Thursday, July 12, 2012

Balancing Act: Technology and a Changing Climate


We love our technology.

Consider how we follow it, with blogs and columns devoted to following the top innovators in the same way we follow our favorite sports team. Consider how it permeates all facets of our lives, from home to work, from the car we drive to the way we shop. And when you realize what technology means to us, it’s abundantly clear that we need to protect it, and while keeping its impact on the safe side of harmful.

So that’s the double-edge sword: we can leverage technology, information and emerging processes and platforms to help answer a changing climate’s mitigation and adaptation questions. And at the same time we must be acutely aware of what our technology does to the environment.

In the book, we used Google as a good example of how computing can drive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Granted, there’s some disagreement as to how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere—but no one disputes the fact that it does. But for the sake of this discussion, let’s stick with Google’s assertion that a single web-based search generates about 0.2 grams of CO2. According to the search engine giant,

“...the average car driven for one kilometer (0.6 miles for those in the U.S.) produces as many greenhouse gases as a thousand Google searches.”

So how much data is being used, if we accept that the many, many Google searches that take place each day are just the tip of the usage iceberg? Consider this infographic, which can be mind-blowing.

It probably took you more than a minute to digest this, meaning the numbers are now bigger.

So clearly we have a responsibility to support technology that helps lessen the impact of data usage to atmospheric GHG, and in turn support innovation that further addresses this concern.

Still, our technology must be protected, certainly from the impacts of a changing climate. It’s central to so much that we do. A recent post on the WashingtonPost.com Wonkblog reinforced just how much air conditioning has revolutionized our lives, from our economy to our comfort to our diets. It cites this study by Northwestern University researchers that makes the case that high temperatures left unchecked by the magic of central air can result in severe cuts to economic output, worker productivity, political instability, and in severe cases, fragile states that become threats to our national security. So there’s that to consider. As the recent Super Derecho of 2012 taught us, we need our technology intact to power the electrical grid, to help us maintain contact with critical services and loved ones, and to avert a public health crisis when temperature either drop or skyrocket.

Also, consider that the Google searches that I mentioned earlier could in fact be providing people with the information they need without driving to a library—so it’s not all bad to have this capability in hand.

The balancing act comes to a head when a company makes a decision that seems to fly in the face of sound environmental policy. The world’s most valuable company, Apple, Inc., is itself dealing with that quandary right now.

Until last week, 39 of Apple’s products sat comfortably on the list of devices certified by the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool. That is, until Apple requested that the organization remove those 39 products. Why is this significant? The move effectively removes Apple from being part of some public sector procurement efforts—San Francisco, for one, whose Department of Environment sent a letter to their government agencies announcing that Apple laptops and desktops are no longer qualified purchases.

Apple responded by explaining their frustration with the EPEAT standards, which even the governing organization admits are old. And to Apple’s credit, they’ve been at the forefront of positive news for their efforts to develop green data centers to support their various cloud-based services. Apple’s not alone—Google and a host of other tech companies have been very open about their efforts to lessen the GHG impact of their operations. 
 Apple recently won approval to build a 20-megawatt solar farm at their new data center in North Carolina

We can’t run from technology just because it’s a burden of the environment; it’s just too important to what we do, and what we need to accomplish on a day-to-day basis. And we need to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to keep our world running (that’s the adaptation side of this). But much of the mitigation efforts that some think is still a means for slowing climate change impacts can be fueled by technology, just as it can be inhibited. So a conversation needs to happen now. We need stakeholders at the table to figure out what works best—and how we’re going to make it happen.

2 comments:

  1. Interesting issues raised in this post. But what do we do? How are users supposed to know which technology is a true win-win? It seems so complicated even experts have opinions in conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you start by having a clear idea of what you're trying to accomplish. We're reaching a point in which there will be diminishing returns to our mitigation efforts. At some point the attention needs to start shifting to adaptation. That's not saying mitigation goes out the window - it's clearly a strategy that needs to be pursued while we still can - but realistically speaking, adaptation planning needs to start now as part of an organization's risk assessment work.

    To answer your question bluntly, a win-win is a strategy to adopt any technology or "hardening" initiative that helps an organization achieve its strategic goals - we're trying to say that presuming a risk from climate change should be part of an organization's strategic planning to begin with. Burying power lines is a big part of the post-derecho landscape here in the DC area. But it should be done not only because above-ground lines are at risk of a changing climate but also because it adds a layer of fragility to our local economic landscape. We can't continue to shut down as a region whenever a major storm rolls through - it's bad for business.

    The encouraging thing is that the private sector clearly has sustainability of its operations on its mind - there are a lot of companies doing great work to prepare themselves for the impacts of a changing climate, or are developing tools and technology that will aid others as they prepare themselves. Those same stakeholders should support policy and public sector initiatives that help reach those goals as well.

    ReplyDelete