<p>It seems like everybody's talking about how promising a career environmental engineering is and how demand is going to expand for environmental engineers in the next 10 years. Is that true, from a experiential perspective?</p>
<p>I could see it go either way. If democrats stay in power, It could be a great career. If not, good luck finding a job. In my opinion, I think it’s probably a bit over hyped right now because of all this global warming nonsense. I think in a few years all of this environmental stuff is gonna blow over and its not gonna be such a great career. To me, it seems like a risky career path to take.</p>
<p>I don’t see what global warming and republicans/democrats have to do with environmental engineering. It isn’t about alternative energy; environmental engineering is mainly about waste management, sanitary systems, pollution control, etc. Unless everybody decides that we don’t have to look at the environmental impacts of new construction at all, it’s a relatively safe career.</p>
<p>Yea, environmental engineering in my opinion has rarely anything to deal with politics. Just look at the various areas that environmental engineers take part of. Its not all about “Global Warming”.</p>
<p>Well, the premise is based off the fact that many buildings are getting old and that the number of oil spills is going to increase, etc… . I could see how a demand for ‘green jobs’ and alternative energy would benefit enviornmental engineering, though.</p>
<p>I know that not ALL environmental engineering jobs are about global warming. But with liberals in power it would be a far better career than with conservatives in power. Heres a quote from [url=<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm]Engineers[/url”>http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm]Engineers[/url</a>]. “Environmental engineers are concerned with local and worldwide environmental issues. They study and attempt to minimize the effects of acid rain, global warming, automobile emissions, and ozone depletion. They may also be involved in the protection of wildlife.” If your job depends greatly on Global warming, emission standards, and ozone depletion, I think you would want democrats in power.</p>
<p>And the same site also says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s where the vast majority of EnvE jobs are, and that’s what EnvE degree programs focus on. In practice, there are few EnvEs whose jobs are to address, say, global warming or ozone depletion. </p>
<p>My sense is that a lot of prospective college students think that they are interested in environmental engineering, because they just assume that it has do with cool issues like global warming, carbon sequestration, electric cars, renewable energy sources, etc.</p>
<p>Then many of them lose interest when they realize that environmental engineering is more about less sexy concerns like water purification, sewage treatment, building ventilation, landfill design, smokestack emissions, etc. So the number of students that actually complete EnvE programs is less than you might expect, based on initial interest.</p>
<p>I don’t see any signs that US society is relaxing its standards for, say, tap water or waste disposal. Americans take it for granted that their tap water is clean and safe, that their poop vanishes forever down toilets, and that their garbage gets taken away and is never seen again. Nobody, regardless of political leanings, wants this to change. </p>
<p>And that means plenty of work for EnvEs. For example, how old are the water treatment and sewage treatment plants in your community? Many were built in the postwar boom years of the 1950s and 1960s – with 50-year design life expectancies.</p>
<p>The recent change in administrations probably is a plus for EnvEs, as well as civil engineers in general. But this is primarily because of the renewed focus on infrastructure development. Realistically, infrastructure spending was a low priority for the previous administration (despite the fact that it inherited a large budget surplus). It’s getting more attention in the present administration (despite the fact that it inherited a large budget deficit).</p>
<p>I debated EnviroE when I was about to go into college and decided against it. If I care about the environment the best way to stop pollution and carbon emissions etc. is not to clean up after the polluters, but to work with the polluters on how to reduce emissions. EnviroE is more about clean up after others and not about stopping it.</p>
<p>Hence, I’m a ChemE. I took courses on watershed management and waste water treatment and garbage handling to feed my desire to learn more about that. However, becoming a EnviroE won’t get you to a place where you can work on electric cars, alternative fuels, biochemical solutions, or solar farms.</p>
<p>Yes, some one will always be needed to design landfills. At least until someone figure out how to digest everything into fuel… and that won’t be an Environmental guy.</p>
<p>
My sense is that a lot of new students think that they are interested in environmental engineering, because they just assume that it has do with cool issues like global warming, carbon sequestration, electric cars, renewable energy sources, etc.</p>
