Thirsty AI

16

September

2024

5/5 (2)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing our world, from helping us choose what to cook for dinner, to enabling advanced data analysis. For us, students, AI has become part of the academic toolkit, whether it’s for writing assistance, article and lecture summaries, or accessing more personalized learning resources. However, what many don’t realize is that our growing reliance on AI comes at a hidden cost – one that is largely invisible yet increasingly significant: water consumption. AI’s environmental impact is often discussed along the topics of energy usage and carbon emissions, but not many of us realize that water plays a major role in keeping AI running.

Where does the water go?

When thinking of AI’s environmental cost, water might not be the first thing that comes to mind. However, it plays a critical role in both the direct and indirect operations of AI systems, primarily through data centers, as well as various processes throughout the supply chain such as the production of semiconductors and microchips used in AI models. Popular large language models (LLMs) likeOpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Bard are energy-intensive, requiring massive server farms to provide enough data to train the powerful programs (DeGeurin et al., 2023). 

1. Direct Water Usage:

Data centers – the backbone of AI – require immense cooling systems to prevent overheating. These centers house thousands of servers that generate tremendous amounts of heat while running (Clancy, 2022). Water is commonly used in cooling systems to regulate the temperature of these servers, as the optimal temperature to prevent the equipment from malfunctioning is typically between 10 and 25 degrees Celsius (DeGeurin et al., 2023). Cooling mechanisms vary, but one of the most popular methods is evaporative cooling, which directly consumes significant quantities of water (Digital Realty, 2023). The researchers estimate around a gallon of water is consumed for every kilowatt-hour expended in an average data center (Farfan & Lohrmann, 2023). Not just any type of water can be used, either. Data centers pull from clean, freshwater sources in order to avoid the corrosion or bacteria growth that can come with seawater (DeGeurin et al., 2023).

(Li et al., 2023)

2. Indirect Water Usage:

The electricity that powers AI also has a water footprint, especially when it comes from thermoelectric power plants, which rely on water for steam generation and cooling (Petrakopoulou, 2021) (Torcellini et al., 2023). Even when data centers run on renewable energy, the construction and operation of the renewable infrastructure can still have a water impact. All of that just along other often omitted  factors such as water usage embodied in the supply chains (e.g., water used for chip manufacturing) (Li et al., 2023). To illustrate it better: an average chip manufacturing facility today can use up to 10 million gallons of ultrapure water per day – as much water as is used by 33,000 US households every day (James, 2024). Need more examples? Just imagine that globally semiconductor factories are already consuming as much water as Hong Kong, a city of 7.5 million (Robinson, 2024). 

(James, 2024)

How thirsty is the AI? 

Just how much water does AI consume? The numbers are staggering: in 2021 Google’s US data centers alone consumed 16.3 billion liters of water, including 12.7 billion liters of freshwater (Clancy, 2022) (Li et al., 2023). That’s just as much as the annual consumption of a mid-sized city. According to data published in 2023, a single conversation with ChatGPT (spanning 20 to 50 interactions) is equivalent to drinking a 500ml bottle (DeGeurin et al., 2023). While this may not seem significant on an individual scale, ChatGPT has currently over 200 million active users, engaging in multiple conversations daily (Singh, 2024). GPT-3, an AI model developed by OpenAI, reportedly consumed approximately 700,000 liters of water only during its training phase (Li et al., 2023). When scaled up to consider all functioning and developing AI models along with their data centers, this leads to billions of liters of water being consumed only for cooling purposes. However, not all AI models are equal in their water demands. While smaller models require less computational power, and thus less water for cooling, larger, more advanced models like GPT-4 demand significantly more resources. And of course, as AI models become more sophisticated and popularized, they also become more resource-intensive, both in terms of energy and water.

(Cruchet & MacDiarmid, 2023)

AI’s Water Crisis: Implications 

The high water consumption of AI systems and data centers has significant environmental and societal consequences, particularly in water-scarce regions and less developed countries. 

