Techs for the future I: the false promises of “green growth”

Climate change and the promise of “green growth”

It is no news that anthropogenic climate change is happening. The latest IPCC report gives us 12 years to change course in order to avoid the most dramatic consequences [see e.g. 1] - and that estimate is likely to be far too conservative [see e.g. 2-4].

We need, urgently, to reduce our greenhouse gases emissions. The popular option on how to achieve this involves the concept of “green growth”, which according to the OECD means

fostering economic growth and development, while ensuring that natural assets continue to provide the resources and environmental services on which our well-being relies. To do this, it must catalyse investment and innovation which will underpin sustained growth and give rise to new economic opportunities. [5]

Following the same lines, the UK Government published its Green Growth Strategy in October 2017 [6]. The document states that

Clean growth means growing our national income while cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Achieving clean growth, while ensuring an affordable energy supply for businesses and consumers, is at the heart of the UK’s Industrial Strategy. It will increase our productivity, create good jobs, boost earning power for people right across the country, and help protect the climate and environment upon which we and future generations depend.

In her foreword to the related Industrial Strategy published in September 2017 [7], the Prime Minister outlines three of the four areas it focuses on, writing that the Strategy will “help propel Britain to a global leadership of the industries of the future - from artificial intelligence and big data to clean energy and self-driving vehicles”. 

There is no talk of the climate crisis, of the humility and sobriety needed to tackle it, of what the promoted technologies require in terms of energy and raw materials. The promise is that “clean” energy combined with AI and smart technologies will make everything better as we seamlessly transition to a low-carbon, business-as-usual economy. The promise is we can keep consuming because soon, everything will be clean, green and smart: the energy, the materials, the cities, the cars, the growth. Here again are signs of the die hard myth that yet more advanced, complex technologies will solve our current problems without us having to make major adjustments nor question the way we live. 

Switching to large-scale renewable energy production while ensuring continuity of supply at the current consumption levels would involve a dramatic increase in energy production from renewable sources; the development of ‘smart-grids’ to optimise energy distribution across the networks and manage the intermittency of production and variability of demand; and improved energy storage capacities. Unfortunately, the feasibility of this scenario is fast hitting physical barriers. A more sober look at the facts yields a completely different picture. 

Energy and metals, pressures on both counts

In terms of energy, we are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels. The renewable energy sector is growing, but so far the energy it produces has been in addition to, rather than instead of fuel-based energy sources (fossil fuels, nuclear, bio-fuels) for the world keeps consuming more. In 2017, the growth of global primary energy consumption reached 2.2%, the fastest since 2013 [8]. In addition, we are still burning fossil fuel at increasing rates: the 2017 figures give an increase of 1.8% in global oil consumption, 1% in coal consumption (the first growth since 2013), 3% in natural gas (the fastest since 2010). Figure 1 shows the growth of global energy consumption of the last 25 years.

Figure 1: World consumption of primary energy

(BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018 [8])

There are still a lot of untapped fossil fuel reserves that we seem still keen to access (e.g. tar sands in Canada, fracking in the UK) but these are harder to reach, as measured for example using the EROI, the Energy Returned On Energy Invested, which is the ratio of energy produced to energy invested. The EROI can vary significantly: for example, if investing 1 baril of petrol produces an estimated average of 40 barils in the onshore fields of Saudi Arabia, it only produces 10-15 barils offshore, 5 barils via fracking, and 3 via tar sands exploitation. So as the accessible reserves diminish, we need to invest more and more energy to get less in return. [9 p.63, 10]. 

At this stage, another, non-renewable, resource needs bringing into the equation: metals. In order to extract energy from less accessible sources, more metals are needed - in the case of petrol, compare a gushing Texan well with an offshore platform and its surrounding crowd of ships and helicopters. Here is the conundrum highlighted by engineer Philippe Bihouix in his book L'âge des low-techs [9]: we need more energy to produce more metals, whilst at the same time, we need more metals to reach less accessible energy. We are fast approaching a very physical limit.

So far, I have mainly commented on petrol as an energy source (which most means of transportation rely on), and we obviously need to “keep it in the ground” as many (myself included) argue - so what about renewable energies? 

The first thing to note is they depend heavily on fossil fuels for their production, installation, maintenance and raw materials (extraction, refining, transportation), so we can't do without petrol just yet - even if we agree to drastically reduce consumption.

Second, the “green” and digital technologies used for renewable energy supplies rely on increasingly complex electronics, which depends on access to rare metals [11]. These elements are present in the Earth’s crust in association to more abundant metals like iron, aluminium, copper, or zinc but in very weak concentrations. For example, 50 000 kg of rocks need purifying to access 1 kg of gallium (Ga), a metal with applications in the electronics industry [12 p.16]. Rare metals, and in particular those called rare earths, have very interesting physical properties that make them prime candidates for use in modern technologies: semi-conducting properties, so they are highly prized for smart or digital application; strong magnetic properties, which enable the manufacture of light yet powerful magnets for use in motors, e.g. in electric cars or wind turbines. In his book La guerre des métaux rares, journalist Guillaume Pitron warns

Our quest for a greener growth model has rather led to intensified exploitation of the earth’s crust to extract its active principle: rare metals, with environmental impacts even greater than those caused by the extraction of petrol. To change our energy model requires doubling the production of rare metals every 15 years, and will require extracting over the next 30 years more minerals than humanity has extracted over the last 70000 years. [translated from 12 p.24]

Indeed, supply issues are predicted to affect some elements within the next decades as illustrated in Figure 2. For example, indium (In), which is used in the transparent indium tin oxide (ITO) conducting film of touch screens as well as in blue LEDs, is at risk to be used up within 50 years if current consumption trends carry on [13].

Figure 2: Element Scarcity EuChemS Periodic Table [13]

Unsurprisingly, the quest for these precious resources is already generating geopolitical tensions - not only are those elements essential to “green” and digital technologies, they are also key to the latest military technologies. At the moment, China controls over 90% of the production of rare earths and has the power to largely influence the market as well as to force technological transfers to its shore [12].

There is of course the question of recycling. Could we not recycle old electronics to mine for those minerals? This is the line that Japan is taking to regain some independence of supplies but progress is slow [12 pp.70], even if the country is on target to produce most if not all of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics medals out of recycled metals from old electronics [14]. The main obstacle to recycling is that hi-tech objects (and bear in mind nowadays that could be a kettle, or a pair of socks) contain increasingly mixed materials and complex alloys that can no longer be separated efficiently. Methods are difficult to find, often involve polluting processes, and the costs remain prohibitive. Printed circuit boards with ever smaller components are a a prime example; worse is the dispersive use of metals as pigments or additives, and in nanotechnologies [9 p.68]. “Circular economy” will never be achieved and even if we can do better, we are still very far from the mark as shown by the recycling rates in Figure 3. It is also worth noting that since the demand for these rare metals is growing, talking of circular economy doesn’t make much sense for the additional resources required to feed the growth still have to come from somewhere: “circular economy” and “ green growth” are not compatible.

Figure 3: The periodic table of global average post-consumer functional recycling - i.e. in which the physical and chemical properties that made the material desirable in the first place are retained for subsequent use [15].

In addition, our current manufacturing capabilities are such that switch to renewable energy supplies while keeping the current western levels of binge consumption is a physical impossibility [see e.g. 9 p.75]. The delays in which we are required to act are so short that we cannot rely on new energy technologies to be deployed in time to help with climate change [16].

Finally, it is also worth pointing out that the majority of renewable energy sources have an EROI on average no higher than 12:1. Estimates show that the minimum EROI necessary to offer the level of services expected in modern societies: a satisfaction of essential needs in terms of food, shelter, and sanitation; state provisions such as justice, defense, health, education; and entertainment has been estimated to lie between 12:1 and 13:1. With declining fossil fuel EROIs and renewables managing just that, we’re fast approaching a threshold when difficult choices will need to be made [see 17 p.54]. Even if there are dissensions on the meaning and use of those estimates [18], it should be clear that any energetic transition to a low-carbon economy will require large-scale compromise.

“Green” technologies aren't green; digital technologies aren't dematerialised

In addition to supply issues is a much darker aspect I have only hinted at up to now: pollution. Technologies branded as “green” are a far cry from being either “green” or “clean” (though they could be made “greener” and “cleaner”). However in Europe in particular, we no longer see a pollution that has been exported due to increasing concerns for our own environment. G. Pitron describes how stricter, yet highly justified environmental rules caused US company Molycorp to abandon its mining activities at Mountain Pass in California in 2002 or forced French chemical giant Rhône-Poulenc (now part of Solvay) to stop its rare earths refining activities at its La Rochelle factory in the mid-90s [12, ch.3]. Both firms ended up buying their rare metals from China, who was able to offer a cheaper supply than its competitors thanks to few environmental restrictions and cheap labour costs.

