Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dr. Sisson
Essay #2 – Technology and the Environment
Technology is the driving force behind modern life, giving humans the means to control and
influence nature. Although it has brought about powerful, fast, and efficient ways for humans to
produce resources they want and need for modern life, it has also brought about many problems.
Central to these is the impact technology has on the natural environment, a fragile system that is easily
unbalanced.
Often technology is used irresponsibly when harvesting or mining natural resources. Using
chainsaws and bulldozers, forests in the Amazon and many other places are being stripped of their trees
for lumber, and the land taken for agriculture or developments.1 These practices threaten the species
living in these environments, and decrease the vegetation available to absorb carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. Lakes and oceans are also confronted everywhere by technology, from oil spills to global
climate change. Pollutants continually find their way into the ocean, and toxic wastes threaten sensitive
underwater species, while bottom trawling commercial ships tear up “seabed communities” and
weaken the bottom links of the ocean food chain.2 The genetic engineering of plants and animals for
agricultural and commercial purposes may also prove unwise. With scientific advances in the field of
genetics it is now possible to create resilient crop species and animals that will withstand specific
diseases. The longterm effects of genetic engineering are not completely known, but studies show that
it can lead to disruption of natural predatorprey ecosystems and ultimately harm their biodiversity.3
Technology depends on a complex manufacturing process which often produces toxic wastes
that are not disposed of properly or are accidentally released into the environment. The explosion of a
pesticide producing plant that spread a chemical cloud and killed over 3,800 people in Bhopal India
during the 1980's is an example of the potential for a disaster in every plant that utilizes chemicals.4
Coal and oil burning factories, the two main sources of energy that technology depends on, release
large amounts of carbon dioxide. Two other sources of energy are hydroelectric and nuclear power.
Hydroelectric plants are efficient electrical energy producers but distress river fish and cause alterations
in natural shoreline habitats.5 Nuclear reactors employ technology that is very harmful to biological
life. The longterm effects of nuclear energy are terrible if the technology malfunctions, is stored
improperly, or is used in warfare.6
The preceding examples were of technologies impacting the environment mainly on a scale
local to a single natural system such as a forest or ocean. Although important on the local scale,
technology's negative impacts are also cumulative, adding up to create an overall effect on global
climate trends. According to scientific research, average temperatures have increased by 0.8ºF over the
past 50 years, a huge acceleration over preindustrial rates.7 Data indicates that the acceleration began
shortly after the beginning of the industrial revolution, and has been keeping pace with growing carbon
dioxide emissions during the past century.8
Indisputable scientific evidence has shown that increased levels of gases known as GHG's are
contributing to warmer average temperatures around the earth. This is because many gases such as
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone absorb high levels of infrared radiation, which is the
main form of heat reflected off the earth by the sun. These gases in turn act as a sort of blanket around
the lower atmosphere of the earth, trapping heat from the sun and warming the earth's surface.9 The
greenhouse effect, as it is commonly known, is a natural and vital process in maintaining temperatures
warm enough for biological lifeforms to exist. It only becomes an issue when GHG levels vary greatly
from average. According to IPCC documentation the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased by
87 parts per million (ppm) and methane by 1,045 parts per billion (ppb) since the 1750's, a huge
increase over preindustrial levels of 278 ppm CO2 and 700 ppb methane.10
Global warming is a hotly debated issue with economic and private interest groups pitting
themselves against scientific evidence and hypotheses. Scientists are developing new technologies to
improve records of historical temperature data and construct more accurate predictions about the future
of earth's climate. Economically interested parties are fighting back with their own technology, from
large scale damage analysis projects using real forests, to advertising campaigns aimed at discrediting
the scientists who support global warming.
Technologies utilized in building up the historical climate record include ice and geologic core
sampling, tree ring analysis, and historical written records. Using ice cores, scientists can determine the
density of CO2 bubbles per volume of ice, and with measurements of ice flow, rate variations, volcanic
ash residue, and snow layers, obtain a fairly accurate record of CO2 levels dating back thousands of
years.11 For warmer climates, geologic core sampling is used following methods similar to ice core
reading, in which rock or mud is analyzed. The growth rings in ancient trees are also measured, where
larger growth is typically an indication of warmer, wetter or excess CO2 years.12
Meanwhile, critics use technology in attempts to disprove global warming. In the FreeAir CO2
Enrichment project (FACE), several forests kept at predicted CO2 levels for the year 2050 are being
monitored for growth rates and other data in an attempt to show that the future of industrialization will
spur along plant and forest growth.13 According to a preliminary report 7 years into the project
however, it appears that the overall growth of these trees responds more to other factors such as
temperature, precipitation, and soil nitrogen content.14 In the advertising realm, industry backed critics
are utilizing the news media and political campaigns to discredit scientists and their predictions. These
critics are saying that scientific conclusions are based on flawed models and that “climate change is
naturally variable” and unpredictable.15
Scientific models certainly have flaws; scientists themselves readily admit to this. However,
according to the Environmental Protection Agency, scientists are 99% sure that “human activities are
changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere” and that “the atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases is largely the result of [these activities].”16 The unpredictable nature of earth's climate
is a result of a process known as positive and negative “feedback.”17 Positive feedback refers to an
increase in the warming effect, as exemplified by melting ice in arctic regions. In this scenario, as more
ice melts the reflective surface area of the arctic regions is reduced, accelerating the melting process.
