From marginal to structural approaches to climate change – The case of IT

Almost every day there are reports about the increased CO2 contribution from the IT/ICT sector. The sad thing is that almost all of them (I have not found one of the major magazines running a story about the potential of IT/ICT). The latest two, that I got in my inbox today, is in New Scientist and a Reuter article (even if I have to say that Reuter is one of the few mainstream outlets that actually have covered the potential of ICT to reduce CO2)

It makes me a bit sad to see that Consumer Electronics Show (CES) will go for offsetting through planting trees and will try to see if they could support a scheme where “offsetting” can be used to trigger a really sustainable development and address the problem that is being offset. In the case of CES the obvious way would be to invest in virtual meetings/video conferencing infrastructure so we do not need to fly so much in the future… For an outline of such a project see this page.

Obviously it is not totally unimportant with the direct and LCA impact of IT and high tech equipment, but we must start to focus on the role this sector have in the transition towards a low carbon economy. That require us to move a way from a perspective where we look at each sector and see how they can (on the margin) reduce their reductions and shift the focus to how we can provide the services (right temperature, light, meetings, transportation, etc) we need. Then we start asking the questions that can guide us to the structural changes we need to see.

See this page for more information about my work in this area.

The climate discussion 30 years ago in Sweden – can you spot the difference?

Found this clip on YouTube when Olof Palme talks to Shirley MacLaine. It is from 1977 and a few minutes are spent on the energy issue. Those talking about climate as a new issue should remember that it was used as an argument to defend the investments in Nuclear Power in Sweden already then, and that the nuclear plants should only be there as a transition… Sounds frightening similar to the discussions today here in Sweden 30 years later.

If we need to change the energy system in about 8 years to avoid dangerous climate change we should remember that a lot of people in power today have seen pretty much the same discussion for more than 30 years without changing, even if the danger/promises then focused on nuclear meltdown/transmutation and today it is coal (climate change/CCS).

When will we see an end to the focus on end-of-pipe solutions like transmutation and CCS?

The whole interview (energy part 22:30-28:30) can be found here.

Food and ICT – solutions for the future

A simple breakdown of the impact we have on the planet as individuals show that three areas are dominating, housing/infrastructure, transportation and food. The last few years I have focused on the first two, but I now find myself in different contexts where food is the focus. The increased pressure on natural resources will result in a situation where we need to think a lot more about how we use the available land. Food, energy, fuel and material is all needed at the same time as we need to preserve the little untouched nature we have.

Will talk about the link between ICT and the food industry later this spring and by then I will have a few things written in the "One billion tonnes project":

http://www.ciesit.com/

Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Giuliani

I find it amazing that most of western media is so focused on the American election. I would guess that more people know the names of three candidates in the US than the name of China’s and India current prime ministers/presidents.

I would like to explore the possibility to introduce an “(re-)emerging economy knowledge index” as well as an “engagement index” for countries in the OECD. That might be able to differentiate between those how will fade away and those who will still play a role 20 years from now…

PS:

Hu Jintao, Wen Jiabao, Manmohan Singh and Pratibha Devisingh Patil

The end of climate conferences as we know them - From problem to opportunities and from talk to action 2008

So far most of the “action” from large companies have been little more than talk, talk and talk. Some time linking it to PR material meant for more talk (Like Vattenfall’s work with McKinsey and their 3C initiative), just green washing campaigns aiming to convince people that even though they are investing in unsustainable solutions and only have a symbolic activities in sustainable areas (Basically all automotive companies, and especially their business associations, and oil/energy companies), or sponsoring things that do not change their business models (most philanthropic work in the carbon intensive industries).

However more and more people now understand that it is real action that is needed. Some who have been organizing conferences for years without any other result that talk are getting nervous and want to see some real result.

I have been looking into the possibility to rate conferences depending on how much real action they are resulting in (note that talk is not bad, it is just that it is almost the only thing we have today).

A few conferences January-March that could be possible arenas for new thinking include (and where I’m trying to do my best for result that delivers):

- Davos/WEF
http://www.weforum.org/en/events/AnnualMeeting2008/index.htm

- Sustainable Energy Week (Participation in GeSI panel and they pay for it)
http://www.eusew.eu/page.cfm?page=events&selEvent=115

-UNEP Expert meeting on trade and climate, Geneva
http://www.unep.ch/etb/events/index.php

- BITKOM, Sustainable ICT, Berlin (Invitation to talk about sustainable ICT)
http://www.bitkom.org/Default.aspx

- Greening the Economy, European Business Forum, Brussels
http://www.ebsummit.eu/

As I will be in Europe then the list is EU based, but as I move first to Asia and then US I will track other conferences. Gartner in Las Vegas could be a key event later this spring for example…