Europe and the US knew the real cost of extracting rare earths in a cleaner way that would not endanger future generations. However we chose to close our eyes to what was going on in China, says a French expert. [translated from 12 p.92]

Extracting rate metals involves breaking huge quantities of rocks, which then go through complex processes involving toxic chemical reactants such as sulfuric or nitric acid. The procedure uses up a lot of water; tailing ponds filled with toxic material leak; waste waters are released into the environment charged with acids, heavy metal and radioactive elements such as thorium (Th) with limited treatment. The region of Baotou in Inner Mongolia, now known as “the rare earth capital of the world” has greatly suffered and more than one visiting western journalist describes it as “hell” [12 chapter 2, 19, 20]. The image below shows “Baotou's toxic lake”, what used to be farmlands.

In Baotou, Inner Mongolia, the worlds largest rare earth mineral refinery pumps toxic and radioactive tailings into an adjacent artifical lake. © Liam Young/Unknown Fields [21]

Tim Maughan writes 

We reached the shore, and looked across the lake. I’d seen some photos before I left for Inner Mongolia, but nothing prepared me for the sight. It’s a truly alien environment, dystopian and horrifying. The thought that it is man-made depressed and terrified me, as did the realisation that this was the byproduct not just of the consumer electronics in my pocket, but also green technologies like wind turbines and electric cars that we get so smugly excited about in the West. [20]

China’s is not the only environment (soil, water, plants, animals, people) suffering from high-tech’s reliance on rare metals, as headlines regularly remind us. Congo in particular is suffering from the unregulated artisanal mining of cobalt (Co), tungsten (W) and tantalum (Ta), which often fuels armed conflict and child labour as well as causes environmental damage [see e.g. 12 ch. 2; 22-24]. Furthermore, rare metals are not the only raw material required for “green techs”. Lithium (Li) is another element for which demand is increasing exponentially with the growth of the electric car market and whose sourcing creates huge environmental problems, e.g. toxic leaks in Tibet, water shortages in South America and more [23].

Now if we focus on digital technologies, it is crucial to realise that they are a far cry from being dematerialised, in a cloud somewhere. All the environmental impacts from sourcing raw materials detailed above apply to the hardware (e.g. see Figure 2 for a list of elements included in smartphones, including which are labelled as “conflict minerals”). In addition there is the increasing amount of energy required to store data; to transport the increasing volume of information we send daily through the network; to perform calculations, in particular those required for cryptocurrencies [see e.g. 25 - 28]. 

The Guardian’s Climate Home News writes that

The communications industry could use 20% of all the world’s electricity by 2025, hampering attempts to meet climate change targets and straining grids as demand by power-hungry server farms storing digital data from billions of smartphones, tablets and inter-connected devices grows exponentially. [25]

Indeed, Figure 4 gives recent predictions from carbon transition think tank The Shift Network. Their model implies that the energy consumption from communications technology increases annually by 8.5% [29].

Figure 4: Percentage of the world's electricity used by communication technologies. 

The 'Best Case', 'Expected' and 'Worse Case' are scenarios from Andrae & Edler (2015) [30] and correspond to increase in electricity efficiency and decrease in data traffic; efficiency and traffic data similar to the period 2010-2013; decrease in electricity efficiency and increase in data traffic, respectively. The 'Expected revised' and 'Revised higher growth and Energy Efficiency' are revised calculations by the Shift Network corresponding to the 'Expected' case with updated traffic data; and with increasing traffic data (at an updated rate) as well as increase in electricity efficiency from 2015.

The Shift Network identify four main sources of increase in energy consumption: the smartphone phenomenon (split between 90% at the production phase, and 10% from usage - end-of-life processing is not taken into account as it remains marginal and there is no data); the increase in “connected objects”; the development of the “IIoT”, Industrial Internet of Things; and the explosion of data traffic in particular due to videos [29 p.14]. Needless to say, they argue for sobriety if we are to meet any carbon targets.