Volcanoes are a good example of negative feedback, in which erupting clouds of sulfuric ash surround
the earth and reflect heat away from its surface, cooling global temperatures. Other positive and
negative feedbacks include political policies and human activities. A war or widespread disease could
lower populations, destroy technology, and result in decreased global emissions, while economic
success would increase energy demands and their corresponding oil and coal burning emissions.
Abundant evidence exists to support global warming claims. Even if the future of the earth's
climate is unknown, current weather patterns appear to correlate with the changing climate, as
hurricanes, floods, and droughts occur more often due to warmer weather. The most conservative
estimates of temperature increase allow for one degree over the next hundred years, which according to
a study done by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies is enough to trigger a chain of feedback
reactions.18 This study has shown that as the permafrost melts in northern regions, huge amounts of
trapped methane will be released, exacerbating global warming.18 In northern forests the extra degree
will unstabilize millions of acres of trees, creating the right conditions for moths and beetles to infestate
and kill trees, and increasing their vulnerability to widespread fires. In Africa, desert vegetation will
rapidly disappear releasing devastating dust storms that will plague inhabitants and destroy crops.19
Lastly, for hurricane prone regions, higher tropical sea surface temperatures will increase the ferocity
of storms.20 These studies are based on events that have already begun to occur. It is clear by scientific
evidence that humans are contributing to the global climate change. If nothing is done to slow down
greenhouse gas emissions, it is inevitable that the environment will continue to change, and humans
will be forced to adapt to a world that may suffer far more than these moderate predictions suggest.
Endnotes
1
Protect Ancient Forests. 2006 Greenpeace Intl. 14 Nov. 2006
<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/forests/amazon>.
2
Duplisea, Daniel E. “Modelling potential impacts of bottom trawl fisheries on soft sediment
biogeochemistry in the North Sea.” Geochem Trans 2.112 (2001) 14 Nov. 2006
<http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1475597>.
3
Cox, T.S. and W. Jackson. “Agriculture and Biodiversity Loss: Genetic Engineering and the Second
Agricultural Revolution.” Life on Earth: An Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Ecology, and
Evolution Santa Barbara: ABCCLIO, 2002. 9699
4
Bhopal Information Center. 2005 Union Carbide Corp. 14 Nov. 2006 <http://www.bhopal.com>
5
Miller, G. Tyler Jr. Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections and Solutions. (Toronto:
Thomson, 2004) 319.
6
Miller 367.
7
Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A.
Johnson, eds. IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. (Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 2001) 881.
8
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change: Recent Climate Change. 14 Nov.
2006 <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentcc.html>.
9
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change: State of Knowledge. 14 Nov. 2006
<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html>.
10
Houghton 185, 881
11
“Ice core.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 5 Nov 2006, 20:42 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
14 Nov 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ice_core&oldid=85907234>.
12
Laboratory of TreeRing Research. U of Arizona. 14 Nov. 2006
<h
ttp://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/dendrochronology.html>.
13
FACE (Free Air
CO
2 Enrichment) Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 14 Nov. 2006
<http://cdiac.ornl.gov/programs/FACE/face.html>.
14
Basgall, Monte. “Duke openair experiment results could deflate hopes that forests can alleviate
global warming.” EurekAlert! 15 Feb. 2004 14 Nov. 2006
<http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200402/dudoe020904.php>.
15
Fyfe, Melissa. “The global warming sceptics.” The Age. 27 Nov. 2004. 14 Nov. 2006
<http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html>
.
16
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change: State of Knowledge. 14 Nov.
2006 <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html>.
17
Feedback Mechanisms in Climate. U of Michigan. 16 Nov. 2006
<http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/
feedback_mechanisms/>.
18
Pearce, Fred. “Climate change: 'One degree and we're done for'.” New Scientist 27 Sept. 2006: 89
19
Lovgren, Stefan. “Global Warming May Unleash "Sand Seas" in Africa, Model Shows.” National
Geographic News 29 June 2005. 14 Nov. 2006
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0629_050629_dunes.html>.
20
Knutson, Tom. Global Warming and Hurricanes. 23 Mar. 2006. Princeton U Forrestal Campus. 14
Nov. 2006 <http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html>.