Category: Technology

In this post-industrialisation era, many governments and individuals have raised concerns over the environment; global warming, loss of biodiversity and land degradation pose threats to our survival and add moral burdens on our shoulders. Many international conferences have been held and environmental organizations’ voices have grown stronger than ever before, giving some the illusion that we can restore the environment we damaged. However, efforts by these institutions and individuals, more often than not, do not produce actual effects, due to profit-centric political agenda, technological limitations and nature’s unstoppable force. Thus, it is true to some extent that it is futile to try and save the environment.

Looking through rose-tinted glasses, those who are overly optimistic may claim that the rising concerns for the environment at the national level will make the restoration of the environment an achievable goal. It is true that environmental issues have been brought up in many international conferences. The World Commission on Environment and Development, for example, was established in 1983, where the concept of sustainable development was first acknowledged by multiple nations. In the later years, environmental conventions in Brazil, Copenhagen, Kyoto and Paris brought together world leaders to discuss strategies to save our environment. Such international efforts to address environmental issues paint a promising picture for the optimists, especially when many countries have consistently met the environmental targets set. France, for example, successfully reduced its carbon emission drastically by using nuclear energy to power 70% of its domestic electricity. Example like this can easily give the impression that our efforts to save the environment will be effective, as the world nations seem to be willing to put in resources collectively and some results have been seen.

            However, those optimists fail to recognize that those international conferences and the apparent results have too trivial an effect to be able to save the environment, as the current level of technology does not allow us to achieve our ambitions. In particular, the notion that humans can slow down environmental degradation by changing our energy use pattern is overly simplistic, because the process of producing alternative energy itself deteriorates nature. For instance, although many countries have tied to use solar energy as a green alternative for fossil fuels, the production of solar-energy panels involves mining-specific metals, which are already scarce in nature, and the transportation of materials, as well as the manufacturing process of these panels, emits greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Hence, the so-called environmentally friendly energy is ironically environmentally devastating. Furthermore, the waste generated by nuclear plants and the radiation that affects the surrounding ecosystem has also rendered our efforts to save the environment counter-productive, causing further damages to the environment. Therefore, the attempts taken on a national level to restore the environment are rather futile as the solutions to environmental problems still cause an adverse impact on the environment.

            Active environmentalists may argue that the awakening of individuals around the world who now advocate for the environment has halted many environmentally damaging projects and activities. With the maturing of democracy across the world, citizens have used their individual power to try to save the environment, by protesting and advocating. For example, Nature Society of Singapore, a non-government organization, published Master Plan for the Conservation of Nature in Singapore in 1990, which propelled the government’s now institutionalized Green Plan that sets aside five per cent of Singapore’s total area for nature conservation. Incidents like this convince the environmentalists that concerted efforts by individuals can be very powerful in protecting our environment. Nevertheless, they ignore the compelling truth that most of the time, profit-driven companies or governments that prioritise economic development are too powerful to be challenged. The Three Gorges Project in China, for instance, caused many environmentalists to protest due to its potential damage on biodiversity. However, the project was continued due to the strong will of the Chinese government and the multiple corporations involved. These examples show that individual efforts are too insignificant to save the environment when most of the time, governments and corporations overpower these individuals.

            Lastly, the environmental issues we perceive can simply be a natural pattern that no human efforts can stop. Global warming, for example, is believed by many scientists to be merely a result of increasing solar activity, which has nothing to do with the faults of human. Researchers also point out that, the earth has experienced a period of warming when the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases was low. Scientific pieces of evidence like this reveal the horrifying fact that environmental issues may not be a result of human activities. If so, our efforts to save the environment will not produce any effect. Furthermore, the still-rising carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is a compelling corroboration that our individual and international efforts achieve a little outcome to stop the possible natural trend. Hence, given the scientific uncertainty about the truth of environmental degradation, it is rather futile to try and save the environment because the force of nature itself is almost unchallengeable.

            In conclusion, provided with the current state of science and technology, as well as the socio-economical needs of countries, human efforts to save the environment produce rather negligible outcomes. Moreover, the possibility that environmental issues are merely a natural trend tells us that it is futile to save the deteriorating environment and ourselves from its impacts.

