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. |
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.
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteTo 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.