Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Environmentally Friendly Mumbo-Jumbo

What exactly does one mean when one says of being "green"? Unfortunately for us all, it would seem that what people think to be "green" really are things that seem to consume less energy when in use, or their overall phenotype just appears to be a more environmentally friendly alternative.

The truth of the matter is often quite different. While I do not disagree that an appliance that consumes less energy during operation is more "green" than one that doesn't, it is surely a folly to think that that is the only factor in which we are considering. The appliance or object that we are looking at often has some sort o manufacturing process behind it, and the fact is that I doubt there's anyone who actually took the opportunity to do a complete calculation on the actual amount of energy and resources that are used in the production of the product.

Here's an example. In the production of consumer electronics, various types of semi-conductors are used. We know that for a large portion of these devices, the purity of silicon is of major concern. The production costs of pure silicon is fairly substantial, if one factors in the need to have a very controlled environment to prevent contamination, or even the fact that silicon itself has a very high melting point and thus requires copious amounts of energy just to smelt it down. Now factor in the act that impure samples of the silicon are not really reused, and there's probably the need to actually reheat and re-purify the silicon die. All these require energy, and at the end of the day, we are still looking at a manufacturing process that requires the same if not more energy to produce the so-called "green" equivalents.

Perhaps one way of actually achieving the whole concept of "greenness" is to look into better energy resources. When I say "better", I do mean that the efficiency of the power generation is much higher than it is now. Even the relatively "clean" nuclear fuel is not exactly very efficient, as considerable amounts of th generated energy is lost when used to heat up water to turn the turbines. If a more direct way of using the energy is discovered, we would be in a better position than before in having clean energy.

But now of the things that we always need to think about is, do we really care what the output is at the end of the day? Are we really that interested in having a "green" world? Have we transcended our own human nature and realise that there's a tomorrow that we can look forward to? Somehow, I sincerely doubt it. Consider the situation nearly 200 years ago. The world was in a much better state environment-wise. This had something to do with the fact that there wasn't any organism that was in a position that can cause a global change to hat was essentially a very "natural" thing. But the creation of modern science and th quest towards world domination has led to inventions that were great then, but were slowly recognised as being detrimental to the environment only decades after it was first discovered. By then, the invention had already proliferated throughout the world in its many forms, and the damage would have been done. Remember the whole CFC fiasco? It was only a couple of decades before folks realised the kind of damage that was happening, and it was only then that science had a means of explaining.

In my opinion, in order to have a more environmentally friendly future, science itself has to be more conscious of its far-reaching effects. Often the discoveries of damages occur only after their effects have been felt—it is very reactionary and highly irresponsible. In the quest of developing new technology, one must not forget the fact that the world today owes its existence to science, be it good or bad. All the "save-the-world" movements in the world will amount to nothing if the creators of the technology themselves do not recognise the problems that each of their solution brings.

Am I being idealistic here? Perhaps a little, but I strongly believe that for any action to actually have a lasting impact, we need to bring about change at the most fundamental aspect of it all, and to nip the problem literally in the bud. Only through this, will we be able to actually do something that can make amends for the drastic changes that we have made to the environment.

No comments: