Can Technology Fix the Environment?

Technological Fix: Can Technology Fix the Environment?
“We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our
house for fuel when we should be using Nature’s inexhaustible sources of
energy – sun, wind and tide. … I’d put my money on the sun and solar
energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil
and coal run out before we tackle that.”
— Thomas Edison, 1931
Can technology fix the human-caused environmental damage to the
planet? “Technological fix” is the idea that most problems have a
technical solution. Such a fix seeks “to use the power of technology in
order to solve problems that are nontechnical in nature” (Volti, 2017,
p. 30).
Such technological fixes for the environment can be quite
controversial, as many of them are simply theories, and others are in an
embryonic stage of development. There is also the criticism that
proposing technological fixes for the environment will divert attention
away from the “root cause of the problem: rising greenhouse-gas
emissions” (Temple, 2019).
One technological fix concerns geoengineering. Geoengineering is
defined as the “deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary
environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change” (Wood et al.,
2013).
An example of geoengineering involves injecting sulfur dioxide into
the atmosphere. Nature has provided clues to why this form of
geoengineering (in theory) could work. In 1991, Mt. Pinatubo on the
Philippine island of Luzon erupted. More than 20 million tons of sulfur
dioxide were thrown into the stratosphere. In the next 2 years, the
earth cooled down by 1°Fahrenheit. This one “volcanic eruption
practically reversed, albeit temporarily, the cumulative global warming
of the previous hundred years” (Levitt & Dubner, 2009). A much
earlier volcanic eruption in Indonesia in 1815 achieved similar results,
creating the “Year Without a Summer” in 1816. In that year, North
America and Europe experienced an abnormally cool and wet summer.
Scientists have concluded that 1816 was probably the coldest year in 250
years (Schurer et al., 2019).
For many years, the idea of spraying sulfur dioxide into the
atmosphere as a fix to climate change was viewed as a fringe idea,
nothing more than science fiction. But it has been gaining adherents in
the last 20 years or so. Atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen made an
argument for this fix as a possible last resort to the dangers of global
warming. Crutzen is highly respected within climate circles, as he
shared the Nobel Prize in 1995 for helping to explain the depletion of
the ozone layer. He maintains that the best solution would be if
“greenhouse gases could be reduced so much that the stratospheric sulfur
release experiment would not need to take place. Currently, this looks
like a pious wish” (Crutzen, 2006). So, if human activity will not
change, maybe technology could offer a partial solution. In a recent
study on this topic, coauthor Professor David Keith of Applied Physics
at Harvard University maintained that “there is the possibility that
solar geoengineering could really substantially reduce climate risks for
the most vulnerable” (Holden, 2019). Other climate experts believe the
world is fast approaching the time “when nothing other than
geoengineering” can prevent the impending environmental crisis (Pearce,
2019).
The controversy and naysaying will continue, though proponents will
continue to advocate (with caution) for geoengineering as one of many
possible solutions to the danger of climate change.
There are many other potential technological fixes when looking at
the environment (even subsets within geoengineering). In this project,
you will examine one such technology to see if, based on your analysis
of the evidence collected, it is a solution to the climate crisis.
The Pinatubo Volcano Eruption in Philippines

– ASSIGNMENT DETAILS:

For this assignment, you will write a 500-word expository essay on
the topic of technology as a possible solution to environmental damage.
Your essay should have a clearly established and sustained viewpoint and
purpose. In addition, your writing should be well ordered, logical, and
unified, as well as original and insightful. Following are the content
requirements of the essay:
Although you may use additional academic articles obtained from the Purdue Global Library, here are some notable sources:
MIT Technology Review: https://www.technologyreview.com/
Nature: https://www.nature.com/
Smithsonian Magazine: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/
Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/
United Nations Environment Programme: https://www.unenvironment.org/
EPA: https://www.epa.gov/
National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/
Discover: https://www.discovermagazine.com/
USAID: https://www.usaid.gov/
Select one technology that may help correct an environmental concern.
What is the environmental concern?
Did humans cause this environmental concern?
What do proponents of the technology claim?
What do its critics say?
Is the technology currently in use?
If not, what is the potential future use?
How costly is this technology?
What, if any, are the drawbacks of this technology?
Based on your research, do you believe this technology could be an effective technological fix?
Your paper should also meet the following requirements:
APA format
Title page
Introduction
APA citations
Double-spaced sentences
12-point Times New Roman font
Conclusion
Reference page
Three sources minimum (including the class text)
Standard English grammar conventions
Correct grammar
Correct punctuation and spelling
Logical, well-ordered sentences
Unit 8 Reading
In this unit’s readings, you examine alternative technologies and the environment.

Required
● Winston, M. E., & Edelbach, R. (2014). Society, ethics, and technology (5th ed.).
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

o DAVID FRIDLEY: Nine Challenges of Alternative Energy
o LESTER BROWN: Stabilizing Climate: An Energy Efficiency Revolution
● Tyson, A., & Kennedy, B. (2020, June 29). Two-thirds of Americans think government
should do more on climate. Pew Research Center.
● Lumen (n.d.). Reducing air pollution. In Earth Science.

-REFERENCES

Crutzen, P. (2006). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change, 77, 211–219.
Holden, E. (2019, March 11). Radical plan to artificially cool Earth’s climate could be safe, study finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/11/solar-geoengineering-climate-change-new-study
Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2009). Superfreakonomics: Global cooling, patriotic prostitutes, and why suicide bombers should buy life insurance. William Morrow.
Pearce, F. (2019). Geoengineer the planet? More scientists now say it must be an option. Yale Environment 360. https://e360.yale.edu/features/geoengineer-the-planet-more-scientists-now-say-it-must-be-an-option
Schurer, A. P., Hegerl, G. C., Luterbacher, J., Brönnimann, S.,
Cowan, T., Tett, S. F. B., Zanchettin, D., & Timmreck, C. (2019).
Disentangling the causes of the 1816 European year without a summer. Environmental Research Letters, 14.
Temple, J. (2019, August 9). What is geoengineering-and why should you care? MIT
Technology Review.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/09/615/what-is-geoengineering-and-why-should-you-care-climate-change-harvard/
Wood, S., Gardiner, S., & Hartzell-Nichols, L. (2013). Climatic change special issue: Geoengineering research and its limitations. Climatic Change, 121, 427–430. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-1000-4

Last Completed Projects