One type of article I see relatively frequently is one where the point of view taken is one where a new technology is framed as being a possible solution to climate change. While I don’t have an issue with the technology, I still find these articles lacking in a deeply problematic way. They present the technology as a solution and not part of a larger structural change that has to be implemented in order to combat climate change. They tend to, at most, reference that more needs to be done, but that fact still remains that there is no technology coming to save us. Nothing short of systemic changes to the way we live our everyday lives will truly help us in our struggle to save our planet.
One example I see of this is something showing off some new robot or technology that cleans up ocean garbage. They are always touted as something that will revolutionize cleanup efforts and be a major tool in our fight against climate change. But ultimately these projects only manage to clean up a tiny percentage of the amount of garbage that we put into the ocean in the time period that the technology is operational. Do not mistake my position; these are good efforts, and the projects are taking on important work. But without legislation and restrictions on what can be made, and what can be done with it once it is made, it is ultimately a futile effort These efforts need to be made in conjunction with governments regulating the businesses and the largest polluters in their economies alongside funding efforts to undo the damage we’ve already done.
Another is the push for things like electric cars. While the proposition seems great at face value, there are some unseen costs to developing a system based on electric cars. One is the fact that about half of the emissions a car will create in its lifetime are just from the energy and materials required to build it. A problem which electric cars do nothing to solve. A second is the fact that even considering the fact that prices of technology drop as it becomes more widely adopted, electric cars, like any other cars, are prohibitively expensive. If prospective solutions are only available to people that can afford a massive expense such as a car, we will never achieve the societal move away from pollutants that we have to make in order to curb climate change. Again, electric cars are not the problem, but are an incomplete solution that will not make a lasting difference. Compared to a system of high speed, free and available public transit based on high efficiency technology. A system that alleviates traffic not out of forcing people to give up their vehicles, but by presenting a better option.
Finally, I want to highlight the fact that the majority of these “solutions” center around the idea that personal responsibility is the solution to fighting climate change. “Did you buy an electric car?” “Which ocean cleanup project did you donate to?” While individual choices in pushing for more climate change solutions are vital, they are not the end all be all of fighting climate change and are only a drop in the bucket when looking at the scope of the problem. Fighting climate change is hard and complicated. Yes, the reusable bags don’t add plastic to the environment, but it requires so much energy to make that you would have to use it thousands of times before the total carbon footprint levels out. Especially if the energy to make it was generated with something like coal or natural gas, it is a moot point. Climate change is not a problem that will be fixed with individual choices, but sweeping legislative changes that affect how we engage in day to day life. My point is not to rail against these technologies, but rather to show how they are incomplete.
Blu Thomas can be reached at [email protected]
This column has been updated with a subheading.