Plugged In

I agree with Yumi's assertion that technology has, in fact, become an integral part of our lives and specifically Western society. As a strong force in daily life, technology is depended upon for interaction, creation and renovation (among other things, of course). I find this troubling because it seems that very soon technology is going to take the wheel to direct human life-- more than it does now-- which truly alters things. That is to say, though we currently rely on technology as an extension of our own abilities and a tool to "fix" essentially everything, we're eventually going to get in over our heads; the technologic-dependency we now see as a savior is going to turn on us, we're going to lose control. That said, no, I do not think technology will save us-- rather it will ruin us or at the very least potently change us. In the long run I think, socially and environmentally, we're going to be adversely affected by the wonders of technology. And per this widely-held belief that technology holds the key to environmental crisis resolution, it is a severely perverse concept which might just lead us to extreme detriment.

Thinking in strictly environmental terms, it seems to me that we've gotten too good and have therefore boosted our egos and swelled our minds into believing that every problem can and will be solved quickly and easily by the almighty power of human-controlled technology. However, the world is lashing out in a big way and we can't sincerely assert to ourselves or any audience that we have the power to stop environmental degradation in its tracks. We need to get over ourselves and come to the realization that we aren't actually "that good" and mother nature has the upper hand. Once we can realize this I think we'll be able to use existing and new green technologies appropriately to handle certain aspects of environmental crises and maybe slow some of the damage, but there is no universal solution this time (or ever). We can't turn the earth into a massive bio-dome and we can't put a thermostat on the planet without seriously terrible consequences. As far as I'm concerned, we're too plugged in to notice what damage we're doing to the environment and to ourselves by being so reliant on technology. We need to unplug, reanalyze and think twice before rushing in with "new, innovative, green" technologies to act as an almighty force to save us. In this crisis, we have no safety net.

Technology can help

I believe that technology can only help us towards our goal of saving the environment. We currently do not have close to the technology to save us. Technology can help us get closer to our goal but we need to do things individually to also reach our goal. Changing to green energy can dramatically help us. If we move markets to green energy greater technologies will emerge from it. Right now money is in oil and other dirty power sources so technology is increasing greater in that realm. If we move away from these dirty energy sources we have a much brighter future. Not only do we have to worry about our country but we also have to think about the developing nations coming into the picture. China and India are starting to make large strides in the world and with these strides their carbon footprint is becoming larger. In this aspect technology can either save us or destroy us. Much of our future depends on what type of technology we use. If China and India continue to use cheap and dirty fuel our future does not look bright but if they use greener alternatives we can hold on longer. Most of the ideas of technology that can help change our global climate back to normal are ridiculous. For example the idea of shooting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to fix the depletion that we have created. The problem however is that this creates acid rain among other things and destroy our environment even greater.

Not Clever

The United States is going through a lot of problems with the current financial situation we are in right now. Instead of looking to the distant future we are looking for the quick fix. We decided to bailout the corrupt instead of investing in the future of green technology. There were many other options to move forward in our country we could have invested our money in creation of green energy and green technologies. The move to a society where we actually create things again would have dramatically helped our country. More importantly this would also take a lot of the strain off the environment. If we moved to an infrastructure similar to Germany we would have more jobs and a cleaner environment. We need to work together as a country and move forward and bite the bullet right now and move towards a society with green jobs and a green infrastructure. If China can organize and implement these things then it is possible for us to do it as well. Republicans need to swallow their pride and realize that there is really global climate change. Without this it will be very difficult for us to move forward because so much power is given to the minority political party. It is very frustrating that we can not move forward because some politicians put their political party ahead of the American people.

Technology

I believe that technology cannot be categorized as a positive or negative force in our lives, but it has become a part of our lives. In this day and age, technology is inevitable, although there are still many places out in the world that does not have access to technology. So in a sense, arguing that technology is a part of our lives may sound too absurd. However, just as we are completing this assignment, we are using technology—computers and laptops—and technology is expected in our everyday lives.

Will technology save us? There are so many dimensions to consider when approaching this question. Short answer is yes, but with certain assumptions and understanding. First of all, in this week’s reading in the Green Planet Blues, it argued that many of the donations (for environmental issues) tend to go to places that need minimal support. In other words, places where the donors can see a change happen. Therefore, countries that really need help do not receive enough funds because the donors are impatient and demand the result right away. I think this is a similar concept when discussing technology. Where technology is accessible and already have its foundations, technology seemed to progress rigorously rather than introducing new technology in the developing areas where people must explain, teach, and start from scratch. This process takes too much time so rather than giving equal technology access to people all over the world, technology improvement tend to focus in places that already have the necessary understanding. So, I argue that technology can save us in these places where technology keeps innovating with new devices and programs. But in areas that technology is uncommon, will technology save us…hard question.

What does this mean in environmental terms? Well again, this is a complicated issue. Technology is included in the I=PAT equation that we have discussed in the past. Clearly, it is a huge sector of the environmental impact. What can we do with technology, how can we make use of this huge chunk of sector has infinitive hope, and of course the downside as well. In the Environmental Politics and Sacrifice panel discussion I attended, the panel speakers have repeatedly brought up, “where do you end up in the future?” I feel that this fits into the discussion of technology and the environmental terms. The question will then be, where do we end up in the future with technology? A mode of economical improvement and profits? Or a technique for environmental sustainability? As also brought up in the discussion, in terms of the climate change issues, the United States cannot move out and work for it due to the economy. The priority focus is economic improvement and people give less attention to one of the most essential aspect of our lives. There must be a change in this notion itself, especially in the United States.

