Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is technology developing too slowly?

Changing to nuclear will not prevent climate catastrophe, it will barely even prolong it. It's not carbon free and you have no idea what to do with the waste.

Burning fossil fuels isn't without a radioactive waste either. When burned they emit small amounts of radioactive materials directly into the atmosphere. There's plenty of reasons for discontinuing the use of fossil fuels other than climate change. For example, burning fossil fuels kill one in five worldwide:

If the consequences of burning fossil fuels—like melting glaciers, rising seas, and increasing global temperature averages—feel too far-flung or abstract, consider the fundamental act of taking a breath of air. A new study has found that air pollution from fossil fuels is responsible for nearly one in every five deaths worldwide.

Scientists have known for years about the deadly impacts of fossil fuel combustion, but a new peer-reviewed study published in Environmental Research puts the global death toll at more than twice that of previous estimates. According to the research, exposure to fine particulate matter, or PM 2.5, from burning fossil fuels was responsible for about 8.7 million deaths globally in 2018. That’s roughly the same number of people living in New York City or London. Or, to put this health crisis into further perspective, fossil fuel pollution is not only fueling the climate crisis but it also kills more people each year than HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria combined.

“We don’t appreciate that air pollution is an invisible killer,” Neelu Tummala, an ear, nose, and throat physician at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, recently told The Guardian. “The air we breathe impacts everyone’s health but particularly children, older individuals, those on low incomes, and people of color. Usually people in urban areas have the worst impacts.”

PM 2.5 is any airborne particle that is up to 2.5 microns in diameter—or about one-thirtieth the width of a single human hair. Particles this tiny are problematic because they linger in the air, are readily inhaled, and can penetrate deep into the lungs, where they can enter the bloodstream and inflict damage on multiple organs.


We have shown that we can tackle air pollution in some places. I wish we had the will to tackle climate change too.
 
I doubt if a problem created by the use of technology can be solved with more technology. At the same time, we've reached a point where we probably won't avoid the worst effects without it. I think we're toast, for the simple reason that we won't do anything meaningful, with or without technology. We just don't have the will to make the necessary changes.

I disagree. There's been something of a quiet revolution going on with renewable energy, an important development that tends to get lost amongst all of the doomsaying. I get the importance of avoiding complacency, but it's also important to recognise the gains when we make them.
 
Is technology developing too slowly to avoid global climate catastrophe?
I just feel technology is not progressing quickly enough.
Depends; if you spend any time in the start up community the pace of change is amazing, lots of great work being done and getting funded, expect scale in the next five years. If you spend time watching the news, consuming typical social media then yeah...probably feels slow.
 
Back
Top Bottom