Conclusions and further remarks

The arguments and figures above support the viewpoint that hi-techs and “green growth” are not a miracle answer to the challenge posed by anthropogenic climate change. At some point, we need to understand that exponential growth of material consumption and energy use on a planet with finite resources is simply not an option, and as the global warming clock ticks, not even in the short term. So we must ask ourselves, now: how much energy to we really need? What kind of transportation do we want for the future? How much data and videos do we genuinely need access to? How do we want to communicate so that it doesn't cost the Earth? This is not for experts to decide; these are be topics for urgent citizen debate.

Now let’s assume for a moment that climate change isn’t happening and that resources are infinite. Is business as usual OK? I would still argue that the same questions need to be asked and dramatic changes made, for the following reasons. In order to evaluate the environmental impact of a technology and its ethical status, its full life-cycle must be considered. It is clear to me that the large-scale pollution, environmental destruction, and global injustice wrought by the manufacture (and disposal) of modern “green” and digital technologies is enough to warrant a genuine debate on where our society wants to go with them. In addition, relying on increasingly complex networks and large-scale “green” energy production plants will ensure that energy supplies remain controlled by corporations and states, thus negating the opportunity for relocalisation of the energy supply and increased democracy (see this previous post and reference to Langdon Winner’s work). Finally, increased network complexity will increase vulnerability to systemic failures, when small perturbations can have dramatic consequences. An example is the huge blackout caused by a solar storm, which left the entire province of Quebec without electricity for 12 hours in March 1989 [31]. The systemic aspects requires much deeper investigation beyond our scope here.

It all sounds doom and gloom, but that is certainly not the aim of this blog. The message is that unless we look at reality as it is, rather than at a more convenient, virtual, smoothed out version of it; unless we realise that the world is as it is because of human choices and that we can make the choice to change everything, then we will not be able to work towards a better future. At the moment, we are still rushing ahead, researchers coerced to follow the funding lines, the public being told that high-techs, AIs and driverless electric cars are the future. We’re driving the innovation car at increasing speed, except that at then end of the road, there’s a cliff, and technological wings won’t be ready in time. 

It is time to wake up, pause and think more deeply than the surface. What kind of world to we want to build? What technologies are required for this? I do not have answers to those questions, which require addressing in a genuinely democratic debate. I can only offer suggestions of what I think is worth investigating further and one interesting option is to follow Philippe Bihouix's idea to go ‘low-tech’ [9]. This will be explored in the next post.

________________________________

[1] Jonathan Watts. "We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN", The Guardian, 8th October 2018. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report [accessed: 30th January 2019]

[2] Jon Queally. "What’s not in the latest IPCC report? The 'much, much, much more terrifying' new research on climate tipping points", Common Dream, 11th October 2018 [Online]. Available: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/09/whats-not-latest-terrifying-ipcc-report-much-much-much-more-terrifying-new-research [accessed 30th January 2019]

[3] David Wallace-Wells. "UN say climate genocide is coming. It’s actually worse than that", Intelligencer, New York Media, 10th October 2018. Available:http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html [accessed: 4th February 2019]

[4] Bill MCGuire. "An alarmist's guide to climate change", Responsible Science, vol. 1, Winter 2019. Available: http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/alarmist-s-guide-climate-change [accessed 8th March 2019].

[5] Green growth and sustainable development. OECD. www.oecde.org [Online]. Available: http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/ [Accessed 30th January 2019]

[6] HM Government. The Green Growth Strategy, Leading the way to a low carbon future, October 2017. Crown copyright 2017. Availablehttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/700496/clean-growth-strategy-correction-april-2018.pdf[Accessed 4th February 2019]

[7] HM Government. Industrial Strategy, Building a Britain fit for the future, November 2017. Crown copyright 2017. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/730048/industrial-strategy-white-paper-web-ready-a4-version.pdf [Accessed 4th February 2019]

[8] BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018, BP, June 2018. Available: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf [accessed 8th March 2019]

[9] Philippe Bihouix, L’Age des Low Tech : Vers une civilisation techniquement soutenable, Editions du Seuil, Paris, 2014.

[10] C.A.S Hall et al. “EROI of different fuels and the implications for society”, Energy Policy, vol. 64, pp.141-152, 2014.

[11] Various sources have various definitions for ‘rare metals’. I found the following website helpful: http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/elements/index.html [Accessed 4th March 2019]. What I include when talking about ‘rare metals’ are what they call: RREs (rare earth elements), PGEs (platinum group elements), and RMs (rare metal elements).

