More rockets flying into the sun for safe disposal of nuclear waste. Let's use that fusion-powered trash can of light!

It's about thoughtful application of a range of technologies, with less emphasis on profits.

"People" (the mass-media-led-sheep) tend to expect "Them" (the lab-coated scientists portrayed in the media) to invent a single cure-all invention in the nick of time to cure global warming, lower sea levels and wash whiter-then-white all at the flick of a single switch.

Take my favourite big-bear, energy:

"People" know that we need to use less fossil fuels (GW debate aside, we know they're running out). However, they only ever see one cure at a time to the problem. Ask a random passer-by how to use less fossil fuels, and they will say "wind power", because it's visible, in the press, in the landscape, wind turbines are an iconic image.

But wind power doesn't work without the wind, same as PV doesn't work at night. The best answer is to use a range of energy resources, most of which use proven technologies, each to fill a niche, each to help a little bit -

• wind
• off-shore wave (eg Pelamis)
• on-shore wave (eg Limpet)
• tidal barrage
• deep-ocean turbine
• hydroelectric dams
• tap landill for methane
• ferment methane from sewage (animal and human)
• I found out recently that some people in Africa collect poo sticks - animal dung on sticks - as fuel for home fires and stoves. Having sat around an elephant dung campfire, I know that works.
• solar electric
• solar thermal - water heaters, green houses, solar chimneys
• geothermal
• biomass (burning food-crop wastes - stems etc)
  

Plus increasing efficiency of existing technologies.

Why do we never hear about all of these at once, though? Business. Even though the purveyors of these alternative resources are genuinely trying to help, they also need to turn a profit, which means they need to promote their own scheme at the expense of others.

"People" need to be told about all the possibilities, and shown how to exploit them easily and cheaply, in order for technology to preserve the environment.

Part of preserving the environment is reporting to everyone what damage is being done to the local environment in time to prevent future damage. Technology could be used to produce small, cheap sensors that could be read out manually or integrated into a net to report infringements. Immediate questions include: 1) To whom should such reports be sent? The infringer? The local media? 2) What should be the standards that apply? Who decides? How does one change them if inappropriate? 3) Who pays? Here’s a case study (real): A new youth soccer field (a good thing?) is constructed of grass (also good) that is being fertilized with excess (not so good) phosphate and nitrogen containing fertilizers that run off into local ponds (bad). This increase in nutrients could promote growth of large numbers of previously unknown plants in the pond (bad), altering the environment so that various amphibians and fish can no longer survive (really bad). This could interfere with the food chain for local wildlife, causing raccoons, otters, and beavers to migrate, leaving behind the wasted pond. At present, documenting the excess P and N requires hand sampling and costly testing. If cheap sensors were put in place, the run-off could be monitored 24/7 and storms that flood the area and are responsible for much of the run-off could be monitored during the night and winter. So – the questions above now are directly relevant. As is another one - Should the water in the ponds be maintained at levels of P and N safe for human consumption or at lower levels to prevent excess plant growth and protect the frogs and fish? Who decides? And who assures that the levels stay at whatever level is chosen? Same types of arguments apply for groundwater or soils almost everywhere…technology can help!

Forget about your SUVs, the pollution they emit is equivalent to the coal fires burning in China. What is of big concern is the use of coal for electricity. America in this case is not at the forefront. The plants used for burning coal to produce electricity are old and new, and like an old car and a new one they pollute the environment respectively.
Coal burning releases lovely things into the environment like arsenic, mercury, lead and sulfur dioxide which combines with oxygen in the atmosphere to become sulfuric acid, and later to fall as "acid rain".
Coal is used because it is the cheapest, and I think because of its high pollution ratio to energy output, should suffer regulations to use the latest "filtering" technology. This was implemented in the 1970's, but loop holes remain. The government can make these companies accountable, through taxing their pollution to energy ratio, not by insisting the technology be there, that in affect gives a pretext for companies to compete to be the most efficient not just, the most profitable. But this can only happen if we, likewise make our governments accountable.
Here's a cool link: http://www.energyjustice.net/

you assume we are damaging the environment. You assume we can DO something to alter it. A volcano spews out more co2 and well, basically FUNK in one eruption than all human works in history combined. Seen the animals near Mt St helens? They're dead. then life recovers and recycles the FUNK into the ecosystem. Climate has never been steady. It always has changed all through human history. Even without SUV's. Now, I'm going outside to burn a truck tire. The wind is calm and one can see the smoke column go straight up to 5000 ft before it gets clipped off by upper level winds.