It is clearer today, more than ever, that Man’s short-sighted actions in the pursuit of material wealth are causing the destruction of the environment. There is a growing international consensus among scientists that human activity is a direct cause of global warming and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” brought this to the forefront of public consciousness. Meanwhile, huge swathes of rainforest in the Amazon are destroyed each day to be used as cattle grazing pastures. Given the undeniable fact that human activity is responsible for environmental destruction, it is then not surprising that the best answer to environmental destruction is not the development of new technology to patch up the problem, but instead a fundamental change in mindset and attitudes globally which would address the root of the problem.

It must be acknowledged that technology can indeed help to address the problem of environmental destruction. This is especially evident in situations where it is impractical to stop the human activity. For example, it would be impossible to stop all forms of transport as people would face severe restrictions in where they could go. Thus, in this case, technology could help tremendously, like through the introduction of hydrogen-fuelled cars which only produce water as a waste product and do not emit carbon dioxide. Also, better technology has helped refineries to refine crude oil while releasing less harmful byproducts into the environment. The development of unleaded petrol also reduced the number of pollutants emitted into the environment by cars. All of these examples go to show that technology can and indeed, already have, helped to reduce environmental destruction.

However, technology may not be the best answer to environmental destruction as there are situations in which it is useless. An example close to home is the proposed development of Chek Jawa, a section of coast on Pulau Ubin with rich marine biodiversity, by the Singapore government. Had the government decided to go ahead with its plans, no amount of technology could have saved the biodiversity in the area from the bulldozers and construction cranes. Thus, it is clear that technology cannot be the best answer as it is unable to negate the effects of habitat destruction. Instead, what is more, pertinent in this situation is the attitude towards conservation of such important habitats. In the Chek Jawa situation, the government demonstrated an applaudable mindset towards environmental conservation as it halted development plans and even gazette the area as a protected area. It is clear that human attitudes were what saved Chek Jawa from destruction, not technology.

Furthermore, technology is limited in its impact as it is only effective when used properly and regularly. For example, although electric cars that are less harmful to the environment than conventional cars have been developed, the usage rate of such cars is not high due to their relatively higher price. If for whatever reason, superior technology is not implemented, then it is effectively useless. In short, the effectiveness of technology is dependent on society’s attitude towards it, and technology that helps reduce environmental destruction will only be implemented if society feels the need for environmental conservation.

Another problem with using technology as the answer to environmental destruction is that, more often than not, cavalier attitudes towards environmental conservation as demonstrated by excessive consumption and extravagant wastage can negate any benefits brought about by technology. For example, proponents of the recently-developed biodegradable “plastic bag” hail it as the answer to the problem of non-biodegradable petroleum-based plastic bags. However, should people take the biodegradable nature of the new “plastic bag” as carte blanche to use and waste as many as they desire, they could be contributing to even more environmental destruction. This is mainly because more energy is required to produce these extra bags, thereby creating more carbon dioxide and waste through the production and incineration process as compared to the impact of conventional plastic bags. Through this, it is clear that the ultimate answer is not technology, but the changing of society’s attitudes.

Proponents of the superiority of technology may argue that with sufficiently advanced and large-scale technology, humans need not alter their attitudes at all. They may point to ongoing projects which attempt to find a way to dump Mankind’s waste into space or pump the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into huge underground caverns to reduce global warming. However, such initiatives tend to be large-scale and extravagantly expensive, taking up valuable scarce resources which could be used for the betterment of society or even to feed the hungry. Furthermore, according to Occam’s razor, the simplest solution to a problem is often the best one. It would be resource-wasting and foolish to pursue such grand initiatives to solve a problem which can be solved so simply – by a small change in behavioural attitudes.

Although cynics might argue that it is much harder to change human attitudes, current events point to the contrary. They show that people, once educated about the impact of their actions on the destruction of the environment, tend to act in a way to reduce that impact. For example, the number of couples who serve shark fin soup at their weddings here in Singapore has steadily declined over the years, due to increasing awareness that the shark fin trade is endangering the shark population. Also, statistics collected in conjunction with the “Bring Your Own Bag” campaign, which was recently launched in Singapore, has shown that more people are starting to eschew the one-time use of plastic bags in favour of reusable ones. This is attributed to increased awareness of the environmental destruction caused by plastic bags. Thus we can see that people do change their actions and attitudes when educated about the negative impacts of their actions.