  1. Escalating Water Scarcity: In regions where water is already scarce, data centers add to the problem. A clear example is Google’s data center in South Carolina, which raised alarms over its massive water withdrawals in an area often hit by droughts (Moss, 2017). As AI’s growth drives up demand for these centers, we’re likely to see more conflicts between tech giants and local communities fighting for the same limited resources.
  2. Strain on Ecosystems: Data centers don’t just impact human communities; they affect nature too. When large amounts of water are diverted for industrial use, natural ecosystems suffer. Less water means habitat loss for animals and severe disruptions to the local environment, throwing entire ecosystems out of balance (Balova & Kolbas, 2023).
  3. Widening the Digital Divide: The high water and energy demands of AI data centers often mean they are built in regions with abundant resources, leaving less developed areas at a disadvantage. These centers are often built in resource-rich regions, close to users, to reduce latency and cut down on data transmission costs. It makes sense from a business perspective—faster data, lower costs. But what happens to the areas that lack water, energy, and infrastructure? They get left behind, further widening the existing digital divide.

Drying Out AI: Smart Solutions for Water Use

While the current water consumption rates may seem unsustainable, there are solutions – though their plausibility and long-term impact vary. 

1. Water-Efficient Cooling Technologies: One promising solution is the adoption of more water-efficient cooling technologies. Some companies are experimenting with air cooling or liquid cooling systems that don’t rely on water. For example, Google’s data center in Finland introduced the first ever system using cold seawater for cooling, drastically reducing freshwater consumption (Miller, 2011). However, not all data centers can be located near natural water sources that can be sustainably tapped. 

2. Renewable Energy Transitions: While much of AI’s water footprint comes from electricity generation, transitioning data centers to renewable energy sources like wind and solar could reduce the indirect water use associated with thermoelectric plants (Arts, 2024). 

(Lenovo StoryHub, 2024)

3. Transparency and Accountability: One of the most plausible and immediately impactful steps is for tech companies to be more transparent about their water usage. Publicly reporting on their water consumption and environmental impact could put pressure on companies to adopt more sustainable practices. Microsoft and Google have already pledged to become “water positive” by 2030, meaning they aim to replenish more water than they consume (Clancy, 2021). While this goal is ambitious, its success will depend on innovations in both technology and infrastructure.

Other specialists have proposed relocating data centers to Nordic countries like Iceland or Sweden, in a bid to utilize ambient, cool air to minimize carbon footprint, a technique called “free cooling” (Monserrate, 2022). However, network signal latency issues make this dream of a haven for green data centers largely untenable to meet the computing and data storage demands of the wider world. 

Will AI ever be sustainable?

AI’s water footprint is a pressing environmental issue that must be addressed alongside energy and carbon concerns. Though constant advancements are being made, there is still much to explore regarding AI’s water consumption. Further research is needed in areas such as:

  • investigation of the environmental trade-offs of AI usage;
  • exploration of alternative cooling methods for data centers;
  • assessment of the feasibility of building AI systems that are less resource-intensive;
  • analysis of the scalability of current solutions like seawater cooling or closed-loop cooling systems,

to ensure the long-term sustainability of AI technologies.

As students and future innovators, understanding these invisible costs is the first step toward making informed and conscious choices. Whether by adjusting our daily digital habits, supporting companies with sustainable practices, or advocating for responsible AI development, we all have a role to play in ensuring that AI can thrive without draining the planet’s resources. By demanding more transparency from the tech industry and pushing for the adoption of more water-efficient technologies, we can help to navigate the future of AI toward a more sustainable and unbiased path.

References

Arts, M. (2024). Designing green energy data centres. Royal HaskoningDHV. https://www.royalhaskoningdhv.com/en/newsroom/blogs/2023/designing-green-energy-data-centres

Balova, A., & Kolbas, N. (2023, August 20). Biodiversity and Data Centers: What’s the connection? Ramboll. https://www.ramboll.com/galago/biodiversity-and-data-centers-what-s-the-connection

Clancy, H. (2021). Diving into ‘water positive’ pledges by Facebook, Google. Trellis. https://trellis.net/article/diving-water-positive-pledges-facebook-google/

Clancy, H. (2022, November 22). Sip or guzzle? Here’s how Google’s data centers use water – Trellis. GreenBiz. Retrieved September 15, 2024, from https://trellis.net/article/sip-or-guzzle-heres-how-googles-data-centers-use-water/

Cruchet, N., & MacDiarmid, A. (2023, November 21). Datacenter Water Usage: Where Does It All Go? Submer. Retrieved September 16, 2024, from https://submer.com/blog/datacenter-water-usage/

DeGeurin, M., Ropek, L., Gault, M., Feathers, T., & Barr, K. (2023). ‘Thirsty’ AI: Training ChatGPT Required Enough Water to Fill a Nuclear Reactor’s Cooling Tower, Study Finds. Gizmodo. https://gizmodo.com/chatgpt-ai-water-185000-gallons-training-nuclear-1850324249