Speaking of White LEDs... Walmart has apparently discovered that they can save a whopping 92% by replacing their always-on fluorescent freezer case lighting with "smart" LED lighting. There are a number of synergistic factors that contribute to this: fluorescents don't like cold and LEDs do, and the efficiency improvement of the LEDs over fluorescents is multiplied by not having to pump the waste heat out of the freezers. Probably WAY safer too...
Here's the original article

OK, getting back to the topic... Improve telecommuting technology to the point where the number of people who telecommute can be drastically increased. Not that there aren't problems with telecommuting...

. I think your question is wrong. It should be "How can we limit the damage our technology does to the environment?" Mankind has a very poor track record when it comes to using technology to make the environment "better." Eg, dams and channelization, shoreline preservation and "restoration," etc. We just don't understand well enough how the environment works to go around messing with it. . Ie, the best way to preserve the environment is to keep technology away from it. Since that is not feasible, do the least amount of damage possible and let Mother Nature heal herself.

Force the Auto industry to give us the practical electric cars that we all know are feasible, but not produced because of the lack of fossil fuel needs and repair costs.

The sad truth is, profitability and economic concerns have always take precedence over environmental preservation, that’s almost human nature, and will not change anytime soon.. Its all about the money..If technology able to infuse higher profitability/ immediate returns/ lower cost into environmental friendly practices (higher returns/lower cost than other non-friendly alternatives)..Then only we will see significant changes..

We can use technology better to help the environment in small groups interested in their local environment and having efficient use of energy. Petitioning the government to try something sets all regulation process out of phase and starts an explosion of entropy and chaos, because as soon as something is done that doesn't work, it will take more time to fix it through bureaucratic means than it did to get it in the first place. Also realize that the desert has different wants and needs than the forest and the seashore and all the other environments. Don't forget the corruption factor. You can scream at "big oil's" (+etc.) bought deaf puppets all you want and not much will happen except an occasional speech or something, and a minute of smiling and clapping. If you want something done right, do it yourself, and fix only what's broken. Get working on the good stuff immediately, just do it, and stop "wishing the evil corporations away so we can buy the good green stuff".

<< How can we better use technology to preserve the environment? >> It's hard to find just ONE miraculous solution. There must be a global plan. As stated by ToolUsingAnimal, we're in a world of consumer societies. So, my first and only "miraculous" solution would be : - less technology. To better use technology to preserve the environment, we should use it less ... My global plan : 1) we could learn (or at least teach to the youth) to use it (the technology) only when required. 2) our governments should create taxes on "entertaining devices" (mainly related to video games, sound and movies) according to their power consumption ... (about 400 Wh for a computer used just to play video games or for a PS3, it's too much !! and i don't count the consumption of the screen !!) ... 3) tax cars according to their fuel consumption ... 4) more tax over fuel (Here, a liter of gasoline (about 0.26 US gallons) is about 1.3 euros (US$1.75, or US$6.6 for 1 gallon), so, when you fill your tank (about 40 liters or 10 US gallons), you're happy to have a car with low consumption (and who pollute less then), and when you buy a new one, you look at the more economical (and, thus, indirectly, at the less polluting) 5) make public transport more available and free (that's not the case where i live) 6) make secure places where you could leave your bicycle without being afraid of thieves 7) replace eavily polluting coal and gaz power plants by nuclear power plants (new generations are more efficient and produce less wastes). 8) increase the use of renewable energy sources (at least to make ecologists happy). ... Good luck for your battle royale ;-)

Well there are the obvious reasons of becoming more energy efficient. Continuing to develop our appliances and every day energy consumers including

• Water heaters
• Pool heaters
• Air conditioner/heater (three most energy consuming processes in a house)
• Cars, etc.
  

But then there are all the breaking ground developments, such as hurricane preventive methods, and emergency solutions to global warming...such as a proposed fleet of wind powered ice cannons to build a giant ice cube and prevent an ice age in Europe.

Through science, solutions can be discovered for most problems, provided we have the time. In short, the answer to your question is: everything.

Mostly unrelated, I saw a spech by "our" president where he stated that we were trying,diplomatically, to move China from a nation of savers to a nation of "consumers". With that kind of mentality in the upper echelons, no technology is going to save the planet.

