Green Technology: Driving sustainable development
Sustainability has been one of the most important things to consider in the past couple of years. People can take a few precautions, like using less plastic or using public transportation or bikes. Most technology firms are also trying to manufacture products that are easily recyclable and more sustainable. Right now, green technology is driving sustainable development it aims to have positive effects in the future.
Even though many people and companies took some precautions, the promises made by the concept of sustainability in recent years, particularly in relation to climate change, have not yet been achieved. Several species are still losing their homes due to the disappearance of rainforests, and fires continue to burn green all around the globe. Thanks to "green technology," we can still take more precautions to prevent all these from happening and secure a sustainable future.
Green technology: Sustainability triangle
The sustainability triangle contains three sub-divisions: economic, ecologic, and social. It balances environmental concerns with social and economic goals to simultaneously meet the requirements of the present and future generations. The triangle is crucial to find an equivalent balance between these aspects.
This is where green technology takes the scene, starting with energy harvesting. "Self-powered radio sensors and switches use this technology to gain energy from their surroundings (e.g., movement, light, and temperature) for their operation. This means that these devices don't need batteries or wires to function. They’re used for classic building automation and for applications and solutions in the Internet of Things (IoT)," says Andreas Schneider of Forbes. Energy-harvesting sensors are economical, they help reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and they don't pollute the environment.
Plastic recycling and carbon capture and storage are the two other innovations that come with "green technology." Tons of plastic go to nature, and very few percent of them gets recycled. To prevent such pollution, we can use the pyrolysis method and convert plastic back into liquid feedstock by heat. This way, we can eliminate more waste.
On the other hand, Carbon capture and storage, also known as CCS, is capturing the carbon at the source, compressing it, and burying it for long-term storage. This technology lowers greenhouse gas emissions. These two are very important for a sustainable future.
Green technology also includes working from home, as fewer people will use transportation vehicles, which means less pollution. If this model continues, there might be less skyscrapers and office buildings in the future. "Building and construction are responsible for 39 % of all carbon emissions in the world," says World Green Building Council.
If we increase the usage of green technology, a sustainable future will be upon us. However, humans must take the precautions that they already should have taken a while ago and build a better future for the upcoming generations.
Advertisement
“Most technology firms are also trying to manufacture products that are easily recyclable and more sustainable.”
That’s not really true, except in the rare cases where it may coincide with the profit motive or through subsidies and laws. Take the example of the iphone and many other electronic devices, often purposefully designed to be needlessly replaced after a few years (sometimes self-sabotaging to this aim), and not to have easily replaced parts.
“Self-powered radio sensors and switches use this technology to gain energy from their surroundings (e.g., movement, light, and temperature)”
For thermodynamics reasons it’s not that easy to extract usable energy from “temperature” alone (presumably from warm ambient temperature), what’s needed is a temperature difference, ie a cold source and a hot source. I’m curious of how those are supposed to work.
“Green technology also includes working from home, as fewer people will use transportation vehicles, which means less pollution. If this model continues, there might be less skyscrapers and office buildings in the future”
I doubt that the motivation for businesses to push for home work is ecology. One obvious negative consequence however is the larger individualization of the relationship of the worker to the employer.
This article seems like a sort of summary of the Forbes one that is linked. Doesn’t it ? In the current times possibly an automated one. After noticing that I see that the comments discuss this problem specifically. And that two weeks after that no ghacks author responded to those worries.
There is no green technology and never will be, unless it was made by Santa’s magic.
People believing the BS and politicians saying that, are just clueless about reality of the world.
Seriously, anyone who talks about environment have a phone, a phone that was made by not just anti-environmental activities like mining copper and lithium, but also slavery, adult and children.
You all have computers, you are all have phones, you all have cars, and all you do is technology, internet, which needs some sort of power source, and no, “green energy” is not green at all, but people think wind turbines and solar panels are made from elves green dust, and then they get broken, they just disappear in Narnia…. And talking about the turbines, they all need oil, which will obviously be petroleum based, because they are mechanical things, and friction matters in that case.
Plus, the whole propaganda with the polar bears, if people take 3 seconds to research, people will find that the ice hasn’t melted a bit, in fact, it is been freezing more and more, so why use a propagandist BS photo?
Arctic ice levels have been increased, so much for ‘global warming’ that’s why they changed the name to ‘climate change’ because now they can say anything is about it.
Just look what happened in California mountains few weeks ago, it always snows, but never like that.
Anyone remember Al-Gore saying how the ocean levels would raise like 20 years ago? but he still bought a mansion next with ocean view in California? they are always giving predictions about the end of the world and humanity while filling their pockets with money from propaganda to ‘save the planet’
They need to explain why Arctic summer temperatures have been no different from the 44-year average and why summer sea ice is above decadal averages.
Humans are dumb, but seriously, all this “we can have technology, and it will be green because of non-green ‘clean’ energies and lies, just believe us” makes no sense.
If people cared about the environment they wouldn’t be reading this article because they wouldn’t be using technology, they wouldn’t have a technology company, they wouldn’t think all this BS technological world can be green.
It’s just as dumb as when they replaced plastic straws in paper cups, with paper straws and plastic based cups, That’s how dumb humans are, they get so easily manipulated.
In the past, people used to use, wood or metal for the containing of liquids, also glass, and it was replaced by plastic, and it is still being replaced by plastic but sure… the world is more pro-environmental today! only because humans are deceived easily, thinking their awful for environment battery ran phone, will somehow save anything or anyone if all this climate change BS was real.
Do you see politicians stop using private planes to go to their meetings? or stop using hot waters or nice big houses and every luxury that is anti environmental? no, that’s only for the peasants, for the clueless humans who think they care.
Of course, what I mean is, if it was all emergency and true what they say, then they wouldn’t be doing it, but they never stop their life style, they continue as if nothing was happening.
There is NOT green technology and will never be, unless it can be ran from wood, and easily recycled metals (not like the BS they are doing even with wind turbines that need to be buried after they break), water or anything that can be easily obtained, barely processed, non-rare and something that can be easily reused over and over again, not just one time use and it has to be buried because there is no way to process it.
So there will never be Green technology, stop saying lies, that’s just not true. Technology needs mining of rare elements or power, or anything that is not environmental friendly, stop falling from lies and writing articles to deceive people with propaganda to make people believe ‘green’ is anything green like the so called ‘clean energies’ that kill more animals, create more heat, and destroy more ecosystems because they cover 100 times more than a power plant, only because you were told by the politicians that was the way the world should be ran.
Anonymous, I also mentioned, private jets, loopholes and “pseudoscience” being written about, on this blog recently: https://www.ghacks.net/2023/03/29/if-your-combustion-car-runs-on-e-fuel-you-might-be-able-to-keep-riding-it-beyond-2035/#comment-4562745
“[…] Typically Lithium-ion battery manufacturing process is also not very environmentally friendly. Furthermore, the manufacturing of lithium-ion batteries has led to the occurrence of modern-day slavery.
What you have basically written is a “pseudoscience article” or something relating to some form of fantasy, and I have no idea why Elton John is referenced. Other than he occasionally flies around in polluting private aeroplanes. …”
I found your comments much more; refreshing, entraining and engaging than the actual main article itself, i.e. “Green Technology: Driving sustainable development”.
I’m over with fake, exotic pseudo authors. From now on I’ll only display articles written by Martin Brinkmann | Mike Turcotte | Ashwin, those which appear at the bottom of Ghacks pages.
I’ve removed RSS feeds for Ghacks and for Ghacks comments in order to avoid AI written articles appearing in those feeds.
I access Ghacks only from [https://www.ghacks.net/page/1/?s=] and have added as hereafter to my uBO / My Filters filters to which I’ll add as they appear new UGAs (Unidentified Ghacks Authors) which will be a regular task given imagination seems to be the only limit of so-called “Freelance authors” names and AI assisted their basic working methods.