[12] Guillaume Pitron, La guerre des métaux rares: la face cachée de la transition énergétique et numérique, Les Liens qui Liberent, Paris, 2018.

[13] Element Scarcity - EuChemS Periodic Table, European Chemical Society, https://www.euchems.eu/ [Online]. Available: https://www.euchems.eu/euchems-periodic-table/ [accessed 8th March 2019]

[14] Tokyo 2020 medals.  https://tokyon2020.org [Online].

Available: https://tokyo2020.org/en/games/medals/ [Accessed 6th March 2019]

[15] UNEP (2013) Metal Recycling: Opportunities, Limits, Infrastructure, A Report of the Working Group on the Global Metal Flows to the International Resource Panel. Reuter, M. A.; Hudson, C.; van Schaik, A.; Heiskanen, K.; Meskers, C.; Hagelüken, C.

[16] R. Gross et al.’ “How long does innovation and commercialisation in the energy sectors take? Historical case studies of the timescale from invention to widespread commercialisation in energy supply and end use technology”, Energy Policy, vol.123, pp.682-699, December 2018.

[17] Pablo Servigne and Raphael Stevens, Comment tout peut s’effondrer: Petit manuel de collapsologie a l’usage des generations presentes, Editions du Seuil, Paris, 2015.

[18] M. Raugei. “Net energy analysis must no compare apples and oranges”, Nature Energy, vol. 4, pp.86-88, February 2019.

[19] C. Boutron, “Rare-earth mining in China comes at a heavy cost for local villages”, The Guardian, 7th August 2018. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution [Accessed 25th Februay 2019]

[20] T. Maughan, “The dystopian lake filled by the world’s tech lust”, BBC Future, 2nd April 2015. www.bbc.com/future [Online]. Available:http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth [Accessed 25th February 2019]

[21] Behind The Scenes of Technology: Inner Mongolia Rare Earth Mineral Mines, images by Liam Young/ Unknown Fields, 2014. www.unknownfieldsdivision.com [Online]. Available: http://www.unknownfieldsdivision.com/summer2014china-aworldadriftpart02.html#6 [accessed 11the March 2019]

[22] J. Conca, “Blood batteries - Cobalt and the Congo”, Forbes, 26th September 2018. www.forbes.com [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/09/26/blood-batteries-cobalt-and-the-congo/#150b5addcc6e [Accessed 25th February 2019]

[23] Amit Katwala. “The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction”, Wired, 5th August 2018. wired.co.uk [Online]. Available:https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact [Accessed 25 February 2019]

[24] Nick Heath, “How conflict minerals funded a war that killed millions, and why tech giants are finally cleaning up their act”, 2015 (?), TechRepublic.www.techrepublic.com [Online]. Available: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-conflict-minerals-funded-a-war-that-killed-millions/ [Accessed: 25th February 2019] 

[25] “‘Tsunami of data’ could consume one fifth of global electricity by 2025”, by Climate Home News, part of the Guardian Environment Network, The Guardian, 11th December 2017. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/tsunami-of-data-could-consume-fifth-global-electricity-by-2025 [Accessed 27th February 2019]

[26] John Harris, “Our phones and gadgets are endangering the planet”, The Guardian, 17th July 2018. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/17/internet-climate-carbon-footprint-data-centres [accessed 27th February 2019]

[27] Tom Bawden, “Global warming: Data centres to consume three times as much energy in next decade, experts warn”, The Independent, 23rd January 2016. Available: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-data-centres-to-consume-three-times-as-much-energy-in-next-decade-experts-warn-a6830086.html [accessed 27th February 2019]

[28] Samantha Page, “Mining Bitcoin is as energy intensive as mining gold”, Cosmos, 6th November 2018. www.cosmosmagazine.com [Online]. Available:https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/mining-bitcoin-is-as-energy-intensive-as-mining-gold [accessed 27 February 2019]

[29] H. Ferreboeuf & al. Lean ICT - Pour une sobriété numérique - rapport intermédiaire. The Shift Project, March 2018. Available: https://theshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018-05-17_Rapport-intermédiaire_Lean-ICT-Pour-une-sobriété-numérique.pdf [accessed 11th March 2019]

