Over the past two years, in a series of articles for The Economist Intelligence Unit Perspectives’ column, I have been exploring why we find it so difficult to provide universal access to technologies that are absolutely fundamental to achieving a minimum standard of living, or to deliver technological innovation that helps solve the social and environmental challenges that society faces.
Wherever you look today, the world faces a crisis of technology governance. In the energy sector alone we face two huge challenges; the need to expand energy services to the 1.1bn people who still live without electricity, whilst at the same time dealing with the environmental catastrophe of global warming brought on by our current addiction to fossil fuels for energy supplies.
Backing the wrong technologies – the energy crisis example
Our innovative efforts fail to adequately address either of these problems. The excessive cost of extending national grids to reach remote, rural communities in the developing world means that the best solution to providing access to electricity will be off-grid renewable technologies such as solar panels, small wind turbines and mini hydro-electric schemes. But studies show that the bulk of international assistance for the expansion of energy services in the developing world continues to be spent on the wrong technology - grid extensions.
Meanwhile, mitigating global warming requires a massive shift to renewables to power our economies. However, the latest data suggests our investments continue to prioritise fossil fuel technology over renewables. The International Energy Agency estimates that around US$ 121 bn of public subsidies were used to support the development of renewable energy technologies in 2013. This was less than a quarter of the US$550 billion of subsidies used in the same year to support the price of fossil fuel products, and to provide tax breaks to develop exploration techniques for new fossil fuel resources such as methane hydrates found in ice off the coast of Japan, or fracking for shale gas, or exploration in Arctic environments.
Not just an energy sector problem
The energy sector is not the only place where we can see a technological crisis in the making. The adoption of green revolution technologies (fertilisers, pesticides, and herbicides) and the industrialisation of the global food system has produced an era of cheap food, at least in the developed world, but at a cost of heavy damage to ecosystems - ranging from forest clearances to fertiliser-induced creation of algal blooms in our waterways, to damage to key species such as honey bees through excessive use of pesticides. Meanwhile the prioritisation of yield and uniformity of product over everything else has resulted in a massive decline in biodiversity amongst food crops and livestock. This narrowing of the gene base that supports our food systems leaves them vulnerable to future shocks from climate change or exposure to new pests and diseases.
In the health sector we are seeing a collapse in the effectiveness of antibiotics as a consequence not only of their over-prescription amongst the human population, but also their irresponsible use in agriculture, both as a prophylactic and a growth promoter in livestock. Meanwhile, research into the next generation of antimicrobial drugs is hindered by the fact that it can be as much as twenty times more profitable for a pharmaceutical company to develop a new drug for a chronic condition such as a neuromuscular complaint (which likely requires a life-time prescription) than a treatment for an infectious disease (used in one-off courses of treatment).
Electricity only became widely available in domestic households in the UK after the 1930s. Antibiotics were first used in the 1940s. The green revolution in agriculture only started in the 1960s. Yet today there is a very real danger that some of the key technological advances that have enabled rapid improvements in the standard of living for billions of people could be rendered unusable just 50 to 80 years after their first introduction.
Recharging the plan
It is time to better understand why we are so slow to address these issues. Why is it that the drivers of innovation mean that we are more likely to see research into a cure for male baldness than a malaria vaccine or into methods for extracting shale gas, as opposed to solutions to store renewable energy?
We need to rethink how we ensure universal access to the technologies necessary for a basic standard of living. We need to retool - to realign our innovation systems to deliver technology that is socially useful and addresses the key challenges of poverty and environmental sustainability. Above all, our relationship with technology needs a reboot. We need a new frame of reference to provide a radically different approach to our governance of the development and use of technology.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited (EIU) or any other member of The Economist Group. The Economist Group (including the EIU) cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this article or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the article.