I like the thought, but I don't think that it will be a great tool.
First, the sensor can be placed anywhere by anybody. Considering that large studies have been conducted just to verify whether the data collected at actual scientific stations on things like temperature are conducted, I don't think that independently placed temperature / CO2 sensors etc. can be that reliable for reporting data.
Second, carbon etc. diffuses in the atmosphere and spreads around the globe. It's one of the most disturbing things about this externality. CO2 from LA can have just as much impact in India as it does in California. However, when measuring a group's contribution, especially per capita, it becomes extremely important to consider where in that group's geography that sensor is being placed. For example if it's an area w/ aluminum plants burning coal with a low population level, then placing the sensor in an area removed from the aluminum plant will mean that little of the area's carbon dumping is actually measured because the carbon spreads into the atmosphere before it can be measured by the sensor. On the flip side, if you do it in an urban area that uses a ton of electricity, far removed from the coal power plants that are generating the electricity, then the sensor does not accurately reflect that group's carbon contribution.
What I do like about the idea is that it is easily accessible data. Even if the individuals placing the sensors are not that trustworthy, it would be extremely helpful if this initiative encourages governments and labs to start opening up more data on these points for everyone to take a look at and examine on their own.
I think it would be much more effective if the board included sensors for things like carcinogens and other pollutants that people will actually have a NIMBY, or an "OMG, I'm breathing that!" response to. Having a neighbor inform you about toxins in the air around you is much more likely to cause a reaction and motivate people to be environmentally responsible than if you tell them "there's 400 ppm of carbon in the air around here!" Sadly, even if they are normal levels of toxins, the person will probably react more to the toxin information than to the carbon information because it's hard to connect with harms that are not concrete, spread out across people, and so far removed from the individual.
1 comment
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 7.8 ms ] threadFirst, the sensor can be placed anywhere by anybody. Considering that large studies have been conducted just to verify whether the data collected at actual scientific stations on things like temperature are conducted, I don't think that independently placed temperature / CO2 sensors etc. can be that reliable for reporting data.
Second, carbon etc. diffuses in the atmosphere and spreads around the globe. It's one of the most disturbing things about this externality. CO2 from LA can have just as much impact in India as it does in California. However, when measuring a group's contribution, especially per capita, it becomes extremely important to consider where in that group's geography that sensor is being placed. For example if it's an area w/ aluminum plants burning coal with a low population level, then placing the sensor in an area removed from the aluminum plant will mean that little of the area's carbon dumping is actually measured because the carbon spreads into the atmosphere before it can be measured by the sensor. On the flip side, if you do it in an urban area that uses a ton of electricity, far removed from the coal power plants that are generating the electricity, then the sensor does not accurately reflect that group's carbon contribution.
What I do like about the idea is that it is easily accessible data. Even if the individuals placing the sensors are not that trustworthy, it would be extremely helpful if this initiative encourages governments and labs to start opening up more data on these points for everyone to take a look at and examine on their own.
I think it would be much more effective if the board included sensors for things like carcinogens and other pollutants that people will actually have a NIMBY, or an "OMG, I'm breathing that!" response to. Having a neighbor inform you about toxins in the air around you is much more likely to cause a reaction and motivate people to be environmentally responsible than if you tell them "there's 400 ppm of carbon in the air around here!" Sadly, even if they are normal levels of toxins, the person will probably react more to the toxin information than to the carbon information because it's hard to connect with harms that are not concrete, spread out across people, and so far removed from the individual.