentences together and an attitude that award of CEnv is a matter of right and that no effort is required. This last point would be true if 'Engineers' practised a balanced discipline encompassing technical, commercial and environmental aspects as a matter of course, but sadly many appear to only follow the first of these paths.

CEnv is not given away with cornflakes. It is not a money making scheme for the Institution. It is demonstrating attitude and committment.

Paul J. Brown

09 July 2009 at 17.08

The environment is important to IEng, CEng as well as Accountants, Zoologists and Architects etc naturally. C.Eng professionals already make significant contributions to the Environment. CEng professionals and other professionals are already Environmental Managers. Legislation requires companies take responsibility in this area.

The work is already being done guys! We don't need CEnv. Environmental Managers already exist.

Let CEng's migrate to CEnv free of charge (subject to interest, position and background) instead of paying for it. What impact will an additional department like this have on he environment? More waste and golf days....probably. A means of creating revenue for the sake of it, has more appeal apparently than promoting the skills of highly capable people already out there doing it. trust my message is worth more than any marks I achieve for spelling and grammar.