Today, most of the voices that hold power in the environmental movement believe that there will be technical solutions for our environmental problems. What is not addressed though is that it is technology that is creating many of these problems to begin with. The 'advances' have allowed faster resource extraction, cheaper production methods (although falling wages and benefits contribute to cheaper goods too), and greater consumption. All of these factors have contributed to our using resources too fast.

Technology is not all bad, and there are options out there that can help,but it certainly will not save us. Assuming that we can create technological solutions to problems caused by other technologies seems to just keep moving down the path of destruction, as we may find that that solution causes problems as well. The focus on technology is preventing discussion about the increasing consumption rates and worldwide inequities. Technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, hydrogen engines can contribute to a solution, but lifestyles must also change. Each of those solutions uses natural resources and with the increasing population there will not be unlimited natural resources much longer.

The global inequities also have environmental consequences as resources are stripped from the third world, for the consumption of the first world, and the people in those communities can no longer support themselves and must move onto more marginal lands. Those at the top of the income brackets and those at the bottom create the most environmental damage, but for very different reasons. Increasing globalization and technology has led to people becoming worse off than they were 30 years ago as jobs disappear oversees and wages have not kept up with inflation. The current technology based economy is allowing an elite to benefit and the rest to move backwards.

Once the hidden costs emerge, technology no longer seems green, and there has been a lot of green-washing of certain technologies in recent years for economic reasons, corn ethanol being a prime example, since once everything is accounted for it has more negative environmental impact than benefit. This is the case with a lot of technology, making it difficult to see past the current bias towards a solution that could work, such as reducing consumption, making longer-lasting goods (which there already is technology for based on models from before the '50s) and localizing food production. These rely not on technology, but on people, creating more jobs as we end the trend of technology replacing people. The path we are on is not sustainable, but assuming that a technological solution will magically appear right when we need it (now!) is unrealistic and allows the problem and alternative solutions to be avoided.