! Block articles from any author other than : Martin Brinkmann | Mike Turcotte | Ashwin :
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Carol van Zyl)
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Emre Çitak)
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Eray Eliaçik)
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Helena Bosnjak)
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Jesus)
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Kerem Gülen)
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Leri Koen)
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Onur Demirkol)
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Priyanka Monteiro)
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Russell Kidson)
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Shaun)
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Sponsored Content)
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Trevor Monteiro)
ghacks.net##:is(.hentry,a.home-posts):has-text(Zakhi Mgutshini)
!
OVER AND OUT.
For that 39 per cent, when using the % symbol; it is commonly closed up, it’d usually written “39%” without a space in English.
Tom, is there a particular reason why you chose only the first page; with the Search parameter query string (
?s=), for example: “https://www.ghacks.net/page/1/?s=” rather than something like:”https://www.ghacks.net/2023/”. I can see two advantages of just adding (?s) onto the end gHacks URL directory, instead of using say “/2023/”. However, presumably the idea of was mainly for a bookmark purpose. Or adding text onto the end of the:?s=.Most of the new writers of articles on here seem to be trying to be Copywriters rather than Content writers. I also smell some SEO influence in that mix. In copywriting, the goal is usually to make the sale. The purpose of content writing, on the other hand, is educating, helping, or entertaining existing and prospective customers.
Too many cooks spoil the broth; well it’s more a balance, ingredients issue or ratio.
Hallowed be the memory of the Lost Souls.
Let the record show, the URL the author provided [https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/WorldGBC-embodied-carbon-report-published] was also inaccurate (Error: 404 Page not found). The address in question was likely [https://worldgbc.org/article/bringing-embodied-carbon-upfront/] and stated as follows:
”[…] Buildings are currently responsible for 39% of global energy related carbon emissions: 28% from operational emissions, from energy needed to heat, cool and power them, and the remaining 11% from materials and construction. …”
The evidence suggests Onur was trying to copy-and-paste from the third paragraph and then reword that quotation. You also must commit yourself to the possibility that AI assistance was involved.
⚖ PS: Don’t worry Tom, you aren’t on trial. Neither is anyone here. :-)
@Grand Prosecutor Jihana, Your Honor :=)
Thanks for the percentage close up. I think it was a typo error, can’t understand why a spaced the percentage symbol …
I chose to land on [https://www.ghacks.net/page/1/?s=] rather than on [https://www.ghacks.net/] for a simple reason : Ghacks’ default home page displays only the latest articles’ headlines whilst addressing Ghacks with the empty search query displays many more. I was first motivated by the fact that the reduced number of articles on the home page together with the increasing number of articles “written” by “freelance authors” made me systematically click on “All” … Anyway, I always prefer full lists when available because “Latest” is perceived as “teasers” but this is really subjective.
Side-note : I redirect [https://www.ghacks.net/] specifically to [https://www.ghacks.net/page/1/?s=] via the ‘REDIRECTOR’ Firefox extension, so my bookmark for Ghacks’ homepage is the default one, redirected … the advantage of redirecting is that the Ghacks home page link in Ghacks very pages get redirected as well :=)
Your [https://www.ghacks.net/[YEAR]/] limits articles to a given year. Why not, though that’s a search condition whilst I have in mind no search criteria, only increased displayed results.
I’ll take advantage of this response to add this : I don’t like problems nor clashes, secondly I usually take decisions based on evidence, court evidence Your Honor :=) I think this time I opted for a “reasonable reasons to be close enough to certitudes” approach but, hmm, should I be in court I wouldn’t sentence without full evidence, which I have not. Listen, if you please : situations are sometimes more complex than the way we figure them out. Are our “freelance authors” AI bots, are they humans, real authors? If so do they occasionally rely on AI, if so do they rely on AI for the entirety of their articles? Maybe real freelance authors making a few bucks to help them in a tough life? I cannot be affirmative of any response. I’m dealing with circumstances analyzed by and for myself, only. I believe I should have included these reserves when rendering my decision, decision which remains active but is in no way intended to be an incentive. I strive to try to be and remain honest and that includes intellectual honesty.
> I’ve removed RSS feeds for Ghacks and for Ghacks comments in order to avoid AI written articles appearing in those feeds.