Digital Realty. (2023). The Future of Data Center Cooling: Innovations for Sustainability. Digital Realty. https://www.digitalrealty.com/resources/articles/future-of-data-center-cooling

Farfan, J., & Lohrmann, A. (2023). Gone with the clouds: Estimating the electricity and water footprint of digital data services in Europe. Energy Conversion and Management. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019689042300571X

James, K. (2024, July 19). Semiconductor manufacturing and big tech’s water challenge | World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum. Retrieved September 16, 2024, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/07/the-water-challenge-for-semiconductor-manufacturing-and-big-tech-what-needs-to-be-done/

M.T Ziegler (2024, March) The world’s AI generators: rethinking water usage in data centers to build a more sustainable future. Lenovo StoryHub. https://news.lenovo.com/data-centers-worlds-ai-generators-water-usage/

Li, P., Ren, S., Yang, J., & Islam, M. (2023, October 29). Making AI Less “Thirsty”: Uncovering and Addressing the Secret Water Footprint of AI Models. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.03271

Miller, R. (2011). Google Using Sea Water to Cool Finland Project – Google Using Sea Water to Cool Finland Project. Data Center Knowledge. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/hyperscalers/google-using-sea-water-to-cool-finland-project

Monserrate, S. G. (2022, February 14). The staggering ecological impacts of computation and the cloud. MIT Schwarzman College of Computing. Retrieved September 16, 2024, from https://computing.mit.edu/news/the-staggering-ecological-impacts-of-computation-and-the-cloud/

Moss, S. (2017). Google’s plan to use aquifer for cooling in South Carolina raises concerns. Data Center Dynamics. https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/googles-plan-to-use-aquifer-for-cooling-in-south-carolina-raises-concerns/

Petrakopoulou, F. (2021). Defining the cost of water impact for thermoelectric power generation. Energy Reports. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484721002158

Robinson, D. (2024, February 29). Growing water use a concern for chip industry and AI models. The Register. Retrieved September 16, 2024, from https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/29/growing_water_use_ai_semis_concern/

Singh, S. (2024). ChatGPT Statistics (SEP. 2024) – 200 Million Active Users. DemandSage. Retrieved September 15, 2024, from https://www.demandsage.com/chatgpt-statistics/

Torcellini, P., Long, N., & Judkoff, R. (2023). Consumptive Water Use for U.S. Power Production. NREL. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/33905.pdf

Please rate this

Plant-based meat and genetic engineering technology

18

October

2022

5/5 (1)

More attention than ever is directed towards sustainability and climate change nowadays. It is in the news every day and companies are also heavily influenced by it. The younger generation is devoting more attention to it and demanding companies to take more responsibility. They advocate better and more sustainable products and production processes.

There are several emissions sources, such as cars and factories. Another source of emission is livestock. Currently, when looking at emissions numbers, global livestock is responsible for 14.5% of all human-caused emissions. Decreasing emissions is crucial to fight climate change and increasing sustainability. Research has shown that meat generally has a higher carbon footprint compared to plant-based food, thus eating less meat, or even better no meat, and more plant-based food could lead to fewer emissions (Petrovic et al., 2015). Change starts with yourself, so to also be a part of the mission to become more sustainable, an increasing number of people are becoming vegetarian, meaning that they do not eat meat or fish (Minassian, 2022).

To substitute meat, there are an increasing number of alternatives on the market that are marketed as plant-based meat. To reduce global meat consumption, not only vegetarians and vegans need to be targeted, but also consumers who eat meat. According to a Bloomberg Intelligence Report, by 2030, the sales of plant-based food are expected to have five folded (Minassian, 2022). A common remark from consumers who do eat meat is that these alternatives do not taste or feel like meat. Technology is playing a crucial role in fabricating plant-based alternatives that are indistinguishable from actual meat. Especially, genetic engineering technology has immense potential. It can recreate proteins normally found in animal products, such as milk, which creates textures and tastes that resemble real meat. Also, crops can be optimised to be able to use in plant-based meat (IDTechEx, 2021). So, in order to reduce meat consumption these technologies will be essential to get consumers who do eat meat to make the switch to plant-based alternatives and therefore actively participate towards a more sustainable world.