Is It a Race If We’re Bound to Be Tied?

Thomas Friedman’s Aren’t We Clever? brought up some interesting points about how differently the U.S. and China have approached climate change. Instead of accepting climate change as a legitimate problem and finding solutions to address it, the U.S. spends valuable time arguing over the validity of climate change. China has long accepted the change of climate and has sought to change their economy to match. They have approached the issue by creating green jobs and industries to meet the challenges. The U.S. usually front and center when it comes to innovation, according to Friedman, but it is allowing itself to be surpassed by China. While I found his discussion of the importance of the U.S. changing laws to better suit green technology and innovation, I’m not sure I can be fully aboard with the race analogy. When it comes to climate change, the actions of one country (or inaction of the U.S.) very much affects the rest of the nations. The United States isn’t just hurting itself with its inaction toward and discrediting of climate change, it’s hurting everyone. There is no need to race towards making climate change action, if the U.S. "loses" won't we all lose? I understand Friedman’s point that the U.S. is missing out on an economic and technological opportunity, but, more importantly, we are missing the opportunity to make meaningful changes beyond shifting the focus to green industries. Because while I agree "green" technology is important, I doubt think it can save us. Technology can make things more efficient, greener, and better, but it too has its limits. In addition to greening our manufacturing, we need to make larger changes in our lifestyles to combat climate change.

I must say, I was surprised to read this article(DC’s Green Jobs)—it has been three years since this article was published and I don’t think a whole has changed since then. Of course, I was not in DC three years ago, and I cannot say what has improved and what hasn’t without further research, but it made me ponder for a while after reading this article. It said that there are vocational schools specifically to improve the DC public transportation which I completely support. But look at the DC public system now, there are always delays and problems in the metro system such as escalator outage, the DC bus (metrobus) never arrive on time so you cannot rely on them. So as a result, people end up having to take cabs and use cars as a mode of transportation.

While the other New York Times article focused on a broader issue of the environment, it does not make sense to me at all to argue in terms of a competition. Yes, there are times when comparing with other countries are necessary, however should green environment be considered as a mode of competition? Probably not. I must say that people in China are probably adapted to their situation and living in a polluted environment is normal to them. This is quite devastating, but it is the fact in some parts of the world. People live in an undesired environment but that does not affect their lives. Then what do we do? Wealthy countries like us in the United States, we are all aware and there are discussions and debates to discuss how to improve the situation, whereas in a place like China, the environment is not even their concern as they are already dealing with the pollutions and they don’t see a benefit for investing time and money. I can’t talk for everybody in the country, but if we were to be in their plate, we probably would be doing the same thing and not giving a huge concern about the environment. In the end what Carolyn has mentioned, economic development is the top priority—always. If it wasn’t for economic development, many people and companies will stop giving concerns for the improvement for environmental degradation. I think it is part of the human beings to make profit in people’s action and without the profit or benefit, there would be no point of conducting the project, for this particular instance movement to improve the environment. So a competition with other countries do not make sense as instead of dealing with the environment issues, it will end up solely being an economic competition, which can result in harming the environment.

Climate change is definitely not best addressed through technological innovation. I believe people use climate change and all other environmental issues as an excuse to work on technological innovation. There is an infinite amount of chance that technology can improve climate change and other issues, however this is almost like a gamble. There is no definite answer. A country like the US, this technological innovation can benefit but for some countries, there are no time to gamble. In addition, I have watched a clip online of a debate of the World Economic Forum. Although it was not focused in the environment per say, it was pretty obvious that only a limited amount of people had access to such a talk (of course all of these people seemed to be the “qualified” elites) and I feel that many of the environmental issues that we face is also hierarchically limited in a sense that only wealthy countries can attempt to improve the problem—and people in wealthy countries are the people who consume the most. So this complicated relationship with the developing countries and developed countries come into play especially when talking technological innovation.

Green Technology

In Thomas Friedman’s article, “Aren’t We Clever,” he discusses the issue of “green technology” and how China is becoming a leader in the manufacturing of such innovations. While also stating the issue as a race between the U.S. and China in terms of who is emerging as the forerunner of green technology production. I find this interesting as China is considered to be the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and contributor to pollution.

The issue of climate change though, shouldn’t be considered as a race between countries to see who can come up with new innovations to stay green. We all live on the same planet and need or require the same resources. Instead it should be a collective effort between countries. Everyone contributes in some shape of form to climate change based on our lifestyles. So tackling the issue as a race among countries doesn’t make sense to me.

Also the idea of focusing on technological innovation to address this issue as a better option and focusing on “green manufacturing,” doesn’t seem sufficient. Creating green technology such as electric vehicles or energy efficient light bulbs, seem to just mass the problem and not address the issue directly. The production of these technological innovations also may contribute more to the issue because of overspills from the manufacturing of these products. Green technology may just add to the harm we’ve already created on our planet.