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.

Running Before We Can Walk...

I understood Maniates’ main point to be that these green choices individuals make on a regular basis (recycling, shortening showers, driving less) are not enough. These changes may slow environmental change, but it’s not going to be drastically helpful. In contrast to these easy solutions given to the public by leaders and organizations, big changes need to be made to the tune of cutting emissions by 80%. Everyone turning off lights when they leave the room isn’t going to stop the environmental changes in their tracks. There is nothing easy about the changes we need to make.

Maniates ended with a hopeful message though. Far from believing it’s a lost cause, he says we have the potential to make tough choices and changes. We just need our leaders to tell us the truth about the dire situation we face. If those in charge can be straightforward and cut the easy solution rhetoric, then we could mobilize to make the needed changes. I would like to believe this is true, but I am unfortunately as skeptical as my fellow Ecodazed bloggers. He talks of the easy insufficient solutions, but honestly many Americans really haven’t even embraced these changes deeming them too inconvenient- many can’t even commit to the baby steps. Can we really expect people to make the big changes when many Americans can’t separate milk containers from their regular trash? Even if there were leaders willing to be frank with the American public, there would be many more touting the, “but it just snowed, so the environment is fine” argument. We’re not just in love with easy convenient fixes, we’re delusional. I’m not convinced that even if some leaders stepped up that they’d be able convince a large portion of the population that a radical change is the only way. If we haven't learned to walk with the baby steps presented to us by the easy green solutions, I doubt we are ready to start running a marathon. I don't know where that leaves us. I know that I will continue to turn lights off, use reusable water bottles, and pick my roommates plastic yogurt containers out of the garbage...

Convenience

I agree with Carolyn’s assertion that most Americans are self-interested individuals, so doing more than the so called “easy things” to help alleviate environmental concerns as Maniates asserts doesn’t seem reasonable. The fact is, most people in our society settle for easy because of convenience. Also it’s not that “we are supposedly being “sold short” by our leaders,” but that most people choose not to think about the future impact their consumption or habits may have on the environment in the future. We live in a society that values the idea of quick fixes, asking people to make drastic sacrifices to keep our planet green is going to take a lot more effort on the part of the individual. So believing that people are willing to do more to be eco-friendly is just that a belief.

We Need to Make Huge Steps

I totally agree with Michael Maniates. We really need to grow up and take a step forward not only for the environment now but for the environment of the future. We have to stand up and make large changes most of them have to be in our infrastructure. Most of the cheap goods that are convenient are the worst for the environment. We need to vote people into to office that are going to change the face of the world. People that will stand up and make us realize that we should not be subsidizing things like corn. Instead we should be subsidizing products that can actually help us. For example if solar energy was a cheap option to install I am very sure that millions of Americans would spend little money for huge savings in the future. We need to create markets where creating products that lower our strain on the earth will be rewarded. Also we need to do the little things as well like taking shorter showers and recycling and also buying products that can be recycled. One large thing I have noticed is that in big cities such as DC there are large trash cans everywhere but how often do you see a recycle can. Think about it. If we had places available for people to throw their cans and bottles as they are walking down the street on their way to work I am sure they would throw it in the recycle because it is convenient. Like the author said we have to make things easy for people to do if there is a hassle it is not very likely that the majority of people will go do it. So we need to set up things around our country and the world to promote a positive change. If all of us do the big things to move forward and put pressure on the developing power houses to do the same we can save our planet.