The Environmental Impact of Digital Technology

It’s funny how we don’t really consider the environmental impact of digital communications.

“Would you like to go paperless?” How many times have you been asked that question over the past decade? Whether it’s for bills or online banking or to be emailed your receipt rather than have a paper copy. And the answer has always been a no-brainer. “Of course – I don’t want to use paper unnecessarily, I want to save the trees”. (You probably wouldn’t say that last bit out loud – obviously).

Similarly, environmentally conscious marketers around the globe have been moving offline marketing activities to online channels*. Again, saving trees. And quite right too.

(*Obviously I’m exaggerating a bit here – we haven’t moved away from paper completely because for many industries such channels remain very effective, but we’ve definitely all shifted the balance).

However, the implication is that in going paperless, we are saving the planet. That’s all well and good, provided we’re clear about the environmental impact of digital communications.

In fact the reality is that we’re reducing one issue and replacing it with another. We’ve been sleepwalking our way into a dramatic increase in electricity consumption.

CO2 Emissions

It’s been estimated that greenhouse gas emissions caused by production, operation and disposal of digital devices and their associated infrastructures are between 1.8 and 3.2% of global CO2 emissions (The Borderstep Institute 2020). I’m not sure how accurate this stat is as the environmental impact of digital communication is notoriously complex to calculate, but that is massive – to put this into context the aviation industry produces around 2% of all human-induced CO2 emissions.

So why is it that I would never consider boarding a private jet (let’s be honest I can’t remember the last time I had the opportunity to board an Easyjet let alone a private jet, but for the sake of this point, let’s imagine I had enough disposable income to have the option to frequently fly, I would never board a private jet) due to the impact on the environment, yet I literally don’t think twice about streaming a movie on Netflix? Are the two comparable? Well kind of.

Energy consumption

Every search query, every email, every video streamed, contributes to an ever-increasing global demand for electricity and global CO2 emissions. Every action carried out online travels through data centres and their servers. Processing this data requires an enormous amount of power. It’s estimated that data centres are using 3% of the World’s electricity. And when data is processed, heat is generated as a waste product, and just released into the atmosphere.

That data then needs to be transmitted from the data centre to the user (which requires energy). Then there’s further energy being used to power the user’s device. And this is before we even get into the energy being used to power the manufacturing of said digital device and the associated infrastructure.

Digital

For all the good that the evolution of digital has done for society, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that digital technologies separate people from the physical environments in which they live (think virtual reality by way of extreme example); by separating us from the real world, it could be argued that digital technologies prevent us from really seeing the environmental damage that they’re causing.

We can’t physically see or touch the data that we’re sending and receiving all over the globe – and this makes it easy to turn a blind eye to the continually growing demands it places on energy consumption. There’s also very little data about the environmental impact of digital communications. Everyone knows that flying is bad for the environment. But does everyone know that their daily digital behaviour is impacting the environment? My suspicion is that most people have little comprehension of the environmental impact of digital communications and technology.

So why is this issue not more widely understood?

The climate is at a point of crisis. Digital technologies are a contributing factor. Yet demand for digital technologies continues to rise faster than we could ever have imagined. Do people just not care? My guess is that it’s more an issue of understanding.

Understanding on this subject is limited because there’s not very much (accurate) data available to really shine a spotlight on the issue. Energy consumption of digital technologies is difficult to quantify. In part this is because consumption habits are changing so rapidly. But also it’s because the way the technologies are powered varies greatly.

For example, the CO2 emission intensity of electricity differs by country. So a piece of equipment’s footprint differs depending on where it has been manufactured. 70% of the world’s technological equipment is manufactured in China (where the CO2 emission intensity is thought to be 11 times higher than in some European countries such as France).

Whether or not renewable energy is used in place of fossil fuels to supply electricity to digital technologies (and in particular data centres) also plays a part. And the further information has to travel, the more energy it consumes. As a result, when streaming a video, the user’s footprint varies depending on where the video was streamed from (50% of data centres are located in the USA).

Which digital activities use the most energy?

Despite the lack of accurate data, the biggest causes of the internet’s energy consumption are thought to be cryptocurrencies, and music and video streaming.

In terms of crypto currencies, Bitcoin is the one that is best known. The Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index states that a single Bitcoin transaction consumes 819kWh – the same amount of energy needed to operate a 150 watt refrigerator for 8 months.

