Can Mitigation Rather Prevention be a Feasible Long-Term Solution for Air Pollution?
Recently, there has been talks of a new way of dealing with growing problems of air pollution caused by emissions of carbon-based pollutants into the atmosphere. The idea is to install large numbers of large air purifying devices that filter large quantity of air in the surrounding area, removing the carbons in the air that the devices then proceed to pump back into the atmosphere. Optimists speak of such devices benefiting not only as a scalable mechanisms to rid air of toxic elements, but also as a way to manufacture man-made diamonds with the captured carbons.
Setting aside the technological feasibility of such devices, there is no doubt that their presence in smog-filled cities would revolutionize the way policymakers, industrialists, and the common people think about how to resolve the issue of increased air pollution. The current approach is mainly one of lessening the emissions in the first place. Traditional methods such as shutting down high-polluting enterprises and moving them away from major populations as well more innovative ones like tradable carbon markets for polluters all focus on how to control the amount of emissions in localized and holistic manners.
However, if there is a cheap and scalable technology that enable rapid removal of pollutants from the air people breathe, there may be less incentive for people to focus so exclusively on preventing emissions. After all, using current technologies, some manufacturing activities are bound to release pollutants, and to reduce the amount of pollutants, the same manufacturers need to invest in expensive filtration devices in their facilities. Such investments to reduce pollution increase cost of production, with the costs passed onto consumers in the form of higher pricing for end products.
Of course, installing whatever pollution filtration devices on the streets will not be free either. But conceivably, unlike pollution filtration devices in manufacturing facilities, devices set up on the streets would be considered public goods, paid for and maintained by governments as state-owned assets, just like transport infrastructures in many countries. Manufacturers are unlikely to bear the financial burden for their installations and operations, so they would likely cut down all pollution prevention programs, reducing operating costs and passing the savings onto consumers instead.
If the technology of street-level air purification devices indeed work that well, it is conceivable that politically speaking, most people would support such measures rather than continuing expensive and ineffective current measures to get industries to clean up their own acts. The average person will see no air pollution, savings in their wallets, and potentially more job opportunities associated with production and maintenance of the air purification devices. They would expect governments to finance the devices with the carbon byproducts (diamonds, in the ideal scenario) so there would be no tax increase due to proliferation of the said devices.
The reality, even if the perfectly feasible technology does exist, is bound to be messier. Some (wealthier) polities are bound have more bureaucratic competence running air purification devices, creating a harsh reality where rich people breathe cleaner air than poor ones. The abundance of diamonds as a result of air purification may cause their market price to plunge, making it necessary to find alternative financing for the devices. Eventually the general populace, whether through less effective air filtration, or increased taxes to make the systems better, would have to foot the bills for mitigating pollution through technology.
Yet, no matter how well the technology of air purification devices end up being implemented in reality, in some ways the damage is already done when they become realities on the ground. Anti-pollution research and development will increasingly focus on how to get rid of pollution after they happened. Industries will no longer have much incentives to pool resources on investigating how to prevent pollution in production. Instead, assuming the effectiveness of air purification devices, they may choose to pursue more efficient production methodologies that rely on heavier pollution than before.
The shift toward to taking out pollution after it happens presents an enormous environmental risk. Admittedly, human understanding of air pollution is limited, focusing on only the noxious elements that directly affect the health of people and the atmospheric conditions. Whatever air purification devices put in place would certainly be calibrated to handle these elements. However, there may be other negative externalities associated that is not known about, and not mitigated by the same devices. If industrial releasing of pollutants continue unabated with little public objection, they may return to bite humans at some point.
Setting aside the technological feasibility of such devices, there is no doubt that their presence in smog-filled cities would revolutionize the way policymakers, industrialists, and the common people think about how to resolve the issue of increased air pollution. The current approach is mainly one of lessening the emissions in the first place. Traditional methods such as shutting down high-polluting enterprises and moving them away from major populations as well more innovative ones like tradable carbon markets for polluters all focus on how to control the amount of emissions in localized and holistic manners.
However, if there is a cheap and scalable technology that enable rapid removal of pollutants from the air people breathe, there may be less incentive for people to focus so exclusively on preventing emissions. After all, using current technologies, some manufacturing activities are bound to release pollutants, and to reduce the amount of pollutants, the same manufacturers need to invest in expensive filtration devices in their facilities. Such investments to reduce pollution increase cost of production, with the costs passed onto consumers in the form of higher pricing for end products.
Of course, installing whatever pollution filtration devices on the streets will not be free either. But conceivably, unlike pollution filtration devices in manufacturing facilities, devices set up on the streets would be considered public goods, paid for and maintained by governments as state-owned assets, just like transport infrastructures in many countries. Manufacturers are unlikely to bear the financial burden for their installations and operations, so they would likely cut down all pollution prevention programs, reducing operating costs and passing the savings onto consumers instead.
If the technology of street-level air purification devices indeed work that well, it is conceivable that politically speaking, most people would support such measures rather than continuing expensive and ineffective current measures to get industries to clean up their own acts. The average person will see no air pollution, savings in their wallets, and potentially more job opportunities associated with production and maintenance of the air purification devices. They would expect governments to finance the devices with the carbon byproducts (diamonds, in the ideal scenario) so there would be no tax increase due to proliferation of the said devices.
The reality, even if the perfectly feasible technology does exist, is bound to be messier. Some (wealthier) polities are bound have more bureaucratic competence running air purification devices, creating a harsh reality where rich people breathe cleaner air than poor ones. The abundance of diamonds as a result of air purification may cause their market price to plunge, making it necessary to find alternative financing for the devices. Eventually the general populace, whether through less effective air filtration, or increased taxes to make the systems better, would have to foot the bills for mitigating pollution through technology.
Yet, no matter how well the technology of air purification devices end up being implemented in reality, in some ways the damage is already done when they become realities on the ground. Anti-pollution research and development will increasingly focus on how to get rid of pollution after they happened. Industries will no longer have much incentives to pool resources on investigating how to prevent pollution in production. Instead, assuming the effectiveness of air purification devices, they may choose to pursue more efficient production methodologies that rely on heavier pollution than before.
The shift toward to taking out pollution after it happens presents an enormous environmental risk. Admittedly, human understanding of air pollution is limited, focusing on only the noxious elements that directly affect the health of people and the atmospheric conditions. Whatever air purification devices put in place would certainly be calibrated to handle these elements. However, there may be other negative externalities associated that is not known about, and not mitigated by the same devices. If industrial releasing of pollutants continue unabated with little public objection, they may return to bite humans at some point.
Comments
Post a Comment