Works Cited

IDTechEx. (2021, July 20). Emerging Technologies Set to Shape the Next Generation of Plant-Based Meat. Retrieved from prnewswire.com: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/emerging-technologies-set-to-shape-the-next-generation-of-plant-based-meat-says-idtechex-814624557.html

Minassian, L. (2022, April 6). Why the Global Rise in Vegan and Plant-Based Eating is No Fad (30x Increase in US Vegans + Other Astounding Vegan Stats). Retrieved from foodrevolution.org: https://foodrevolution.org/blog/vegan-statistics-global/

Zoran Petrovic, V. D. (2015). Meat production and consumption: Environmental consequences Zoran Petrovica,*, Vesna Djordjevica, Dragan Milicevica, Ivan Nastasijevica, Nenad Parunovica aInstitute of Meat Hygiene and Technology, Kacanskog 13, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia Abstract. Procedia Food Science, 235-238.

Please rate this

Sustainability as Disruptor?

21

September

2022

No ratings yet.

Earlier this month, a technology columnist of the New York Times wrote a critical article about the industry of smartphones. Especially, he dived into the sustainability of smartphones and its priority in the industry. Spoiler: not very sustainable, not a priority.

The introduction of smartphones was a major disruption of the phone, computer and software market. Since the historical announcement of the first iPhone by Steve Jobs in 2007, smartphone producers release a line of new phones every year, gradually improving performance. Smartphones, however, are not designed to last more than two, three years. Most are hard and expensive to repair, and software and security is only supported for a finite amount of time. The main reason for this is the conflict of interests of durability of smartphones, which is coupled to sustainability, and the business model of producers. Producers want you to buy their new models every year to maximize profits.

Focused on the durability and sustainability issue, multiple startups have been founded that aim to produce modular smartphones. The idea is that broken or outdated parts can easily be replaced instead of buying a new phone, wasting rare and valuable resources. An example is Phoneblocks. This Dutch startup initiated a successful online campaign in 2013 to spread its message, after which it collaborated with Motorola (later Google). Sadly, the project was cancelled in 2016 being “too ambitious and costly to make modular phones a reality”. The project had to overcome multiple technical barriers, and the production of modular parts on a relative small scale without diverse efficient manufacturers was expensive and complex.

Another Dutch startup, however, Fairphone, proved the viability of modular phones. The company also was founded in 2013, but had never been acquired by a multinational technology company. The latest model, the Fairphone 3+, is received well by critics. While price/quality wise it is not the best phone on the market, it differentiates itself on sustainability and durability.

Yet, the modular phone can not disrupt the market without the support of the major technology manufacturers that could improve production efficiency. The current throw-away society, however, seems too profitable for them to provide this support. Due to our capitalistic society and the power of multinationals, it is doubtful whether the modular phone ever makes its way to becoming the standard.

Sources:

Chen, B. X. (2022, September 8). A Smartphone That Lasts a Decade? Yes, It’s Possible. The New York Times. Retrieved September 21, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/technology/personaltech/smartphone-lasts-decade.html

Statt, N. (2016, September 2). Google confirms the end of its modular Project Ara smartphone. The Verge. Retrieved September 21, 2022, from https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/2/12775922/google-project-ara-modular-phone-suspended-confirm

Please rate this

The Sustainable Urban Delta as a holistic solution

4

October

2021

No ratings yet.
Singapore as an example of the Sustainable Urban Delta

Rainfall floods in the Benelux, storms in America and more alarming messages in the latest climate report from the United Nations. An increasing population pressures the earth and its natural resources and the current technologies and demands of humanity demand more from the earth than it could provide.  Climate change is getting real for a lot of people. 

RSM alumnus Meiny Prins was faced with the same problems a couple of years ago and decided to use her family business (PRIVA) to be a force for positive change. Her answer to tackle one of the problems surrounding the provision of food: The Sustainable Urban Delta.

To cope with the urbanization and provide a holistic solution for the problems that come with urbanization, Prins learned from the integrated approach in business and wanted to apply that. With her new business idea, she created a multipurpose solution for a multipurpose problem.

Nothing of this would be possible without the application of artificial intelligence in combination with smart cities and the internet of things. By using real-time data, the artificial intelligence systems can use the limited available resources in the most circular way as possible. This means optimal use of energy, water and most important: space. An integral way to combine city life while determining the best moment and place close by to provide in food and clean water. Using the benefits of one process to prevent problems of other systems. For example, by using vertical farming in city centers, cities can cool down the temperature by providing a green oasis. All of this combined in a perfect harmony and totally data driven.

