1. Barnett 1
Patrick Barnett
Colin, Mon @10
Pulver, ENVS 106
Technology is the Way Forward
Technology must occupy the central and principal role in ensuring a sustainable future
for the UCSB campus and by extension the United States of America. The reasons supporting
this claim are that technology influences human behavior much more effectively than
information-based solutions, therefore it will offer the best return on investment for achieving
responsible environmental behavior. Second, the TGIF committee must invest in technology
because without technological advances, rising human populations will only hasten the depletion
of finite resources and cause irreversible environmental damage. Demand for the products of
nature is increasing rapidly, so technology must offset it with growth in the development of
efficient products and regenerative solutions. Finally, without committed and continued
investment in technology, innovation will stagnate, creating the conditions for real
environmental calamity. Society cannot afford such scenarios. Technological investment by the
TGIF committee is a critical step to prevent them from happening.
Technology impacts human behavior much more directly than information solutions
because it dictates the very ways in which people interact with their environment (Midden 2007).
For instance, the availability of a cheap and convenient metro service in many areas not only
gives people the option of leaving their car at home, but it actually induces them to do so
(Midden 2007). The existence of the metro service is termed a realization condition, and these
conditions ultimately determine what kinds of environmentally impacting behaviors humans
perform (Midden 2007). For example, I visited both Chicago and New York twice and each time
parked the car and rode public transportation for the duration of the visit. Oppose this to

2. Barnett 2
numerous visits to Los Angeles where public transit wasn’t considered. The relationship of
driving gas powered vehicles and climate change is well known to me, having received
information from various educational sources. Despite this education, my behavior was largely
determined by the technological options available. Essentially, humans aren’t going to stop
driving polluting vehicles because information campaigns tell them not to, but they will if better
options become available through improved technology. The best solutions to environmental
problems are those that ensure minimal impacts, and that is exactly what technology does.
A further illustration of why information solutions are inferior for solving environmental
problems is the government mass-media campaigns in the 1970s and 80s to combat anti-
environmental behavior. This strategy did not produce the desired results (Midden 2007). Instead
of “give a hoot” campaigns, a more effective means of encouraging pro-environmental behavior
is using technology in the form of trash bins placed in appropriate locations. The superiority of
technology is clearly demonstrated because it facilitates behavior by creating the necessary
conditions for it to happen, as opposed to trying to convince people to act in certain ways by
ineffective education. This advantage has a metric, which is upwards of twenty times more return
on investment than behavioral solutions (Pulver, 10-15-13, slide 18).
Since human behavior is determined by technology, it is of utmost importance that
investment in technology considers its power to amplify environmental impacts (Midden 2007).
Rebound effects have real implications for promoting positive environmental behavior. For
instance, I own a Toyota hybrid vehicle and can testify to driving twice as far as normal during
the first year of ownership. However, this was do to the initial excitement that the technology
provoked. In the second and third years of ownership, I actually drove the hybrid less than
average, which balanced out the initial year. Considering energy usage, the fact that power is

3. Barnett 3
generated by renewable sources versus coal will not induce me to keep the lights on all night
long. As Gillingham (2013) asserts, improvements in technological efficiency more than offset
the rebound effect, thereby lessening environmental impacts, even factoring in increased demand.
A second line of evidence supporting technological solutions is the inevitability of these
increasing human demands on scarce resources. The capacity to produce non-polluting energy is
in fact not keeping up with this demand (Lui 2010), which further strengthens the case for
technological investment. America cannot go back to the days of wood burning to meet the
energy needs of the 400 million that will be living here in the near future. In addition, in the
1970s Paul Ehrlich famously predicted that hundreds of millions of people would soon starve
due to massive food shortages. The forecast fortunately did not come true, due principally to
advancements in agricultural technology (Ridley 2001). The implication is clear, advance
technology or face overwhelming failure to meet basic human needs.
Demand will continue to rise because even though most humans don’t want to harm the
environment, they do so as by product of attaining what they want. To better illustrate this point,
Midden states, “The consumption of natural resources is mostly a side effect of human
performance aimed to achieve other favored outcomes” (161). These outcomes add up to the
standard of living that civilized people have come to enjoy and simply won’t do without, which
is why demand for energy and resources isn’t going anywhere. There is a way to sustain the
civilized lifestyle without degrading natural systems, and technology has the promise to deliver
the necessary means. A clear example of this is the extraordinary success of Santa Rosa
residence hall renovation on the UCSB campus. After the new technology was put in place, the
annual water savings added up to 44,000 gallons, and this was after an additional 80 students
moved in relative to the pre-renovation population (Jordan, 10-22-13, Slide 38). This example is