You can try to use filters on RRS Guard:
function filterMessage() {
if (msg.author == “Ashwin” || msg.author == “Mike Turcotte” || msg.author == “Martin Brinkmann”) {
msg.isImportant = true;
return MessageObject.Accept;
}
else {
return MessageObject.Ignore;
}
}
@Shiva, thanks for the script but I don’t use the ‘RSS Guard’ application.
Side-note : I keep the RSS feed for Ghacks’ Comments, really too handy to stay tuned to dialogues.
Hi @Tom,
thanks, time saved in finding the quality articles by long-time authors among this swarm of half-news. Good timing, a resurrected site for the Easter holidays.
Try also ‘home-category-post’
Thanks sweetie. You saved me a lot of work. Recent progress on my filter has been minimal. My schedule has been extremely busy.
@StudentLoanDebt, have we met?
Happy the uBO filters meet your expectations. They aren’t mine, I only adapted (by adding authors’ names) a uBO filter which had been shared here on Ghacks some time ago. The amount of information you can find within comments is amazing : I believe the ‘Comments’ section is an article’s invaluable partner.
You’re a legend. I added those.
Surprisingly, this is not the stupidest article on this site recently. That honor goes to “Pink Moon” nonsense.
White bears will soon have to start catching a tan.
The article is informative as well as a pertinent reminder.
I just want to point this out, with all respect due to the author, with awareness of what any tool may include of uncertainty :
I’ve checked this article with all words from “Sustainability has been one of the most important things to consider in the past couple of years.” TO and included “These two are very important for a sustainable future.” on the site [https://aiwritingcheck.org/] and the result was :
100 Minimum words required – 386 Current words – 400 Max words
AI Prediction: Text Written by AI
As i said, no test is bullet-proof. Could the author or “author” Onur Demirkol provide any response to what is in my view but a doubt? Thanks.
@Tom–Yes, one can hear the “voice” of AI written text. The “voice” of AI is becoming easier to detect by structure and tone alone; Russell Kidson’s article on “How to Write an Essay with ChatGPT” makes it clear that gHacks writers are using AI to enhance and help their writing. 50% of his article was highlighted by ZeroGPT to be written by AI.
The article above is flagged as 19.63% AI GPT text according to ZeroGPT.
If you read Kidson’s article, note what he says about using ChatGPT for writing:
“From generating topic ideas and outlines to finding sources and editing essays, ChatGPT can be a valuable tool in the writing process. However, it’s important to use ChatGPT responsibly and to always give credit where credit is due.”
After years of reading essays from students, one learns to listen to “voice” and watch for structure. AI compositions are, after reading a few, easy to detect. They are basically “all the same.”
It’s much like reading “airport” novels. The plots are all the same; the stock characters are all the same. Only names change, with maybe a new twist. Same with TV series. Each episode is the same.
@VioletMoon, I’ll have a look at the ZeroGPT site you mention.
Concerning AI-written articles, why not have them be preceded by “Article (partially) written by AI (ChatGPT)”?
Beyond one’s concern for AI written articles, AI images, videos, it is, when and if applicable, a total lack of respect for a site’s visitors to state an article as written by a fake author.
As you write it, and that must be the explanation which triggered suspicion here, though i don’t master the English language : “one can hear the “voice” of AI written text.”. Why and how I don’t know, I compare it to playbacks when imperfectly carried out : brains feel the de-synchronization before any rational analysis. Odd.
An article can be mostly flat and devoid of life because AI simply doesn’t know what any of the words mean. It can generate sentences that look right, but it creates predictive pseudo-intellectual soup.
Again, I wasn’t prepared to discuss the article (environmental) topic because it falls flat and doesn’t really flow. I’m not even sure what its “message” is supposed to be, it’s rather generic. It doesn’t follow scientific writing conventions or tone either – if it did, I’d maybe find it interesting.
It looks like several random articles with specific “keywords” were read and an attempt has been made to reorganise the wording for a “Green Tech” theme.
Martin, I will second Tom’s sentiment and proposal about being transparent with any AI generated articles.
