How will you balance the energy needs to preserve the most in danger artifacts vs the environmental cost of powering these safety mechanisms- essentially, where is the energy coming from to mitigate these climate change effects, and how can we be sure that we aren't actually polluting more by keeping these artifacts more preserved? 

Hello Kate,

Effectively you are pointing out  a point in the hearh of this debate. Every choice made must be sustainable in one hand, meaning that we need to preserve the ressources for the future, and in the other hand we have fragile collections that are part of cultural patrimony, and should be preserved for future generations.

There are strategies for preserving art collection that imply passive methods, for instance put in the same room tan artworks materials that mitigate RH fluctuations, instead of usun mechanical systems to do this.

Regarding the origin of energy it is clear that goverments need to estimulate investments so green energy can be produced (e.g. solar energy) and stocked and there are current topics that need to be studied

Dear Asley,

In my experience is mostly research institutions the ones that develop the biggest part of technology for monitoring climate change. Private sector is often times the entity exploitating the technologies develop by the public sector.

Regarding your second point, all conservators and scientists that work in the field are aware of the need for sustainable solutions, that are consumming as less energy as possible, and may have the form of "passive" solutions.