However, one could argue the feasibility of this plan. Prins’s plan is to design total ecosystems in large cities to bring back the so-called green belt to create a livable future. However, to what scale do we need to develop these delta’s. And how is one able to create that on a large scale with the current state of urbanization? Even though that every 3 months a new 9 million people city rises, the current degree of urbanization will not allow the Sustainable Urban Delta to develop without a massive change in current civilization.

The vision of Prins is vivid and inspires people to do good. It is however the question to what scale PRIVA can provide impact with their digital solutions in agriculture and smart cities. But maybe by looking around, we can conclude that the Netherlands is one of the first urban delta’s on a national level.

https://sustainableurbandelta.com/casestudies/

Please rate this

WALL•E Becoming Reality?

27

September

2021

No ratings yet.

I remember seeing WALL-E thirteen years ago as a small kid. I still think this is one of the best (animated) movies ever made. It is also becoming more relevant by the day. In WALL-E, mankind lives in spaceships circling the earth, where a little robot is cleaning the mess that was left behind all on its own. Plants and animals are extinct and the earth was in unlivable conditions for any life.  Even though you could feel a sense of morality and hidden lessons behind the kid-friendly layer, three things about WALL-E seemed very unrealistic at the time: the technology, the state of the earth and the hyperconsumerism.

Oh, how much has changed in these years. Reading the other blogposts, hyperconsumerism and the growing ease of consumption are popular items. Startups like Gorillas are delivering your groceries. If you’re not willing to cook, Uber Eats delivers your dinner. Capitalist giants like Amazon deliver packages within a day and Social Media are loaded with hidden ads. It is scary how close reality is getting to WALL-E[1], where all passengers of the ships are in floating chairs all day, with everything available at the touch of a button. Technology that made this possible isn’t so unrealistic anymore[2].

This year, commercial space flights made headlines. Three of the richest men on earth are in the middle of a space race, developing livable spaceships with passengers that are not qualified but just paid the price[3]. Also, robots are being trained to be self-aware and to perform parkouring tasks[4] . If you have seen the Black Mirror episode Metalhead, things like this don’t get you excited anymore. They worry you. Where do we draw the line? These efforts all seem to align well with the reality of WALL-E and makes us question the intentions of these billionaires, among others. Are they escaping the problems? We are drowning in our own waste. Remember the burning tire graveyard in Kuwait[5]? Are we also going to need water adaptations of WALL-E to clean the ocean[6]?

Just like in WALL-E, we are making our own world unlivable, but for some reason, our main focus is still technology. Is technology actually the solution for restoring and maintaining the health of the earth or is it only suitable for containment of the problem? In the case of WALL-E, mankind seemed to be too late anyway.  

[1] https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=coastlines

[2] https://www.sciencealert.com/9-similarities-between-today-s-society-and-the-one-that-filled-the-planet-with-garbage-in-wall-e

[3] https://science.thewire.in/spaceflight/the-billionaire-race-has-perverted-what-space-exploration-should-really-be-about/

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4DML7FIWk

[5] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15778161/worlds-biggest-graveyard-fire-smoke-space/

[6] https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/

Please rate this

Blockchain and AI in the fashion industry: the opportunity for new sustainable standards

8

October

2020

No ratings yet. The fashion industry is among one of the most polluting industries in the world, responsible for 8 to 10% of global carbon emission, which is more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. Fast fashion is strongly grounded in a linear way of production, with a  supply chain expanded over different geographical regions.  Overall, the supply chain in fast fashion is very disconnected; large corporations have suppliers and manufacturers spread all over the world, which leads to a large lack of  transparency and accountability for production processes.  Much of the unsustainable practices in fashion is due to lack of traceability, transparency and accountability that corporation’ have across the supply chain.

As a result, consumers are demanding more transparency about the production process and origins of clothing.  Firms as Zara and H&M are increasingly responding  to such consumer pressures, like for instance with the launch of sustainably sourced product lines.  Nevertheless, technological innovations are providing promising solutions for the lack of transparency in the fashion industry, and enabling an opportunity for the industry to become more sustainable. Innovations like blockchain and AI can enable connectivity and share information on corporate production processes increasing traceability and transparency, transforming the standards in the industry.

Blockchain enables track & trace technology and advanced inventory management, so that the great disconnected in the fashion supply chain can be more physically connected and transparent. Fashion corporations can track the movement of raw materials, fabrics, suppliers and manufactures, which increases the accountability of various players in the production processes that normally is difficult to achieve. This enables the needed transparency that incentives new sustainable standards.  Company’s like Pantagonia and Everlane are leading  sustainable company’s in fast fashion using sustainability and transparency as a selling point creating competitive advantage.