[30] Andrae, A., & Edler, T. (2015). On Global Electricity Usage of Communication Technology: Trends to 2030. Challenges, 117 - 157. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/6/1/117 [accessed 11th March 2019]

[31] Sten Odenwald, “The day the sun brought darkness”, Nasa, 13th March 2009. www.nasa.gov  [Online]. Available: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/sun_darkness.html [accessed 6th March 2019] 

On the scale of China’s manufacturing power

Many of our electronic and electrical objects are ‘made in China’. Fairphone’s handsets are no exception and they write that ‘in 2015, 771.4 million smartphones were produced in China’ [1]. An article from the Economist of the same years states that 70% of mobile phones were manufactured in China [2]. These numbers were for me just abstract figures until I had a look at the photos and videos I am pointing out below. If you haven’t come across these yet, but own any kind of electronic good, then do have a look. There will be little commentary since what is described there – the scale of China’s manufacturing power – completely baffles me. 

       

Fairphone 1 production line, Chongqing, China, 2013 © Fairphone

One of Fairphone’s four ethical goals is ‘Good Working Conditions’ [1]. They are aware that fast, affordable production often comes at the expense of the workforce and take a multi-stakeholder approach to improve working conditions in the factories producing their handsets. The video below is from a visit to the Fairphone 1 manufacturing plant in Chongqing in 2013 [3]. You will see a smiling, 23 year-old employee saying:

As the leader of the assembly line, working 10h30 a day is very normal, because we need to finish things up and it’s not that long.

First Fairphone Production, December 2013 from Fairphone on Vimeo.

This brought me back to the first time I saw images of production lines in China. I had come across Manufactured Landscapes, a 2006 documentary directed by Jennifer Baichwal on the work of landscape fine arts photographer Edward Burtynsky. The film focuses in particular on his journeys to China, documenting the country’s industrial revolution [4,5]. This is the trailer [6]:

 Manufactured Landscape trailer, accessed via YouTube

 

Burtynsky’s photographs are stunningly beautiful, yet (I find) frightening - I thouroughly recommend browsing his website [7]. What haunts me when watching his images is the inhuman scale of the industrial project they depict. What also struck me very forcefully when watching Manufactured Landscapes is the utter meaninglessness of our consumerist society, which demands that irons be produced in vast quantities in a Chinese factory, only to return to China a few years later as part of a growing pile of electrical waste.

Burtynsky gave a TED talk [8], on Manufactured Landscapes (see also the related blog [9]):

Ed Burtynsky's TED prize acceptance talk, accessed via YouTube

Of course, do watch the whole half-an-hour or so. I would just like to point out a couple of frames relating to China and electronics. 

Just before 18 minutes in, you can see a short video of one of the fastest assembly line workers in an electronics factory. And she is fast. Individuals there seem to merge into a robotic chain as their work demands they perform mindless repetitive tasks at speed. Burtynsky comments that taking a still shot was really challenging and that he needed to have the manager ask workers to actually freeze for a few seconds. Yet it seems that people are willing to populate those factories; to leave the countryside; to work long hours; to eat at the canteen – in  8 to 10 minutes, Burtynsky witnessed; to sleep in dorms. 

Then 23 minutes in, images turn to recycling villages, where people are organised in small-scale family-sized workshops. There, workers burn the circuit boards on coal fires to extract the components and recycle the valued metals within, releasing toxic fumes in the process. Burtynsky says:

When you come into a town that actually does this kind of burning of the boards, you can smell it a good 5 or 10 kilometres before you get there.

Further on recycling, I found this picture gallery from the Guardian [10]. The images are Kai Loeffelbein’s photographs of e-waste recycling in Guiyu, southern China. The artisanal workshops pictured there have now been closed down to be replaced by an official recycling industrial park as China attempts to clamp down on pollution and turns towards addressing its own growing e-waste problems rather than treating imports. These are then channelled towards other countries, for the increasing amount of Western e-waste still needs outlets [11].

I do not know enough about the history of the Industrial Revolution to assess the extent to which  what is happening in China echoes what happened in 18th and 19th century Europe. Yet my feeling is that the scale of the process in terms of size and speed is very different. And we shouldn't forget that this is a global process, a process driven by our seemingly bottomless need for consumer goods, by the increasingly powerful tools and techniques we have to access resources, by our economic system’s complete disregard for the finitude of the Earth. A mad and, if you look at it with some rationality, maddening process that we urgently need to reform if we are to survive the Anthropocene [12]. 
I shall certainly be keeping an eye on Burtynsky and Baichwal’s next collaboration [13].

