Digital systems show environmental harm at a scale no inspector could reach, and they consume electricity, water and mined metals to do it. Both are true, and an honest answer carries both.
What monitoring reveals, what it costs, and the test that decides whether it was worth it.
Interactive diagram
Explore the labelled diagram, charts and maps for this topic in full study mode.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Seeing is not stopping: Evidence only works where somebody has the power and the will to act on it. Much of what is now visible happens where neither exists, so the picture improves and the harm does not.
See how examiners mark answers
Access past paper questions with model answers. Learn exactly what earns marks and what doesn't.
Real-world examples you can name
Global Fishing Watch — launched 2016
Satellite tracking signals from vessels are processed to map fishing activity worldwide and published openly, so protected areas can be policed by anyone with a browser rather than only by patrol boats.
Who it affected: Coastal states without navies, and fleets that relied on not being watched.
Agbogbloshie e-waste site, Accra — scrapyard cleared July 2021
A scrapyard where imported electronics were stripped and cables burned to recover copper, releasing lead and dioxins. It became the standard example of e-waste exported from rich countries to poor ones. Authorities demolished much of the site in 2021; the trade moved rather than stopped.
Who it affected: Workers and nearby residents exposed to heavy metals and smoke.
Bitcoin and the public blockchain — network live January 2009
A currency with no issuing bank, kept honest by a shared append-only ledger that thousands of computers verify. The proof-of-work method that secures it consumes electricity on the scale of a mid-sized country.
Who it affected: Holders and traders, people in countries with unstable currencies, and everyone affected by the energy used.
| System | What it reveals | What it uses |
|---|---|---|
| Vessel tracking | Fishing where it is not allowed | Satellites, servers, processing |
| Forest imaging | Clearing as it happens | The same, continuously |
| A blockchain | Nothing environmental | Electricity, at national scale |
How this is tested — environmental questions are marked on balance, and most answers give only one side. It comes up two ways:
Paper 1 — structured question
- Part c: evaluate a monitoring system's environmental impact
- Part b: explain why monitoring does not always reduce harm
Paper 2 — source-based question
- Q4: synthesise sources on technology and the environment
- HL Paper 3: recommend, and account for the footprint of your own fix
The trap: one side only: “Technology helps the environment” and “technology harms the environment” are both half-answers. Hold both and then judge.
Explain one reason why environmental monitoring may not reduce harm.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Evaluate the use of satellite monitoring to protect ecosystems.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.