First, let’s remember that digital technology is by no means virtual. French men and women own numerous digital devices—smartphones, smart TVs, tablets, computers, speakers, and connected devices, among others—whose use relies on physical infrastructure: sensors, 4G-5G antennas, Wi-Fi hotspots, data centers, underground cables, and more. All of this equipment is necessary for the deployment and use of digital services, whether in mobile apps, government services, or local government services.
By 2030, if the sector continues to grow at its current rate, the digital sector’s carbon footprint in France (excluding, for example, the use of data centers located abroad) will increase by approximately 45% compared to 2020, and the consumption of abiotic resources (metals and minerals) will rise by 14%.
In addition to this environmental cost associated with manufacturing, the impacts in the sectors where digital devices are used must also be considered—including, for example, the consequences of changes in user behavior (such as increased commuting distances due to remote work or the early replacement of smartphones following the rollout of 5G) and societal transformations, such as an acceleration in the consumption of goods and services.
Given the environmental cost of digital technology, we need to consider how to limit it. Two complementary approaches can be taken: efficiency and moderation, or frugality.
The first aims to optimize the resources used once the service has been designed or even deployed. The goal is to create a more efficient tool—one that provides the same service while using fewer resources.
The second approach—based on simplicity or frugality—aims to achieve “sufficiency.” It seeks to reduce the overall use of material and energy resources by questioning consumption patterns, the organization of society, needs, and underlying values. It opens up the possibility of not implementing certain services and of questioning certain business models.
Addressing the frugality of a digital service requires a full understanding of the implications of this concept. The common tendency to reduce digital frugality to a mere pursuit of energy efficiency—and, at times, material efficiency—in the service itself opens the door to accusations of “greenwashing.”
Assessing the frugality of a digital service therefore requires examining usage patterns and needs in light of planetary boundaries and evaluating the system’s efficiency.
This assessment can only be relative (by comparing two equivalent systems) and not absolute. It must be based on established methodologies for quantitatively and qualitatively assessing environmental impacts—such as the general eco-design framework for digital services or the ISO standards for life cycle assessment and digital impacts —and must be weighed against the benefits provided to society and the environment. It is also worth noting the general framework for frugal AI in AFNOR Specification 2314.
Defining a service as having a “positive impact” would require conducting this comprehensive environmental assessment and striking a balance among various impact indicators (water and soil pollution, destruction of abiotic resources, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.). This goes far beyond simply noting an increase in efficiency.
This article is part of the series “The Other Side of Words, ” which explores how our vocabulary expands and adapts as social issues emerge and new challenges arise in science and technology. Terms we thought we already knew well are taking on new meanings, and newly coined words are making their way into the dictionary. Where do they come from? How do they help us fully grasp the nuances of a changing world?
From “validism” to “silencing, ” from “bifurcating” to “degendering, ” our researchers examine these neologisms to help us better understand them—and thus participate more effectively in the public debate. Also in this series:
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.