It will be very interesting to spot how emerging technological innovations are going to impact the fashion industry. It is without a doubt that these innovations can be used to create new sustainable standards that the public is demanding. But will this opportunity be enough for corporations to truly adopt new sustainable standards and move towards sustainable change?

Sources:
DRIFT (2018) The transition to good fashion. Report for C&A Foundation and Fashion for Good. Available at https://drift.eur.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FINAL_report.pdf
Forbes, (2018)https://www.forbes.com/sites/samantharadocchia/2018/06/27/altering-the-apparel-industry-how-the-blockchain-is-changing-fashion/#67576d7329fb

The Economical Times (2019). https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/sme-sector/from-zara-to-hm-fast-fashion-face-the-age-of-reckoning/articleshow/72120398.cms?from=mdr

Weill, P. and Woerner, S. (2013). Optimizing Your Digital Business Model. [online] MIT Sloan Management Review. Available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/optimizing-your-digital-business-model/

Please rate this

Digital is More Sustainable, or is it not?

4

October

2020

No ratings yet. Growing concerns around climate change and the impact of human activities on global warming has resulted in a global trend of organizations adopting CSR / sustainability policies. Simultaneously, digital technologies were becoming more and more prominent in most organizations. Consequently, digital technologies changed the way business is done in a lot of industries by moving business processes online. These two trends resulted in numerous companies making ‘anti-paper’ claims about digitized processes being more environmentally friendly as it removed the dependency on paper and plastic. However, are these claims actually true? Do digital processes actually have a lower environmental footprint than traditional business processes where e.g. documentation, promotion and marketing is done on physical materials such as paper?

For this question to be answered, there first needs to be clarity on how environmental footprint is defined. In this case, environmental footprint will be defined as the effect that an activity has on the environment, and this could be an effect in terms of CO2 emissions, amount of waste produced, recycle rate or else.

The claims that digital processes are more environmentally friendly than traditional processes seem very logic. On first sight, digital processes consume less physical materials than traditional processes; saving documentation in the cloud vs printing or writing the documentation on paper. However, in reality this is not the case. Obviously, paper or other physical materials such as plastic are in principle not environmentally friendly. In the case of paper, it uses wood as its main element, uses 400 – 2600 liters of water for the production of one kilo of paper and emits on average 500 grams of CO2 emissions per kilo of paper (which is the equivalent of eating two avocados). Altogether, the paper industry accounts for 7% of the global CO2 emissions. Compared to the airline industry, which is known as one of the most harmful industries, it is three times as much. Despite these numbers, it appears that the paper industry does not have a negative influence on the vegetation. On the contrary, it is proven that forest coverage has increased in both Europe and the US. Moreover, paper is recyclable up to seven times and approximately half of all paper is already being recycled globally, this reduces the amount of waste that paper leaves behind.

Digital processes on the other hand, do not seem to use a lot of materials on the surface. However, the devices used to document and process the business operations online require a lot of energy. Per organization, the CO2 emissions of energy usage can differ significantly dependent on whether the energy comes from a renewable source or fossil fuels. Moreover, the devices in the offices are not the only pieces of hardware that need energy with online documentation. Online data storage also requires enormous data centers that consume energy 24/7. Collectively, it is expected that the IT industry will account for 14% of total global CO2 emissions, whereas this is currently only 3%. Besides energy usage, technological devices require a lot of materials among which lithium, (precious) metals and rare commodities in the production phase. Despite the fact that concrete evidence and literature are not available yet on the environmental footprint of technological devices due to its relatively short existence, it is clear that technological devices require a lot of (non-recyclable) resources and that it is very likely that this has consequences for the environment.

In short, both traditional (paper-based) and digital processes have a significant environmental footprint on the planet. Due to the complexity of the total footprints and the lack of concrete evidence on technological devices, it is very hard to determine whether or not digital processes are actually less harmful to the environment than traditional processes. Therefore, organizations should be very careful with such statements and individuals should be critical and not blindly believe such statements as it can be used as a way of greenwashing.