Moreover, there need not be a drastic change in attitudes and actions to solve the problem of environmental destruction. Saving the environment need not require everyone to stop all air travel or stop all activities non-essential to survival. As is often seen, all that is required is a small change in behaviour, such as using turning up the temperature on the air-conditioner or printing documents double-sided. For example, if everyone switched off their computers when not in use instead of leaving them to idle, 45 million less metric tons of carbon dioxide would be emitted per year. Thus, even small individual actions can lead to a great impact is done collectively.

It is for this reason that a change in people’s attitudes towards conservation is a superior answer to environmental destruction compared to technology. It is far more likely to succeed and requires less of the Earth’s scarce resources.

Ever since the Industrial Revolution, rapid industrialisation in many countries had caused a lot of damage to the environment. Many forms of modernization have also contributed to environmental problems such as global warming and water pollution. In recent years, things such as the ozone layer depletion and the melting of glaciers in the North and South poles have raised an alarm to the world. As a result, man efforts were put in by the world to conserve the environment such as trying to reduce the number of emissions of greenhouse gases. However, I do not agree to the statement that the world has done enough to conserve the environment as there are contributors of environmental pollution being overlooked and several large-scale projects being carried out which are harmful to the environment.

Recently, there are indeed global efforts to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. For example, there is a treaty brought up by the United Nations to be signed by all countries to reduce their annual emission of carbon dioxide by a certain percentage. This is to try to bring down the global emission of greenhouse gases by a significant amount and is seen as a global effort to conserve the environment. However, it is not deemed as successful as main contributors of greenhouse gases such as the United States of America refused to sign the treaty. The reason for the refusal is because they are unhappy that rapidly industrializing countries such as China are only subjected to reduce by half the amount of that required of USA. Hence global efforts are hard to succeed as many countries are thinking of their own benefits above the benefits on the environment. Projects to conserve the environment may just be an empty proposal as countries are more concerned about their economic growth and are unwilling to compromise. Efforts are not put in enough especially by the developed countries and there is hardly any significant change to the environment through these projects.

In addition, there are many sources of pollution that are overlooked by the world. Underground activities and also activities carried out in rural areas of developing countries are slowing causing deadly harm to the environment as well. However, there are often overlooked by the world and nothing is done to prevent and reduce these activities. An example will be the disposal of high-tech trash. Every day, thousands of used computers and electronic gadgets are transported and dumped in rural areas of China, Indonesia and other developing countries. The job for many people there is usually to sell the copper obtained after burning away the rubber insulation with fire. This is a harmful process which emits carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and many other harmful gases. The process is repeated and carried out at a large scale in the villages as it is the livelihood of many. The consequences of this improper disposal of high-tech trash can be more deadly than those emitted from industries in a developed country. However, no efforts are done to stop transporting the high-tech trash or to stop this kind of trading copper for cheap cash. It will be a silent killer to the environment and conservation efforts are not covered at all in this aspect. In another village in China, waster like high-the trash is dumped into rivers while people living downstream consume the water every day. Water pollution done can be fatal and will increase collectively over the years if countries fail to discover and try to take action to prevent these from happening.

Furthermore, developed countries are still promoting environmentally unfriendly projects for their own economic benefit. Influential countries such as the US are not taking the lead and conserve the environment. This will cause a chain effort and many other countries are increasingly unwilling to compromise for conservation efforts. The adoption of nuclear power is a very good example. Nuclear power is a process where it emits a large scale of harmful gases and causes more environmental problems than the currently used fuel. If adopted totally by the US and put to use at a large scale, the environment will deplete at a faster rate than anyone would imagine. However, the US is unwilling to rethink about it and no follow up methods are done to reduce the number of harmful gases being emitted as well. Hence, half-hearted efforts by developed countries also make conservation efforts seem weak.

In conclusion, there is generally not enough effort put in by the world to conserve the environment. Many contributors to the pollution done are not recognized and dealt with while there is no full support from economically strong countries such as the US. The world is still not fully aware of the consequences that may come. If the countries do not try and start to conserve the environment now, the environment will be even depleted at a much faster rate and the damage done may be irreversible.