Well one way of being eco-friendly and using technology, is actually, but "Not" using technology. Your television spends extra energy while it is on standby, than when it is just turned off. So, turn off your technology when you feel you will not use it!

Kill the planned obsolescence paradigm, which generates lots of trash, and instead build things to last forever like Roman roads. Use durable and high resistance chips in computers, and use the former "General Purpose Microcomputer" paradigm. Computers that need to be updated until they fill up or break down are bad. Thank god for versions of Linux that run faster than windows on old machines. If the machine is too old to run windows, make a useful DOS robot out of it. One great app for a DOS or other GPM is controlling a greenhouse environment, timing hydroponics, cow milkers, watering, and all kinds of 'agri-functions'. I always say... Machines MUST be our slaves, not our masters. (and never do "I AGREE" to a EULA. The machine MUST WORK.) Ambient energy is sufficient when machines are efficient enough to use it. (That is free energy like wind and solar.) In Colonial times wind powered sailing ships around the globe. Now we have solar power and technology efficient enough to conserve it. Now we have non-technical solar stills for water purification. We've had electric cars for a hundred years. Cities used to be centers of industry and greater efficiency than rural areas. But then they became too crowded to be self sufficient for producing food. They started producing mass quantities of rubbish and paperwork. Corruption ate the fruit of the efficiency of cooperation. Now there are fees for everything, like arbitrary and high parking tickets. Gas taxes pay for bridges and who knows where the bridge tolls go. Lottery pays for education, and where does property tax go? People became strangers and cooperation was lessened, everything got expensive, the city I know became a concrete desert. Increased Efficiency should reduce all expenses. My friends started a farm. In the past we had cooperated on Makeing tech projects of any and all types, and cooperatively there was lots of innovation and the rate of new toys made was higher then. But on the farm, they created it within a year and became self sufficient. They used the windmill for their lighting, as well as the available solar garden lights. The animals eat their grain. The plants make fruit and veggies. The birds lay their eggs. The horses get great mileage. Bureaucracy and Dilbertism are beyond my understanding. Why make waste paper? It's not just about wasting trees as wasting life-time producing rubbish. Being Amish would be more fun... but even more so if they could use more technology. I don't believe the robots will ever need to get smart enough to rise up against their masters. A garden should produce both food and flowers. I envision even the deserts blooming with life, if we both nurture and automate the process of establishing it there, and maintaining education on at least one skill, if not many, we all can't be jacks of all trades... the lame and the mentally challenged may or may not be able to find something to do. On global warming, can we just make un-solar roofs white, and all pavement white? I don't believe in greenhouse gas because it makes the plants grow. I don't believe in toxic carbon because life is made of it. I see the ice melting and the ocean level DROPPING, although the more rain is manifesting hurricanes and erosion until it finds it's way into the desert. Acid rain maybe a problem. The sun coming through holes in the ozone layer is a festering one. I see RoHS as simply creating another useless but expensive job with less valuable return... except the Possibility of discovering new useful chemicals. And an excuse to remain in Planned Obsolescence mode. I see HDTV as an expensive redundancy to computer monitors, which already do the job, and force the dumping of millions of OLD TV's, and also another case of entertainment versus innovation. And I see the law of unintended consequences enforcing itself like a monster. We are a part of nature and we need to tame it and make it work with us, not pave over it and not create an unstable economy controlled by bureaucracies that are very slow to respond to sudden changes. We need to know as much as we can, not to read professors minds to pass tests and get degrees, but to know how to live as well as possible in our environment. My own standard of living is surprisingly high for someone who lives below poverty by the standard of currency. I'm not skilled at collecting currency at all, but very much skilled in turning trash into treasure. From my point of view, money doesn't make the world go around, angular momentum does... and I noticed this when I was "broke" once, just watching, sitting on the knot at the end of my rope. We should green our lots and our neighbors will want to do the same, I hope. Self Sufficiency (but not to be a hermit) would be ideal. Maybe a better term is Symbiosis with the environment. Plant a seed and a huge tree may grow, that's an intentional metaphor.

Quit using most of it : ) Software lifetime measured in decades, not months : ) (Why should I need another new computer and cell phone just to keep up with software?) I'm not a Luddite. I just don't see the benefit of planned obsolescence.