References:
Cambridge Dictionary, n.d. Environmental footprint. Accessed on the 4th of October 2020 via https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/environmental-footprint
Kinsella, J. (2017). Digital Vs Paper: A History Of Printing, In House And Outsourced. Accessed on the 4th of October 2020 via https://www.ceotodaymagazine.com/2017/11/digital-vs-paper-a-history-of-printing-in-house-and-outsourced/
Klein Lankhorst, M. (2019). De papierindustrie stoot meer CO2 uit dan de luchtvaart. Is het nog wel verantwoord om papieren boeken uit te geven? Accessed on the 4th of October 2020 via https://decorrespondent.nl/9463/de-papierindustrie-stoot-meer-co2-uit-dan-de-luchtvaart-is-het-nog-wel-verantwoord-om-papieren-boeken-uit-te-geven/509327049-b14c9d5f
Moodie, A. (2014). Is digital really greener than paper? Accessed on the 4th of October 2020 via https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/digital-really-greener-paper-marketing
Project Drawdown, n.d. Recycled Paper. Accessed on the 4th of October 2020 via https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/recycled-paper
Simpel Duurzaam, (2020). Hoeveel is 1 kilo CO2? Accessed on the 4th of October 2020 via https://simpelduurzaam.nl/hoeveel-is-1-kilo-co2/
Two Sides, n.d. Electronic communication also has environmental impacts. Accessed on the 4th of October 2020 via https://www.twosides.info/electronic-communication/

Please rate this

How Sustainable is Technology Really?

6

October

2019

No ratings yet. Sustainability nowadays is the main focus of attention in society as it is the greatest challenge of our time. Global problems, from pollution to poverty and starvation, to climate change, have to be solved to create a sustainable world to live in. Technologies have created some of the problems that we face, but are also able to solve several problems.

 

It is clear that the fashion industry, for example, is lacking ethical and environmental standards, but there is not so much attention devoted to such standards in the technology sector. People don’t have knowledge about tech supply chains, for instance, the main components of a smartphone are cobalt, gold, silver, palladium, and tin, and these minerals are to a large extent mined in developing countries under poor regulatory frameworks which violate human rights. Such smartphones have a life around three years, and then they become obsolete, which is purposefully done by engineers without much regard for human or environmental effects. Consequently, there is now a 50 metric ton of e-waste per year (George, 2019).

 

One example of a company introducing ethical smartphones, is Fairphone, a Dutch company that produces ethically made phones in small quantities, which are phones that are meant to be durable, and they are made from fair trade minerals. However, this company is still small, and it is questionable whether this business model will disrupt the technology market (George, 2019).

 

This is only one example of a technology that is not working towards achieving sustainable development goals. Luckily, there are solutions to such technologies, however, these need to be developed further to disrupt the market. Also, there are also many sustainable technologies, such as homes that get their electricity from fossil fuel burning power plants and a smog-scrubbing tower, which try to solve the world’s sustainability issues (Wang, 2015).

 

George, K. (2019). The tech industry has a serious sustainability problem. Retrieved 6 October 2019, from https://www.huckmag.com/art-and-culture/tech/the-tech-industry-has-a-serious-sustainability-problem/

 

Wang, U. (2015). Top five sustainable technology trends of 2015. Retrieved 6 October 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/dec/31/top-5-sustainable-technology-trends-of-2015Screenshot 2019-10-06 at 17.20.15

Please rate this

Should I give up meat or the newest iPhone?

25

September

2019

No ratings yet.  

 

 

The real challenge for the environment is to use your new iPhone to order clothes online, pay them with bitcoins and after trying on the clothes at home, return them.

Last October the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) published a special report on the impacts of global warming which made many people rethink their own CO2 emissions. Should I quit eating meat? Give up my car? Skip a holiday in Asia?

On individual level, the change that people can do towards climate change is mainly symbolic. If you want real change, I suggest considering your smart phone.

Although the producers of these smartphones create a positive setting around their products, the fact is that smartphones and electronic communication (including online shopping, banking, streaming etc.) are not sustainable. Especially the young population favor actions which are even worse for the environment than flying.

Data servers and silos consume a lot of energy to produce cloud-based services. Watching tv is now spread to multiple devices. Streaming individually requires more technology and electricity than old televisions, which were used by the whole family together.

Online entertainment and news services are brought to you with electricity. Reading the news on your phone emits equally as much CO2 as printing the paper and delivering it to you. However, the only difference is that online the usage tends to be much higher as the information is easily available.

It might feel harmless to scroll through Facebook every now and then, but the biggest data center of Facebook produced almost 300 000 tons of CO2 emissions in 2017. Their electricity bill must be quite large, considering their yearly usage of electricity was 2.5 Giga watt hours.