It has been claimed that using streaming services such as Spotify or Apple Music is more harmful to the environment than the production (and disposal) of CDs or records.

Online videos are thought to account for more than 60% of Global data transfer. According to the Shift Project, The CO2 consumption of streamed online video (based on measurements taken in 2018) is more than 300 million tonnes per year – the same amount as is emitted by the whole of Spain in a year. How high the emissions are depends heavily on the choice of device (using the internet on a mobile phone uses the most power), the type of network connection, and the resolution (the higher the resolution, the more data is sent and received).

Whilst these are the heavy-hitters, arguably every online action is a contributor to the issue due to the scale at which each action is happening. For example if we were all to send one less email a day, it’s predicted that this simple action would cut carbon output by 16,000 tonnes a year. (So apologies, if I don’t respond to your email with a quick ‘thanks’ from now on).

So what can we do about it?

Am I suggesting the technology is the devil and we throw it all out the window? Absolutely not! Digital marketing’s my livelihood for a start! But even if it weren’t, I don’t believe that the world can tackle the climate crisis without having a Global conversation. That’s exactly what’s happening at COP26 right now. But if we want that Global conversation to continue, digital communication will need to play a central role. And this is true of all Global issues. The internet (despite the flaws we’ve created through lack of Governance) has the potential to be a real force for good. As with anything, change doesn’t happen without compelling communication.

So if we’re not going to stop the demand for digital communications, what can we do?

I think a good starting point is awareness. At the moment we’re all blindly using the tools available to us frivolously without any appreciation for the collective impact we’re having. Once we have awareness, we can start to make better choices. Those choices come at multiple levels:

Industry

The marketing and communications industry needs to lead the way in raising awareness about the environmental impact of digital communications and importantly how to use technology in more sustainable ways.

The technology industry needs to choose planet over profit. For example, by finding more efficient ways to cool data centres, and by finding ways to reuse the waste heat. They also need to choose to power data centres with green energy. And they need to transmit data in more sustainable ways (with fibre optic cables being the most efficient form of transmission technology (as far as I’m Aware)).

The digital giants need to consider sustainability in their algorithms. For example, Google’s algorithm rewards fast site speeds and rich media. Would brands be happy with simpler designs and slower site speeds if it lowered their carbon footprint and didn’t impact their search ranking? Probably – but this requires those with a monopoly over the industry to set the standards.

Communicators

As communicators we need to be more mindful of the digital technologies we’re using:

• We should choose to work with more sustainable data centres, and only buy from environmentally conscious providers.
• We should encourage our colleagues and clients to think about the level of energy they as a brand are comfortable emitting, and try to perform within those boundaries.
• We should avoid wastage in our advertising by targeting efficiently.
• We should choose to use a mix of media types rather than all rich media.
• We should send emails because we have something of value to say to our customers, not simply send for the sake of it.
• We should host our websites close to our target users.
• In fact, there’s a lot we can do to reduce the amount of CO2 that’s produced by our websites:

• We can focus more on SEO. When optimizing a website for search engine rankings we’re helping people to find the information they want quickly and easily. This means less time browsing the web, visiting irrelevant websites and therefore less energy being used unnecessarily.
• Similarly good user experience reduces friction in user journeys, reducing the amount of energy wasted by a user struggling to navigate a web page, which again means less energy being used unnecessarily.
• We can reduce the use of images that don’t add value. And where images do add value, we can reduce the size of the image files. (The larger the image file, the more data needs to be transferred and the larger the impact on energy consumption).
• We can keep video content short and where possible remove the use of auto-play. A website with video playing automatically has a much higher load time, resulting in greater energy consumption.
• And from a coding perspective, we can use less javascript. Javascript adds weight to the web page and increases the amount of processing required.

Interestingly, all of these things are not only better for the planet, but also help to provide a better user experience. There’s a running theme here, which is one of efficiency. By making our comms more energy efficient, we’re also making our performance more efficient because we’re providing a preferable experience to our customers. Win win. Talking of whom…

Consumers

As consumers of technology, we can start to make better choices too. For example, we could limit our use of more impactful services such as streaming services. Or when streaming, we could be more selective about what device we’re streaming to.

 Or… we could just use technology less and go outside more. Radical I know.

Go see those trees you’ve been busy saving. Enjoy that feel-good feeling that nature gives you.

Talking of which – time for a run!