Our Environmental Crutch: Technology

The general perceived notion that technology, to many, can serve as the saviour to our current environmental crisis is, in my opinion, wholly unfounded. As evidence mounts of our negative impact on the environment, and the problems these impacts are causing, many find relief in the fact that we have a continually expanding and developing technological base to which we can turn to to absorb this detriment our human activity is imposing upon the environment. To see our technological capacity, despite its impressiveness and applicability in our global economy, as a solution to ecological degradation, is in turn relying on the "path of least resistance". I believe many people choose to believe that technology will solve our issues because they are simply too lazy or defiant to see the actual solutions to environmental destruction, which involve changing our current behaviour and lifestyle choices. Technology, in this light, is the easiest answer to inducing any environmental improvement/change. In this regard, the general public/citizenry choose to support the application of technology to our environmental crisis as the primary answer to stopping or slowing our impact on the planet.

To this end, it is important to analyze the effect technology has had on our planet thus far. While the increasingly innovative technological industry has created more efficient means of production, which is a form of energy-saving and thus a positive in terms of environmental impact, the outcome of this increased efficiency can have negative effects as well. Although an increase in production efficiency can be seen to decrease our environmental harm, by requiring less energy input resulting in greater output, in both goods and services, the means necessary to achieve such increases often entail some further detrimental output. An example of such supplemental impact of increased efficiency as a result of technology use is an increase in the materials required to create these technological bases, some of which contain toxic chemicals that when disposed of, actually harm the environment. Although this is only one possible negative effect of technological utility, seemingly outweighed by the positive effects of increased efficiency and decreased energy levels, it plays to the fact that our adaption of technology for environmental benefit is not without consequences. Furthermore, the possible benefits of technology more often than not do not counterbalance our impact on the planet as a result of our behavioural and consumption trends.

There have been countless demonstrations serving to the fact that we cannot use technology as our "environmental crutch", as the answer to our otherwise negative impact on the planet. In my opinion, the only way which we as global citizens can effectively slow our impact on the planet/the environment is through a revision of our current lifestyles, by refining our overconsumption in all capacities. Technology cannot outweigh our exponentially growing population, or our excessive consumption patterns. It simply is not capable of advancing in a manner fast enough to counteract our consumption and population growth, the other two elements of McKibben's "I=PAT" equation. This inherent fact is demonstrated in Anand's piece regarding stratospheric ozone pollution, in which he details the detrimental effects that resulted from our reliance on CFCs and other Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs). Initially, CFCs were regarded as a revolutionary way of creating products such as hairspray, refrigerator coolant, and other aerosol products. North America dominated the CFC market, leading to a worldwide demand for CFC-produced substances, because they were cheaper than other substance-creation methods in this regard. Environmental analysis and research on ozone layers in the atmosphere, and its intended depletion over regions such as Antarctica, where ozone layers and less abundant than the layers above more equatorial climates, created queries as to the causes of such ozone removal. CFCs, upon further inspection, were the culprit in this environmental degradation, and alternatives to the once technological/market favorite were discovered and later implemented instead. This also proves the negative impact our seemingly efficient and more economic technological creations can have on the environment without our knowledge, all the while creating a seemingly eco-friendly and economically efficient solution in the short term.

Technology is only effective as a means for short term environmental detrimental prevention. In order to reduce our impact in the long-term, we must look at our human behavioural trends and modify them to reduce our eco-footprint.