The future of…

Click here for contact details, other articles and personal details

The future of environmentalism

August 2001

Like many schoolchildren a long time ago, I did a chemistry project on pollution, and was appalled to discover the local river was a concentrated phosphate solution. Virtually every nature documentary at the time emphasised the damage we were doing to the rain forests. The school library Encyclopedia Britannica 1974 edition said that scientists were very concerned about global warming from the greenhouse effect. It took many years before the public took any interest in what scientists had been telling them and it will take many more years before the problem has been addressed adequately. Like most people, I am concerned about our stupid treatment of our environment, but also distressed by the anti-technology attitudes of some environmental groups. Good science is often ignored and sometimes hindered by today's environmental movement, and the environment suffers needlessly as a result.

Although environmentalism has become very fashionable, the movement as a whole sometimes suffers from emotionalism and dogma in place of good science, and some very serious errors have been made by key environmental groups. They mean well and have achieved a great deal in making the public concerned about environmental issues, but dogma and emotional reaction is not an acceptable substitute for proper scientific analysis. As a result, the environment is in poor shape and some of the technologies that might help are opposed by these groups whose mandate is to defend the environment. Whether the environment would be better or worse overall without their efforts is sadly debatable.

Because many of us want to protect our environment but are fed up with dogmatic mistakes, I believe we will soon see a scientifically based environmental campaign taking hold. The mantra 'think globally, act locally' should really be 'think systemically'. Our environment is a very complex system, with some effects only becoming apparent over many years through sometimes surprising mechanisms. Parts of the system can't be considered properly in isolation, we must look at the whole system. As a result of systemic analysis, many scientists recommend that paper is not recycled, because the overall effect on the environment of doing so is negative. Many of us also challenge the dogma that leads to continuing excessive use of fossil fuels. Nuclear solutions have been problematic in some cases, but fossil fuel solutions are problematic in all cases. Many people die every day from diseases and accidents resulting from fossil fuel power stations, but are conveniently ignored by campaigners who point at the few killed by nuclear accidents. Careful use of well-designed nuclear power stations can produce relatively clean and safe power. Wind, wave and tidal power look appealing because they are renewable, but they can have a poor visual impact and sometimes severely impact their local ecosystem. We certainly need much more research and development in power production but we need to do a full and proper analysis of environmental impacts, taking into account the whole lifetime systemic effects. I have no particular favourite, but I wish we would do the analysis scientifically instead of jumping to emotional conclusions.

Future environmentalism will use the internet to gather and distribute information. More importantly, it will use the net to mobilise action. Action can be co-ordinated very quickly and effectively on the net, as is already apparent today in spite of low net penetration. Bicyclists use the net to arrange very effective events in London without any formal leadership. People can be encouraged in very large numbers to boycott or complain at companies or governments that don't treat the environment properly. Compared to conventional media, the net is ideal for co-ordinating such action.

However, the net will affect the environment in more complex ways too. E-commerce will cause two important trends - more globalisation and more customisation. Increasing globalisation means that companies will be able to run operations from anywhere in the world more easily than today, but information is core to this process and this information will mean in due course that their operations will be more open to scrutiny. They will become more globally accountable as a result. Increased globalisation of science and technology data will continue to improve the quality of science around the world as it does already.

Customisation results from people being able to deal direct with companies. People will increasingly dictate the nature of their variant of each product, and environmental awareness could impact their decision making, so we may see great benefits. In just the same way as the net allows us get feedback from other people who have already tried the product, so environmental impact data could be automatically supplied to us at decision time. Exposed to such data as to the potential impact of each decision we make, we might feel more individually accountable.

Environmental sensors around the world could be directly connected to the net to provide data in unprecedented abundance. Satellites are also an important tool for monitoring change. Such data would be the basis for informed decision making.

Better science, and better knowledge of the environmental impacts of each of our decisions, and the ability to use the net to influence others and co-ordinate action will all contribute to a more sensible, informed, and ultimately effective maintenance of our planet. Environmental groups may come and go according to fashion, but the environment will ultimately benefit.