Technological innovation is what drives the economy. Innovation brings to the world many of the products and services society enjoys. An ugly byproduct can lead to impacts to the environment. The author points out that while these innovations from the past have contributed to pollution, they can also be the solution to the inherent downside to these innovations. He refers …show more content…
If a one-size-fits all approach is used to deal with the problem of pollution or reduced energy consumption, it could negatively impact a region where a certain required application is ill suited. Some states may be better suited to wind power as opposed to solar power. He refers back to the California LEV program.
Other states could opt into these standards, however, California’s sulfur standards were much lower than in other states. In order for the program to work, the standards were based on the sulfur content of the fuel.
This lesson shows the constraints of regulatory deadlines. He states that there is no particular significance of a deadline. Sticking to a hard deadline can limit what positive progress is made. He again refers to the California ZEV program. The state chose a hard deadline which caused an all or nothing effect. This was unfortunate because battery technology continued to progress even though it may not have made the deadline. He suggests that had California been a little more flexible, EVs may have made further progress over a longer time …show more content…
He attempts to show that technology is not all good, nor all bad. Progress, technology and government support is neither good just one either. He uses examples from different situations to show how technology, government, special interest groups, society, regions and states can either make or break a policy, a technology or methodology. He shows how the diverse influences can make life better or even inadvertently restrict a break through even though there may be technical data to prove otherwise, or even no data at all, to support an adverse position. His point seems to be to first dispel the fact that there is no magic potion to cure all environmental ills. It may involve many groups and approaches, but that even these need to be given their proper due diligence. If nothing else, mistakes will be made, but that we can learn from the missteps of the past and if not eliminate them, at least gain insight to future approaches to solving large issues dealing with the