Scientific innovation in the ‘green world’

We’ve all been brought up to believe that scientific innovation is ‘good’ - that it will ultimately result in a better, safer, happier world. Now this is patently fallacious. The invention of gunpowder by Chinese alchemists sometime between the Tang (9th century) and Song (11th century) dynasties followed by the invention of nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin and TNT in the second half of the 19th century must surely negate this argument.

Scientists regularly produce facts showing how a technological innovation will reduce consumption of resources and so enhance our ability to live sustainably. Efficiency gains are classic examples used to show how innovation is reducing consumption.

In the food/agriculture industry, scientific advances have doubled the crop yield/hectare in the past 50 years. Mix this with significant improvements in refrigeration efficiency, making refrigeration much more affordable, and you should have more food being produced combined with longer shelf lives, resulting in fewer going hungry. The reality is more food being produced and longer shelf lives, but this largesse is not feeding the starving. In the US, around 40% of all edible food produced is wasted - up from around 25% just 40 years ago. According to a 2009 study, more than a quarter of US freshwater use goes into producing food that is later discarded.

Yes, scientific innovation has made us considerably more efficient but definitely not more sustainable, and we are not creating a better, safer, happier world.

However, what about other scientific advances, like antibiotics, that have directly resulted in thousands of lives being saved. This must be good, mustn’t it?

Well, from a ‘green world’ aspect the answer is: not necessarily.

Antibiotics do save lives but this inevitably leads to a larger population. More people mean more consumption. More consumption - less sustainability.

If we want a ‘greener’, more sustainable world then a lot of the ideas that seem intuitively beneficial may be doing the reverse of what we expect.

David Owen’s latest book, The Conundrum: How Scientific Innovation, Increased Efficiency, and Good Intentions Can Make Our Energy and Climate Problems Worse, explores the inconsistencies between innovation and sustainability. His treatment of Jevon’s paradox, the Law of Unintended Consequences and ‘rebounding’ makes interesting reading.