Barnett

Patrick BarnettColin, Mon @10

Pulver, ENVS 106

Technology is the Way Forward

Technology must occupy the central and principal role in ensuring a sustainable future

for the UCSB campus and by extension the United States of America. The reasons supporting

this claim are that technology influences human behavior much more effectively than

information-based solutions, therefore it will offer the best return on investment for achieving

responsible environmental behavior. Second, the TGIF committee must invest in technology

because without technological advances, rising human populations will only hasten the depletion

of finite resources and cause irreversible environmental damage. Demand for the products of

nature is increasing rapidly, so technology must offset it with growth in the development of

efficient products and regenerative solutions. Finally, without committed and continued

investment in technology, innovation will stagnate, creating the conditions for real

environmental calamity. Society cannot afford such scenarios. Technological investment by the

TGIF committee is a critical step to prevent them from happening.

Technology impacts human behavior much more directly than information solutions

because it dictates the very ways in which people interact with their environment (Midden 2007).

For instance, the availability of a cheap and convenient metro service in many areas not only

gives people the option of leaving their car at home, but it actually induces them to do so

(Midden 2007). The existence of the metro service is termed a realization condition, and these

conditions ultimately determine what kinds of environmentally impacting behaviors humans

perform (Midden 2007). For example, I visited both Chicago and New York twice and each time

parked the car and rode public transportation for the duration of the visit. Oppose this to

1

Barnett

numerous visits to Los Angeles where public transit wasn’t considered. The relationship of

driving gas powered vehicles and climate change is well known to me, having received

information from various educational sources. Despite this education, my behavior was largely

determined by the technological options available. Essentially, humans aren’t going to stop

driving polluting vehicles because information campaigns tell them not to, but they will if better

options become available through improved technology. The best solutions to environmental

problems are those that ensure minimal impacts, and that is exactly what technology does.

A further illustration of why information solutions are inferior for solving environmental

problems is the government mass-media campaigns in the 1970s and 80s to combat anti-

environmental behavior. This strategy did not produce the desired results (Midden 2007). Instead

of “give a hoot” campaigns, a more effective means of encouraging pro-environmental behavior

is using technology in the form of trash bins placed in appropriate locations. The superiority of

technology is clearly demonstrated because it facilitates behavior by creating the necessary

conditions for it to happen, as opposed to trying to convince people to act in certain ways by

ineffective education. This advantage has a metric, which is upwards of twenty times more return

on investment than behavioral solutions (Pulver, 10-15-13, slide 18).

Since human behavior is determined by technology, it is of utmost importance that

investment in technology considers its power to amplify environmental impacts (Midden 2007).

Rebound effects have real implications for promoting positive environmental behavior. For

instance, I own a Toyota hybrid vehicle and can testify to driving twice as far as normal during

the first year of ownership. However, this was do to the initial excitement that the technology

provoked. In the second and third years of ownership, I actually drove the hybrid less than

average, which balanced out the initial year. Considering energy usage, the fact that power is

2

Barnett

generated by renewable sources versus coal will not induce me to keep the lights on all night

long. As Gillingham (2013) asserts, improvements in technological efficiency more than offset

the rebound effect, thereby lessening environmental impacts, even factoring in increased

demand.

A second line of evidence supporting technological solutions is the inevitability of these

increasing human demands on scarce resources. The capacity to produce non-polluting energy is

in fact not keeping up with this demand (Lui 2010), which further strengthens the case for

technological investment. America cannot go back to the days of wood burning to meet the

energy needs of the 400 million that will be living here in the near future. In addition, in the

1970s Paul Ehrlich famously predicted that hundreds of millions of people would soon starve

due to massive food shortages. The forecast fortunately did not come true, due principally to

advancements in agricultural technology (Ridley 2001). The implication is clear, advance

technology or face overwhelming failure to meet basic human needs.

Demand will continue to rise because even though most humans don’t want to harm the

environment, they do so as by product of attaining what they want. To better illustrate this point,

Midden states, “The consumption of natural resources is mostly a side effect of human

performance aimed to achieve other favored outcomes” (161). These outcomes add up to the

standard of living that civilized people have come to enjoy and simply won’t do without, which

is why demand for energy and resources isn’t going anywhere. There is a way to sustain the

civilized lifestyle without degrading natural systems, and technology has the promise to deliver

the necessary means. A clear example of this is the extraordinary success of Santa Rosa

residence hall renovation on the UCSB campus. After the new technology was put in place, the

annual water savings added up to 44,000 gallons, and this was after an additional 80 students

3

Barnett

moved in relative to the pre-renovation population (Jordan, 10-22-13, Slide 38). This example is

especially salient given Santa Barbara’s climate and average rainfall, which is extremely erratic

and predicted to decrease with climate change (NOAA 2013).

Energy is another excellent example of technology’s ability to meet increasing demands

while lowering environmental impacts. This is demonstrated by smart appliance technology,

which uses a sophisticated system to allow people to program their machines to operate at non-

peak times. Considering residential energy use accounts for 37% of the US annual total (Lui

2010), there exists significant potential for improvement in this area. The savings alone from

connecting electric driers to a smart grid system is the energy equivalent of eleven 500 megawatt

power plants (Lui 2010). Given such potential, it is clearly paramount that technological

investment continues unabated.

The final reason to support the case for TGIF’s technology investment is that it will drive

innovation, which is desperately needed to prevent catastrophic environmental scenarios from

occurring. Perrow (2011) aptly demonstrated that devastating accidents are a foregone

conclusion when it comes to nuclear power. The consequences of such accidents are

unacceptable, which is why innovation is greatly needed to promote healthy alternatives.

Conserving energy through the installation of LED fixtures will actually thwart the need for

these power plants to even exist considering the millions of dollars a year UCSB spends on

lighting (Jordan, 10-22-13, Slide 31).

Margolis cites the arguments of numerous scientists who claim that a 70% reduction of

green house gases is necessary to stabilize CO2 at 450 PPM (1999). Margolis also illustrates the

alarming downward trend of US energy R&D investment, which is exactly opposite of what’s

needed to counteract climate change (1999). TGIF must go against this trend and continue to

4

Barnett

invest in technology, as it is the principle hope of conserving natural resources and preventing

absolutely needless damage to species and ecosystems.

The community of UCSB and America by extension cannot afford technological

innovation to be stifled. Creating a market for innovative products such as faucet aerators and

LED lighting are absolutely crucial to ensuring long-term sustainability, and that is exactly what

technology investments by TGIF will do. The valley of death is one of the principal reasons why

environmentally beneficial products don’t make it to market (Clements 2011). Therefore, the

TGIF committee must take the positive step of continued investment to help young companies

cross the threshold and allow the slow progress to occur toward volume production of favorable

products.

In conclusion, the superiority of technological solutions for environmental problems is

threefold. Technology removes the element of human choice and ensures that pro-environmental

behavior will occur, as opposed to merely hoping that it might by the delivery of information.

Human demand for natural resources and energy will continue to rise due to the increase in

population, potentially stressing ecosystems to the breaking point and beyond. This trend must

be counteracted with technological solutions because they are most effective at meeting the

challenge. Unfortunately, US government investment in energy R&D has decreased over 50% in

the last twenty years (Margolis 1999). This development must be turned around to ensure the

future viability of natural systems, and the actions of the TGIF committee can directly contribute

toward achieving this goal. Without continued investment in technology, innovation will

stagnate and crucial opportunities to prevent resource depletion and climate change will be lost.

5

Barnett

Bibliography

Clements, E. (2011). Crossing the valley of death. Symmetry, 8 (1), 10-16.

Climate Prediction Center, Internet Team (2013 October 17th). General Format. Retrieved from http:// www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/sdo_summary.html

Gillingham, K. (2013). The rebound effect is overplayed. Nature, (493), 475-476.

Jordan. (2013 October 17). Technology solutions guest lecture. Critical thinking about environmental solutions. ENVS 106, UCSB.

Lui, T., Stirling W., Marcy H., (2010). Get Smart. IEEE power and energy magazine. May/June, 67-80.

Margolis, R., Kammen, D. (1999). Underinvestment: The energy technology and R&D policy challenge. Science Magazine, ( 285), 690-693.

Perrow, C. (2011). Fukashima and the inevitability of accidents. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 77 (6) 44-52.

Pulver, S. (2013 Oct 15). Technology solutions. Critical thinking about environmental solutions. ENVS 106, UCSB.

Ridley, M. (2001). Technology and the environment: The case for optimism. RSA Journal, 2 (4), 46-50.

6

Barnett 7