4. Barnett 4
especially salient given Santa Barbara’s climate and average rainfall, which is extremely erratic
and predicted to decrease with climate change (NOAA 2013).
Energy is another excellent example of technology’s ability to meet increasing demands
while lowering environmental impacts. This is demonstrated by smart appliance technology,
which uses a sophisticated system to allow people to program their machines to operate at non-
peak times. Considering residential energy use accounts for 37% of the US annual total (Lui
2010), there exists significant potential for improvement in this area. The savings alone from
connecting electric driers to a smart grid system is the energy equivalent of eleven 500 megawatt
power plants (Lui 2010). Given such potential, it is clearly paramount that technological
investment continues unabated.
The final reason to support the case for TGIF’s technology investment is that it will drive
innovation, which is desperately needed to prevent catastrophic environmental scenarios from
occurring. Perrow (2011) aptly demonstrated that devastating accidents are a foregone
conclusion when it comes to nuclear power. The consequences of such accidents are
unacceptable, which is why innovation is greatly needed to promote healthy alternatives.
Conserving energy through the installation of LED fixtures will actually thwart the need for
these power plants to even exist considering the millions of dollars a year UCSB spends on
lighting (Jordan, 10-22-13, Slide 31).
Margolis cites the arguments of numerous scientists who claim that a 70% reduction of
green house gases is necessary to stabilize CO2 at 450 PPM (1999). Margolis also illustrates the
alarming downward trend of US energy R&D investment, which is exactly opposite of what’s
needed to counteract climate change (1999). TGIF must go against this trend and continue to
invest in technology, as it is the principle hope of conserving natural resources and preventing

5. Barnett 5
absolutely needless damage to species and ecosystems.
The community of UCSB and America by extension cannot afford technological
innovation to be stifled. Creating a market for innovative products such as faucet aerators and
LED lighting are absolutely crucial to ensuring long-term sustainability, and that is exactly what
technology investments by TGIF will do. The valley of death is one of the principal reasons why
environmentally beneficial products don’t make it to market (Clements 2011). Therefore, the
TGIF committee must take the positive step of continued investment to help young companies
cross the threshold and allow the slow progress to occur toward volume production of favorable
products.
In conclusion, the superiority of technological solutions for environmental problems is
threefold. Technology removes the element of human choice and ensures that pro-environmental
behavior will occur, as opposed to merely hoping that it might by the delivery of information.
Human demand for natural resources and energy will continue to rise due to the increase in
population, potentially stressing ecosystems to the breaking point and beyond. This trend must
be counteracted with technological solutions because they are most effective at meeting the
challenge. Unfortunately, US government investment in energy R&D has decreased over 50% in
the last twenty years (Margolis 1999). This development must be turned around to ensure the
future viability of natural systems, and the actions of the TGIF committee can directly contribute
toward achieving this goal. Without continued investment in technology, innovation will
stagnate and crucial opportunities to prevent resource depletion and climate change will be lost.

6. Barnett 6
Bibliography
Clements, E. (2011). Crossing the valley of death. Symmetry, 8 (1), 10-16.
Climate Prediction Center, Internet Team (2013 October 17th). General Format. Retrieved
from http:// www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/sdo_summary.html
Gillingham, K. (2013). The rebound effect is overplayed. Nature, (493), 475-476.
Jordan. (2013 October 17). Technology solutions guest lecture. Critical thinking about
environmental solutions. ENVS 106, UCSB.
Lui, T., Stirling W., Marcy H., (2010). Get Smart. IEEE power and energy magazine.
May/June, 67-80.
Margolis, R., Kammen, D. (1999). Underinvestment: The energy technology and R&D policy
challenge. Science Magazine, ( 285), 690-693.
Perrow, C. (2011). Fukashima and the inevitability of accidents. Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 77 (6) 44-52.
Pulver, S. (2013 Oct 15). Technology solutions. Critical thinking about environmental
solutions. ENVS 106, UCSB.
Ridley, M. (2001). Technology and the environment: The case for optimism. RSA Journal, 2
(4), 46-50.