Hey, welcome back! This week I will be discussing the miracle worker for removing air pollution, technology.
Technology seems to be a solution for many of the world’s problem. The invention of the light bulb has allowed people to see better at night, eradicating people’s inability to work at night. Face to face communication between large distances was made possible with the invention of the internet. Many activities that we can do today used to seem impossible but has been made possible due to the constant advancement of technology. It wouldn’t be surprising to say that air pollution can eventually be solved by technology.
In fact, there are existing technology to help curb air pollution. In Mexico, there are artificial trees that can suck up air pollution and produce oxygen. Apparently, these artificial trees are so efficient that they can filter as much air as 368 real trees. Modern vehicle’s exhaust pipes are fitted with a catalytic converter to reduce the amount of toxic pollutants produced, by converting them into safer ones. Electric and hybrid vehicles that produce cleaner exhausts fumes are also becoming increasingly efficient, paving way for a new form of transport.
The artificial trees of Mexico and how they work.
If we follow the idea of Moore’s Law, the “quality” of technology developed will improve exponentially. So perhaps, in the future, air pollution can potentially be completely eradicated with the use of some advanced technology.
This belief is shared by many as well. In my survey with 35 respondents, aged between 19-25, an overwhelming majority believe that technology will solve the problem of air pollution. This signifies that many have a hopeful outlook on the role of technology, with regards to finding a solution for air pollution.
However, doesn’t finding a fool-proof solution for air pollution with the use of technology sound too good to be true?
Sadly, the development of better technology does not mean a complete reduction in air pollution, in fact, air quality may worsen. This is the Jevons paradox. If some form of improvement in technology exist, more people will take advantage of it. That may inevitably lead to more pollution, rather than reducing.
The role of technology in helping solve environmental issues may be over-romanticised. A while ago I learnt about the “impact” equation, whereby the impact on the environment is quantified via factors such as population, affluence (per capita consumption) and technology. Technology has its limitations and can only help reduce the impacts to a certain extent. The true contributors to the impacts of the environment are actually the population and affluence aspects. Therefore, if we seriously want to curb air pollution, there is a need to change the way we consume, reducing the “affluence” aspects.
Rather than finding a silver bullet solution in the form of a technology that may not even exist, it will be better if there is a change in the way we do things. The “miracles” of technology can only do so much, it will be erroreous to assume that technology has the capabilities to solve every problem.
Hi Jian Xi,
Really dig this post. I have 3 Qs.
1) Who were the respondents ? BES students ?
2) When you talk about these pollutant sucking artificial trees and mention that they were developed & are being used in MX, I have to ask… how affordable is this technology, and so how transferable is it to places with the dirtiest air ?
3) There’s an oft-repeated stat that each minute, the world loses 36 soccer fields of trees to deforestation. That’s way more than the 368 trees that one of these artificial ones “replaces”. And I put quotation marks around it because, of course, a real tree does many vital things besides remove air pollutants. And it does it all for free. Our of curiosity, how much would you pay to avoid one minute of global deforestation ?
jc
Hi Dr Coleman, Q1: roughly 60% of the respondents were BES students! In hindsight, I should have mentioned that detail in my post.
Q2: The costs of the artificial trees vary according to the site of construction, but from what I found, they typically cost $50000. In theory, this technology should be transferable to other places with poor air quality as well, especially in a highly urbanised area that does not promote the planting of actual trees. Since the artificial tree uses microalgae as the main “filter” to suck up air pollution, it should not be limited by geographical barriers.
Q3: Deforestation occurs so the land can be “reclaimed” for economic purposes. If we were to quantify the value of the forests solely on its monetary value, the amount of money we have to pay to stop 1 minute of deforestation has to be higher than the amount of money potentially gained because of deforestation. However, as you have mentioned, the trees are vital for many other key processes, its value simply cannot be quantified economically. I don’t think I can truly set a “price” to pay to avoid one minute of global deforestation, as we are losing so much more benefits that simply cannot be measured financially. The artificial trees may be able to suck up the pollution, but no amount of engineering can ever replace the role of real trees.
-Jian Xi
Hey Jian Xi!
This is such a great post! What are your thoughts on other forms of curbing air pollution like reforestation? Personally, I believe that technology has great potential to curb air problems but I don’t think that it is as sustainable as re-greening our Earth. That being said, I remember reading somewhere that reforestation projects release copious amounts of nitrogen into the atmosphere from the use of fertiliser to make the trees grow faster, so i’m not super sure.
Also, kind of unrelated, but what are your thoughts on the effects of secondhand smoke on air quality and do you think they have long term impacts?
Hope to hear from you soon!
Hi Yin Chuan, thanks for stopping by! Reforestation does have great potential in curbing air pollution since the stomata of the plants will absorb the hamrful particles, essentially filtering the air. One limitation of reforestation is that the trees take a considerable amount of time to grow, so it might not be suitable as an immediate solution to reduce air pollution.
In areas with large numbers of smokers, air quality has been found to substantially decreased, with notable rise in particulate matters. This problem is even worse in areas with stagnant air, as the smoke may linger for longer periods of time. The smoke from cigarettes is also particularly toxic and are carcinogenic, so air quality measured in areas with secondhand smoke may be even worst than what the indexes show, since there are some particles that are not measured. Studies have found that secondhand smoke causes 34000 pre mature deaths from heart disease amongst non-smokers in the USA annually, so there are definitely long term impacts from second hand smoke.
-Jian Xi