Some big tech corporations have vowed to reduce their own CO2 emissions. In actuality, these "reductions" may include carbon offset s that do not eliminate emissions. Or, as Freitag reports, they are too weak to reach net zero targets by 2050. Plus, no agency monitors or enforces these commitments.
Meanwhile, three digital technologies generate considerable, unchecked growth in CO2 emissions: Bitcoin cryptocurrency, the Internet of Things (IoT) and artificial intelligence (AI). Unfortunately, without evidence, the European Commission presents these technologies as key levers that reduce emissions. This deceptive narrative fails to recognize climate targets. It also ignores the paradox that increased efficiency creates a rebound effect: it leads to more manufacturing and cheaper devices, which in turn increases energy use, mining, emissions, water use and waste.
New Digital Trends or Threats?
Big data and AI present opportunities and threats to mitigating climate change. For example, they might reduce road traffic congestion. But apps such as Waze4 can direct traffic congestion without AI... while training one AI to solve problems can generate between 4.5 kg and 284 tons of CO2 (five times a gas-powered car's lifetime CO2 emissions). AI's growth between 2012 and 2018, measured in "petaflop/s-days" (the number of computer operations while the machine learns), increased 300,000-fold.
The Internet of Things (IoT) also grows exponentially. By 2025, it could connect 75 billion devices--then grow, annually, by 19%. Most of these devices will support home automation, security and surveillance (48%). The fastest-growing IoT sectors are cars (30% annual growth) and "smart" cities (26%). Note: few researchers study carbon emissions from manufacturing connected devices.
Last but not least, blockchain tech (in particular cryptocurrency) emits as much CO2 as entire nations.5 Bitcoin's 2020 electricity use could have powered seven million US households. Researchers estimate that bitcoin demands twelve gigawatts (GW) of power--the power generated by seven large nuclear reactors. A single Bitcoin transaction consumes around 750 kWh, enough for a two-ton electric car6 to drive 5000 km (3100 miles). Moreover, half of Bitcoin transactions happen in China, where electricity runs largely on coal, the fuel that emits the most greenhouse gases.
Rebound effect guaranteed
While efficiency drives electricity demands down, increased traffic drives them up. Data traffic consumes significant amounts of electricity; and video streaming accounts for over 80% of data traffic. New Internet infrastructure such as 5G allows for increased video traffic; because of the rebound effect, 5G increases traffic, electricity use--and CO2 emissions. New, 5G-compatible devices require more mining and manufacturing and generate more e-waste.
Given the limited number of Internet users and the limited number of hours per day, some experts predict that traffic and data demands will plateau. This assumes that machine-to-machine data is negligible. Alas. 5G-connected high-definition video surveillance cameras alone could create exponential growth in data traffic and processing.
Does ICT enable carbon savings in other industries?
Many governments' "green deals" assume that digitalizing health, education, agriculture, banking, manufacturing, transportation and building will save enough CO2 to counterbalance the digital industry's emissions. Yet these industries' 15% total reductions in CO2 emissions (achieved only in ideal conditions) would fail to help us realise climate targets. In fact, because of rebound effects alone, digitalization could increase ICTs' global CO2 emissions! Reductions will occur only when digital tech eliminates use of carbon-intensive technologies.
Why do we rarely calculate ecological impacts from manufacturing and discarding solar PVs, industrial wind and e-vehicles?
Can renewable energy decarbonise ICTs?
The digital industry proudly promotes its increasing use of "renewable" energy. However, industrial wind turbines, solar arrays and batteries are "renewable" and "clean" in name only. Manufacturing these technologies requires extractions and fossil fuels; it generates CO2 and hazardous waste. Then, because wind and solar generate intermittent power, they depend on backup from natural gas or coal (fossil fuels), nuclear power or toxic batteries. Further, they cannot power energy-intensive manufacturing processes like smelting.
What could truly reduce carbon emissions, extractions, water use and toxic waste? To make data centers and network infrastructures carbon neutral, could big tech limit its energy consumption? Could it restrict energy-guzzling (yet non-essential) services like 4K or HD video streaming?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