_______________________

[1] Fairphone. Good working conditions, www.fairphone.com. [Online]. Available:  https://www.fairphone.com/en/our-goals/social-work-values/ [Accessed: 19th June 2018]

[2] Print edition| Leaders. "Made in China", The Economist, 3rd March 2015 [Online]. Available: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/03/12/made-in-china [Accessed: 19th June 2018]
[3] Fairphone video docummentary: First Fairphone production, December 2013. Available: https://vimeo.com/87670743 [Accessed: 19th June 2018]

[4] J. Baichwal, Director, Manufactured Landscapes [DVD]. New York: Zeitgeist Films; 2006.
[5] E. Burtynsky. Films, www.edwardburtynsky.com. [Online]. Available:  https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/projects/films/manufactured-landscapes [Accessed: 19th June 2018]

[6]  Manufactured Landscapes trailer, YouTube, published by YouTube movies on 3rd August 2011 [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVybNCPzG7M [Accessed: 19th June 2018]
[7] E. Burtynsky. https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/ [Online] 

[8] Edward Burtynsky: Manufactured Landscapes, YouTube, published by Ted on 15th April 2008 [Online]. Available:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Dd4k63-zM [Accessed: 19th June 2018] 
[9] L. Jacobs. "Gallery: Edward Burtynsky's extraordinary images of manufactures landscapes", TEDBlog, https://blog.ted.com/ [Online]. Available: https://blog.ted.com/gallery-edward-burtynskys-extraordinary-images-of-manufactured-landscapes/
[Accessed: 19th June 2018]

[10] A. Leach. "The e-waste mountain in pictures", The Guardian, 18th October 2016 [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/gallery/2016/oct/18/the-e-waste-reduce-waste-old-technology-mountains-in-pictures [Accessed: 19th June 2018]

[11] M.Standaert. "China's Notorious E-Waste Village Disappears Almost Overnight", Bloomberg News , 17th December 2015 [Online]. Available: https://www.bna.com/chinas-notorious-ewaste-n57982065266/ [Accessed: 19th June 2018] 

[12] J. Stromberg. "What is the Anthropocene and Are we In It", Smithsonian Magazine, January 2013. Available:   https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/ [Accessed: 19th June 2018]
[13] E. Burtynsky, J Baichwal & N. De Pencier, The Anthropocene Project [Online]. Available: https://theanthropocene.org/ [Accessed: 19th June 2018]

Imagining sustainable electronics - a Festival of Ideas event

For this year’s Festival of Ideas, organised by York University, I have teamed up with colleagues and students from Electronic Engineering at York  to create an event around mobile phone technology.
We’ll begin by looking at the story behind a phone’s handset, unravelling supply chains, design features, and end-of-life disposal options. Our investigation will take the form of an urban mining workshop, following closely the template provided freely by FAIRPHONE [1].
Then we’ll look at the wider societal impacts of this technology using a method of technology assessment pioneered in the context of development work. This method is being used by researchers at York University to involve the local community in the design of water quality sensors in the Pacific Islands of Vanuatu.

Tickets can be booked via the Festival of Ideas website here. Below, I give a bit more detail on the background for this event.


The story behind FAIRPHONE

About a year ago, I felt the need to upgrade to a smartphone, which is a useful and somewhat expected tool to own in today’s western society. There are however many problematic issues related to such consumer electronics, in particular at the beginning and end of their life-cycles:

• the sourcing of raw materials, with issues such as pollution and poor working conditions in mining areas, usually in the Third World, as well as dramatic problems surrounding conflict minerals (see e.g. [2]),
• the recycling and disposal of electronic goods when they are no longer working, or simply out of fashion – in 2018, it is estimated that the global quantity of e-waste generated will reach close to 50 million tons [3].

As a result, I wondered whether there was such a thing as an ‘ethical phone’ on the market, and an internet search very quickly pointed towards FAIRPHONE, an Amsterdam-based company. I agreed a contract with the Phone Coop and received my refurbished handset soon after.

