Diplomacy
Arunachal’s Restless Frontier: Why the India-China Border Is Heating Up Again
By Sameer Hussain |
From a line drawn in 1914 to a standoff at Taksing in 2026, the eastern…
Anthropocene, Science and Technology
Poisoning the Future: Chemical Engineering, Power, and Ecological Responsibility
By Editor in-Chief | May 21, 2026
The Anthropocene as Civilizational Irony
In the Anthropocene narrative, humans have become a geological force, leaving permanent marks on Earth. But not all marks are intentional. Akhmat Fauzi, a doctoral candidate in Chemical Engineering at Tianjin University, sees a deep irony beneath our dominance: the very materials we created for convenience have turned into eternal signatures of our excess.
“A plastic bag may be used for only ten minutes, but it will persist in the environment for five hundred years. This is not mere negligence. It is a systematically structured failure of imagination in how we produce and consume.”
For him, the Anthropocene is not just a story about climate change or mass extinction. It is a mirror reflecting how power, technology, and ecology are entangled in a system that produces crisis. While simultaneously hiding responsibility.
When Power Speaks Through the Environment
Akhmat argues that the environment plays a dual role: as the “source” and the “target” of power practices. Whoever controls natural resources gains economic and political strength. He cites Morocco, which uses its vast phosphate reserves to maintain its grip on Western Sahara while expanding diplomatic influence across Africa.
“I rarely see power used to protect the environment in a good way. Why? Because most power holders are corrupt people. Environmental activists and indigenous communities generally lack the power to defend forests from destruction.”
But power doesn’t only operate at the state level. It seeps into laboratories, factories, and chemical
Haber-Bosch: A Victory That Poisons
One of the most powerful segments of the interview is the story of the Haber-Bosch process. In the 20th century, German scientists found a way to extract nitrogen from the air – transforming abundant atmosphere into fertilizer and explosives. The world cheered: humanity was no longer dependent on scarce nitrate deposits.
“The air, once free and abundant, could now be turned into bread and swords alike. At the time, people felt that nature had been conquered. But this victory contained a poison that would only reveal itself a century later.”
Synthetic fertilizers doubled global food production and allowed the human population to soar from 1.6 billion to 8 billion. But half of the nitrogen sprayed on fields was never absorbed. It evaporated as greenhouse gas or created dead zones in river deltas.
“At this point, chemical technology began to reveal its face as a source of global environmental challenges.”
Akhmat does not argue that technology is evil. The problem, he says, lies in “how humans organize and distribute technology” - within corrupt power systems and short-term economic orientations.
Ecologically Blind Engineering Education
As a researcher-in-training, Akhmat observes that chemical engineering curricula at most universities -including in Indonesia-remain “overwhelmingly technical”. Students spend their time calculating reactor efficiency, production costs, and process optimization. Anthropocene issues, which involve geology, ecology, sociology, and politics, are considered “non-technical.”
His solution? Make ecology a “technical habitus”, not an add-on topic. He advocates for project-based learning (e.g., turning used cooking oil into biodiesel), mandatory life-cycle assessment thinking, and a stronger emphasis on ethics and social justice.
China vs. Indonesia: System vs. Collective Awareness
Akhmat brings a unique perspective, having studied in China while coming from Indonesia. He sees a fundamental difference between the two countries’ approaches. “China” applies aggressive top-down policies, such as the “War on Pollution” (2018–2020), with environmental inspectors sent directly from Beijing. Yet he also notes that Chinese society has a collective environmental awareness shaped by a long history of energy thrift and recycling.
“Even before the term ‘sustainable development’ became popular, Chinese culture taught “tian ren he yi” humans and nature as one.”
In contrast, Indonesia has a strong tendency to “offload all environmental responsibility onto the government”. Many industry players treat waste treatment as the government’s job, not part of production costs. Meanwhile, the government remains weak in enforcement due to budget constraints and conflicting interests.
He gives a concrete example: the restoration of the Lujiang alunite mine in Anhui, China. The project not only repaired ecological damage (with an investment of 2.5 billion yuan) but also involved cultural historians and former miners to document the mine’s history. The result: ecological awareness grew from within the community.
“Without strong collective awareness, any top-down policy- no matter how well designed, will fail in Indonesia.”
The Gap Between Discourse and Practice: Still Wide
One of the interview’s most critical questions: why is the gap between sustainable chemical innovation discourse and actual environmental practice still so wide in Asia?
Akhmat points to four factors:
1. “Sharp economic and technological disparities” between developed and developing countries.
2. “Scale mismatch” between laboratories (milligrams per hour) and industry (thousands of tons per day).
3. “Sectoral culture” government, academia, industry, and civil society operate in silos.
4. “A tendency to see innovation as purely technical”, ignoring social and political dimensions.
“Large chemical companies may lobby governments to weaken environmental standards. Bureaucrats may take bribes. Communities may be apathetic. In such a situation, no amount of innovation will ever bridge the gap between discourse and practice.”
To close that gap, he stresses the need for structural reform: consistent law enforcement, economic incentives favoring green practices, functional technology transfer mechanisms, and early ecological education.
A Message for Indonesia’s Youth
At the end, Akhmat delivers a deeply personal and powerful message – aimed at the young generation of his home country.
“You are growing up in a land rich in natural resources yet burdened by heavy pollution. Polluted rivers, unhealthy air, and mountains of plastic waste are the inheritance of a past built without ecological awareness. But you do not have to accept that inheritance as is.”
He reminds them that chemical engineering is “not nature’s enemy”. The enemy is flawed thinking and greed. The youth can learn chemical technology to design processes that mimic ecosystems: palm oil waste into biodegradable plastics, seawater into clean fuel, plastic waste back into oil.
“Be engineers who are not only good at calculating, but also brave enough to ask: what are all these calculations for? The Earth does not need superheroes. The Earth needs humble and responsible chemical engineers.”
Conclusion: Green Chemistry as Systemic Critique
Akhmat Fauzi offers more than an interview. He provides a “framework of critique” rarely heard in chemical engineering discussions: that the ecological crisis is a direct product of how the chemical industry has been designed for over a century. Every mass balance that ignores toxic waste, every cost optimization that sacrifices energy efficiency, and every choice of cheap fossil-based materials contributes to plastic pollution, global warming, and the poisoning of food chains.
Green chemistry, for him, is not just a set of technologies. It is a “basis for rejecting the linear industrial model” that sees nature as both an infinite warehouse and an infinite trash can. It flips the logic: non-toxic, energy-efficient production is actually more profitable in the long run.
“What is urgent is not heroic individual action, but a coordinated collective movement among academics, industry professionals, and alumni communities.”
Posted in Anthropocene, Science and Technology