“[…] Concerning AI-written articles, why not have them be preceded by “Article (partially) written by AI (ChatGPT)”? […] a total lack of respect for a site’s visitors to state an article as written by a fake author. …”
It is probable having a different native language was some of the reasons such technology was used by several authors. However, it should be noted if an article is significantly: AI-powered. Otherwise: you are likely going to get fewer positive responses from; actual real authentic human visitors. They’ll likely become alienated. Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet.
@Fruitcake, indeed. Transparency is more than ever required in an increasingly digitalized world or at least on Websites which focus on authenticity, seriousness, that of the authors, of the article, that of included images and videos.
Anyone, young, old, simple-minded as a genius can use an AI tool to deliver an AI-generated article… and that’s what many do with mainly GhatGPT, but they do it for themselves or at least not for a serious site.
Personally I like to know who writes what. An article is a creation, its creator here is the author. Skepticism is insidious : once you face an AI-generated article be it in its entirety or even partially you start wondering on its author, does he even exist, are we facing an industrialized article making tool? Legitimate questions I think. Side-note : odd that freelance authors never reply to comments invoking them personally : Martin and colleagues don’t always reply but often do.
At this time it seems that performant minds here agree that articles signed by “freelance authors” are totally or partially AI-driven. Then why not have it clearly notified?
I don’t think the mother-company will change anything here, I’d be surprised. I’m convinced all this annoys Martin, he can’t do anything about it and I presume cannot as well share his thoughts regarding the mother-company’s policies : normal.
If I ever happen to discover that AI fully or partially generated articles are stated as such I’ll be the first to stop avoiding them, no anti-AI phobia here, only the decision to avoid a content not clearly identified in terms of its author, in terms of its content. Such articles will always have the “AI smell” but may be interesting nevertheless.
Until then I confirm restricting my consultation of Ghacks articles to those written by the real journalists we know.
There could be ghostwriters albeit I think most of them are in fact individual writers. They do seem to differ in style to some extent. One or two people would simply burnout at the rate those articles are being churned out…
Tom, Shaun did attempt to cite a comment from: Draco, the once philosopher-poet (https://www.ghacks.net/2023/03/28/ai-pope-in-a-puffer-jacker-goes-viral-causing-mixed-emotions/#comment-4562696), recently in a follow-up post (https://www.ghacks.net/2023/03/29/can-you-spot-an-ai-generated-image-and-not-be-fooled/). Maybe he loves such inspiring poetry, and it deeply moved him…?
Evidence suggests some of the daily articles have an AI generated fingerprint. Also the same article ideas occasionally seem to reappear or be recycled every couple of weeks. It is to be expected because of saturation.
Hallowed be the memory of the Lost Souls.
I’ve checked the exact same text as mentioned above (386 words) on ZeroGPT and the report is :
Your text is Most Likely Human written
29.64% AI GPT
Whilst AIwritingcheck reports : AI Prediction: Text Written by AI
What’s the reliability?
Sounds like your report showed an even higher number which is what I was expecting.
The site GPT Zero Me shows that the entire first paragraph was most likely written by AI, and it “sounds” like it.
The more articles written by gHacks’ writers using ChatGPT-4 or Jasper or ?, the easier it will become for readers listening for “voice” to know most of the article was generated by AI. Keep reading and continue watching structure; soon it will become obvious what is meant by “voice.”
It’s what always exasperated my students when explained my hunches that a portion or an entire essay was plagiarized. It’s when I easily found the site/sites, that their “hatred” for a teacher started. “But in Mr. Blanks class, we always do this.”
AI/GPT Generated 62.99%; 37.01% Human Written = results from the following site:
https://zerogpt.cc/
Remember, there are numerous sites that can summarize and generalize and “euthanize” writing so that it is harder to detect. QuillBot.
Reading through Kidson’s article gives a number of clues for easy human detection.
Predictability/reliability is near 100%.
I think Grammarly, which is great for checking plagiarism, is working on an algorithm for checking AI generated text.
I would agree: If a site chooses to let the authors generate and use AI text, it should be noted. CNET stopped using AI generated articles when it was exposed. I rather doubt gHacks writers, not authors, will ever admit they used ChatGPT-4 for generating an article.
Wait and watch for comments generate by AI. Should be interesting!