

Crowdsourcing Environmental Monitoring - x1sc0
http://smartcitizen.me

======
VandyILL
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.