FAIRPHONE’s story is an antidote to the tendency we can have to turn a blind eye on the problems of the world because we believe that’s the way things work, and there isn’t much we can do about it. They didn’t start as a company, but as a campaign to raise awareness of conflict minerals in Eastern Congo [4]. Designing a fair phone was their way of bringing the many issues surrounding consumer electronics to the public eye, and to take practical steps towards finding solutions that would improve the status quo. In their own words:

In 2013, FAIRPHONE launched a movement for fairer electronics. By making a phone, we’re opening up the supply chain and creating new relationships between people and their products. We’re making a positive impact across the value chain in mining, design, manufacturing and life cycle, while expanding the market for products that put ethical values first. Together with our community, we’re changing the way products are made [5].

So what does FAIRPHONE do that allows them to brand their handsets as ‘ethical’?

• They research their supply chain, in particular, they do their best to ensure that the minerals used to make the electronics are mined ethically and do not support armed conflict.
• They design for repair and re-use: the Fairphone 2 is one of the rare modular handsets available on the market, with the possibility to buy spare parts. In addition, it can be charged with any micro USB charger, has a dual sim function and isn’t locked.
• They do their best to ensure that workers involved in the handset’s production in China have decent working conditions (though what counts as decent working conditions there would be hardly acceptable here),
• They investigate recycling options and do offer a recycling scheme.

By making an ethical product, their emphasis is on sharing their story and showing that change is possible – running urban mining workshops has been part of that campaign and we will be using the material, which is freely available to download from their website. They acknowledge that moving towards fairer electronics is work in progress, and highlight that we can all be part of that process. I would put forward the stronger statement that if we use any electronic equipment at all, we should be part of that process and I certainly recommend browsing their website for a wealth of information.

Of course, such initiatives are not going to solve all the issues related to consummer electronics. For example, unravelling the supply chain clearly highlights the kilometres of material transport involved in the fabrication of a handset, and this amount of transportation is unsustainable in times of climate change. Yet it remains that an initiative like FAIRPHONE's raises awareness, not by showing more shocking pictures of child labour or child soldiers or extensive pollution, but by offering a practical way forward, which has its place as part of a wider range of solutions. Crucially, they show that change is possible and I believe their story is worth sharing.


Building water sensors for Vanuatu

In this part of our event we will be using the SHTEPS method of technology assessment. Attendees will be invited to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of mobile phone technology in terms of Social, Health, Technical & Financial, Environmental, Political & Institutional, and Sustainability impacts.

This method is being used by a multi-disciplinary team of researchers from York University who are designing water sensors for communities in the South Pacific islands of Vanuatu (for details and a video see [6]). An essential and novel component of their project is to fully involve the local community at every stage of the design process to ensure that the final product genuinely meets their needs. Whether in the developing world or not, end users are often little consulted on specific design features and are rarely encouraged to think of the wider ramifications of a technology. Therefore, to ensure that the local people understood what was asked of them with respect to the sensors, the researchers began with running a workshop on the more familiar mobile phone technology. The response was tremendous and paved the way for genuine participative design.

It is our hope that running similar workshops at home will raise the public’s interest for technological design and open a genuine debate on the type of technologies that, as a society, we would like to develop to help shape our future.

____________________________


[1] Daria. "Host an Urban Mining Workshop". 2 March 2015. [Blog entry]. Fairphone's blog. Available: https://www.fairphone.com/en/2015/03/02/host-an-urban-mining-workshop/ [Last accessed: 23rd May 2018]
[2] United Kingdom. Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Guidance on Conflict minerals, 19 June 2013. [Online].  Available: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/conflict-minerals [Last accessed: 23rd May 2018]
[3] C.P. Baldé, V. Forti, V. Gray, R. Kuehr and P. Stegmann, "The Global e-waste monitor - 2017", United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/Vienna. Available: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Climate-Change/Pages/Global-E-waste-Monitor-2017.aspx
[4] A. Holligan, "Can an ethical smartphone change the world?" BBC News, The Hague, 16th December 2015 [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35094050 [Last accessed: 23rd May 2018]
[5] Fairphone. About us,  https://www.fairphone.com/en/. [Online]. Available: https://www.fairphone.com/en/about/about-us/?ref=footer [Last accessed: 23rd May 2018]
[6] The University of York Research. "Tropical team work: We're helping a South Pacific community in search of clean water". 22nd June 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.york.ac.uk/research/themes/vanuatu-clean-water/ [Last accessed: 23rd May 2018]