However, the IT sector is still a small contributor to carbon dioxide emissions, but Greenpeace says the emissions are growing at least 13% a year.

Virtual currencies should be considered too. The Bitcoin network consumes more electricity than Ireland, and the CO2 emissions are equivalent to a million flights across the Atlantic – a flight, not a passenger.

Bitcoin mining is technically so simple, that it could be done with pen and paper. Therefore, the process of Bitcoin extraction is a deliberate waste of electricity because it makes currency counterfeiting more difficult.

The real environmental devil is online shopping. The goods are ordered overseas and inefficiently transported one by one to the door.

There is an enormous rally of airplanes, trucks and delivery vehicles transporting packages, in an attempt to satisfy consumers’ endless drive to buy. Who wouldn’t be overwhelmed when stores around the world open up and goods can be ordered cheaply from China?

The enjoyment from buying is very short-lived. The clothes are left in the dresser after being used once. Cheap fashion and small electronics are dumped in the trash, and the environment is the one to pay the bill.

It is so easy to return clothes to online shops, that people order five different styles and sizes of clothing and decide to keep maybe one. In online clothing shops, the percentage of returns is about 40%, when in other online stores it is 10-20%. The returned, new and unused clothes usually end up in trash, because the logistics and margins cannot handle recycling.

On top of this all, there is the need to buy new devices. The production requires silver and gold and rare earth metals.

No environmentally conscious buys the newest iPhone every year. Many young and trend-conscious people do exactly that, even though they have given up eating meat because of the environmental impact.

The real environmental bombshell is to order online clothing using the new iPhone, pay them with Bitcoins, and return everything after trying them on.

So, the next time you have a bad conscience when you choose a meal at a restaurant or when you buy a plane ticket for your next trip, think about whether you could offset emissions by reducing your use of cloud services and online stores. And maybe you don’t even need to upgrade to a new smart phone.

 

Resources:

http://theconversation.com/how-smartphones-are-heating-up-the-planet-92793

https://www.bluestardirect.com.au/myth-paper-has-a-high-carbon-footprint/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/580087/energy-use-of-facebook/

https://www.ashden.org/news/how-much-energy-does-it-take-to-check-facebook

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/bitcoin-electricity-usage-huge-climate-cryptocurrency

https://www.shipbob.com/blog/ecommerce-returns/

 

Please rate this

Would you trade some carbon with me?

30

September

2017

5/5 (12) Hurricane Irma turned out to be the strongest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded outside the Gulf of Mexico. Its extreme power caused a colossal devastation in the Caribbean Islands and the Southern US, led to a massive evacuation of Florida, but also pushed again the climate change and global warming topic to the headlines. While I am still very sceptical about human influence as a major cause of the global warming and I believe that there are many other important aspects that are beyond our control to be considered, I am certain that we, as humans, should be united in an effort to keep our planet safe and green for the next generations. CarbonX is another great incentive that can help each of us to work more closely in order to achieve this goal.

The idea behind CarbonX is to engage millions of people by materially rewarding them for a responsible carbon consumption. The company wants to achieve it by investing in carbon reduction projects and transforming the generated offsets into ERC20 tokens, (one of the most popular token standards for Etherum Blockchain) later are allocated through an open-loop rewarding loyalty program. The engaged partners (e.g. big retailers, local governments) will offer CarbonX Tokens to consumers as an incentive for more carbon-wise decisions (e.g. using a public transportation instead of driving a car). These tokens will be tracked via mobile application and will serve as a currency that could be exchanged either for other digital currencies or carbon-friendly rewards. Although CarbonX is currently available in Canada only, it has ambitious plans to expand its operations worldwide in order to achieve substantial network effects and have a real global impact.

What I really love about this idea is the fact that it directly engages individuals to take small actions towards a more sustainable living. How often do you see people behaving irresponsibly just because they think that their impact on the environment is marginal? How often do you actually behave this way? While governments and NGOs can push some incentives on the macro level, we cannot forget that each of us creates this ecosystem as well. These tiny rewards do not only bring its users tangible benefits but more importantly increase awareness of the consequences of their actions. So, tell me now. Would you like to trade some carbon with me?

References:

  • https://www.carbonx.ca/#ourmission
  • https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/13/could-a-blockchain-based-electricity-network-change-the-energy-market
  • https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Bitcoin_mining_is_a_waste_of_energy_and_harmful_for_ecology
  • http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/15/us/climate-change-hurricanes-harvey-and-irma/index.html

 

Please rate this