<p>Then many of them lose interest when they realize that environmental engineering is more about less sexy concerns like water purification, sewage treatment, building ventilation, landfill design, smokestack emissions, etc. </p>
<p>I don’t see any signs that US society is relaxing its standards for, say, tap water or waste disposal. Americans take it for granted that their tap water is clean and safe, that their poop vanishes forever down toilets, and that their garbage gets taken away and is never seen again. Nobody, regardless of political leanings, wants this to change. </p>
<p>That means plenty of work for EnvEs. For example, how old are the water treatment and sewage treatment plants in your community? Many were built in the postwar boom years of the 1950s and 1960s – with 50-year design life expectancies.</p>
<p>“My sense is that a lot of new students think that they are interested in environmental engineering, because they just assume that it has do with cool issues like global warming, carbon sequestration, electric cars, renewable energy sources, etc.”</p>
<p>that was me exactly. didn’t realize until third year when it was too late. now i have to go to grad school in chem eng.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That, along with chemistry/chemical engineering, are probably the two most common mistaken assumptions in engineering.</p>
<p>Also, a lot of the work most people think environmental engineers do (i.e. design solar panels) are actually done by ME’s or chemical engineers.</p>
<p>Anyways, I have a good idea about what EnvE’s do…but is there actually going to be an INCREASE in demand for them? This is important because I can see a lot more people majoring in environmental engineering now that Obama is president.</p>
<p>i wouldn’t go into environmental engineering if your main reason is to get a job. </p>
<p>You’re up against civil / chemical engineers depending on which parts of environmental engineering you choose to specialize in. They can take your jobs, you can’t take their “hardcore” civil or chemical jobs. </p>
<p>For example a civil guy can do wastewater if he takes a class in it, you can’t design buildings.
Or a chem eng can do air pollution by taking the air pollution class while you can’t do oil / gas. </p>
<p>Just by placement rates, at my school there are more unemployed environmental students than civil or chemical ones.</p>
<p>The company that first hired DH and me out of school was one of the oldest surveying/engineering companies in the country. By the time they hired us in 1986, they had started getting into environmental cleanup and had brought a lot of environmental engineers on board. In 1990, they decided to jettison all of their “traditional” engineers (structural, mechanical, electrical) and concentrate on environmental stuff 100% (DH and I were laid off the same day). Then that market started dropping off. They were bought and sold several times. The company went from 500 employees to about 40. I think they’re back to doing more traditional engineering design now.</p>
<p>Environmental Engineering is easy to get into. In the US, all you really need to get your foot in the door is a degree in any kind of engineering, chemical or biological science, a 40 hour HAZWOPER class, and an 8 hour HM-181 class. So, there is a lot of competition for jobs. Knowing the EPA, DOT, and OSHA legal regulations is as important as knowing the science,. Also, make sure you know the regulations for the local job market, air pollution, wastewater, stormwater, hazardous waste and hazardous materials management is typically delegated to local counties, cities, and state agencies, each with its own set of regulations. Most of these rules and regulations can be found online. Study up, and you can talk your way into a job. :)</p>
<p>
One of my projects is at the Hyperion wastewater plant (primary and secondary only), and I believe it’s 2nd largest treatment plant in the world after the one in japan. It treats 340 MGD of $h!t and <a href=“mailto:cr@p”>cr@p</a>. Every time I go there, it does smell like employment… LOL</p>
<p>To OP:
In addition to the envE, there are lots of mechanical, electrical, chemical and structural engineers working on these projects at Hyperion. It’s very interdisciplinary.
I guess what I’m saying is that you can go into environmental field even if you have degrees other than envE.</p>
<p>Hyperion is a great [url=<a href=“http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcquality/1hypwas2.html]example[/url”>http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcquality/1hypwas2.html]example[/url</a>] of the ongoing need for EnvEs (and infrastructure engineers in general):
Granted, wastewater treatment may not be the sexiest environmental career. But unlike some engineering fields, it is highly resistant to (1) economic downturns, and (2) outsourcing. It seems that Americans keep generating bodily wastes even in the most severe recessions, and it’s not practical to process it overseas.</p>