[Translation : EPALE France]

The challenges of the digital transition affect us all without us really realising, with mass deployment of digital technology, access to information, the media and social networks, environmental impact, social issues and political manipulation; all the ingredients for a highly influential tool. In education and training, digital technology is often used as a tool, and sometimes an end in itself. From MOOCs to education in digital uses, understanding the role, risks, contributions and desirable trajectories of digital technology is a way for education and training stakeholders to help guide digital pathways in the right direction.

 A series of three articles to help you better understand the digital and ecological transitions:

Transitions: digital technology cannot be dematerialised and is increasingly affecting the climate (1/3)

Transitions: the social impact of digital technology is not guided by the general interest (2/3)

Transitions: reconciling digital technology and environmental and societal transitions, starting today (3/3)

Transitions: reconciling digital technology and environmental and societal transitions, starting today (3/3)

Digital and environmental transitions: a raft of paradoxes

The environmental transition involves drastically reducing our impact on the environment. Optimising and improving the efficiency of our technical systems is not sufficient; in fact, paradoxically, it is one of the causes of the increase in impacts. This “rebound effect” is visible in the digital sector: thanks to the reduction in electricity consumption by IT systems and the optimisation of terminals, computers have gone from a few dozen units spread across huge rooms to now 8.6 billion smartphones moving around in handbags and jeans pockets (more than the number of human beings!)[i].

In the article Transitions: digital technology cannot be dematerialised and is increasingly affecting the climate (1/3), we saw how quickly the uses and impacts of digital technology are growing. Soon, the Internet of Things (IOT) promises us a proliferation of small connected objects, often requiring a battery and potentially leading to a massive surge in the amount of data in circulation. Carbon emissions from the digital sector are increasing by 6% a year worldwide and by 2 to 4% in France^[ii]. “Without action to limit the rising impact of digital technology on the environmental, the carbon footprint of digital technology could triple between 2020 and 2050.” ^[iii] And yet the Paris Agreement, which aims to keep global warming to an average of +2°C compared with the pre-industrial era, requires that we reach global carbon neutrality by 2050. By 2030, this means a 55% reduction in emissions, which is considerable. All sectors in all countries must therefore make a massive contribution to reducing emissions, not increasing them! For the digital sector in France, the Shift Project recommends setting the French trajectory to a target of -30% by 2030.^[iv] This phenomenon of opposition between the current trajectory and the desirable trajectory for digital technology is identical for water use (with potential future conflicts), pollution (impacts on human health and ecosystems) and impacts on biodiversity (destruction and fragmentation of habitats, pollution of all types).

In a society now in permacrisis[1], the issues of resilience and sovereignty are taking on even greater importance. If our hospital system depends too much on digital technology linked to Big Tech, to the goodwill of suppliers of software coded in India or to American equipment manufacturers integrating chips from Asia, there is a great risk that it will no longer be able to fulfil its function in the event of geopolitical crises or sharp inflation in the price of materials. While digital technology is pervasive and provides many services, it also exposes us to many more risks that we cannot control. The increasing complexity of systems and their growing dependence on digital technology means that this risk is growing. The example of the many hospitals hit by ransomware and unable to provide care following a computer attack is just the beginning.

The environmental transition is not just about the environment, and requires a number of societal conditions to be met if it is to take place under acceptable conditions, such as social justice. For the time being, however, digital technology is contributing more to reproducing inequalities and discrimination than to eliminating them, even though paradoxically it provides invaluable transparency and communication tools for overcoming them.

More generally, it should be noted that there is still a “huge cultural gap between those involved in the digital sector and those involved in sustainable development and the environmental transition. They don't come from the same educational backgrounds, they don't use the same vocabulary, they don't work in the same branches of the organisation charts, the digital sector is massively absent from Agenda 21s and climate plans, and the environment has a very weak presence in digital strategies.” ^[v]

Towards digital technology that is respectful of both human beings and the environment

The first thing that often comes to mind is that the digital industry needs to clean up its act, particularly where the environment is concerned: what is known as “Green IT” involves decarbonising the activities of the digital industry as a whole and significantly reducing the environmental impact that is directly linked to it. We have seen in previous articles the extent to which user devices and infrastructure are at the heart of these impacts. The courses of action therefore involve extending the life of these devices, eco-designing them from the outset, reducing the energy consumption of infrastructure, reducing the need for new equipment, developing the reconditioning, repair and modularity of equipment, upgrading old equipment and raising user awareness. [vi] [vii] These “digital sobriety” policies would make it possible to reduce the environmental footprint of digital by 2030 (-16% for the carbon footprint).[viii] Changing the way we all use digital technology, including in and via education and training, towards less frantic consumption of services and devices will go a long way towards reducing these impacts. If we are to adapt to future environmental crises, the resilience of digital technology must be proven, particularly in relation to what the countries of the South are already experiencing and which foreshadows the future of the countries of the North.[ix] The role of sobriety and low tech[2], and their attractiveness, need to be improved.

Digital tools have significant transformative power, so we can envisage using them as levers to accelerate the environmental transition (this is “IT for Green”). We need to question the purpose of these tools. As far as society's energy needs are concerned, we could use AI to optimise the production of wind farms according to demand[3] or exchange electricity between individual producers of renewable energy and consumers, without the need for intermediaries. But legislation is needed to avoid the risk of Big Tech hegemony in energy management, which is crucial for states and their citizens. Certain digital models have demonstrated their potential for transformation (open-source models, agile methods, etc.), but for these models to make a contribution to environmental issues, they need to have a real environmental intention, an objective, [otherwise] the results will not follow. The failed promises of the collaborative economy are a reminder of this.[x]

The contribution of digital technology to society could be heightened in many areas (this is “IT for Human”). Like the electricity grid, this digital network could be interoperable, easy for everyone to use and last much longer. The idea is to be able to choose how to use it rather than being subjected to it, to make it “emancipating rather than alienating”[xi], without it requiring inordinate and constant attention. Digital technology needs to make us forget about ourselves, allowing us to “lighten up, slow down the pace of life” [xii] rather than perpetually accelerating our lives. We should be able to easily choose how our data is used. Data of general interest and science could benefit from greater transparency rather than hoarding. Democracy and solidarity would be strengthened by a benevolent digital environment, limiting the spread of fake news, violent or instrumentalised emotional content and cyber-harassment, and developing diversity and empathy, tools for consultation and collective decision-making, and the popularisation of political, social and environmental issues.

In education and training, digital technology could do more to promote learning (3D scenarios can reinforce learning, but we mustn't forget the social and emotional needs of learners) and creativity. Instead of contributing to formatting us, make content more accessible via low tech, for example, reduce discrimination and promote education under new, more collective forms of governance. An example: an “Oralpedia” could be an audio encyclopaedia, bringing together the oral memory and culture of people who cannot write or are not at ease with the written word and digital tools.[xiii] Teachers and trainers could have access to more content, collaborative tools and digital training and, in higher education in particular, could work to reconcile the digital and environmental transitions, which are often taught separately. Education in digital civic values would help to develop fairer and more responsible use, particularly through education in tools, media and information, digital issues and responsible practice.

A pivotal moment: do we want to regain control?

Aiming for the ideal of a digital world that is “democratic, empowering, inclusive, protective, equitable, frugal and innovative”[xiv] will help us to find the right direction to take. All that remains to be done is to determine the approach and to understand the urgency of these transformations, summed up in the words of these committed players:

Digital technology is at a pivotal point in its history: it has become the concern of the whole of society, putting politics, the economy, our daily lives and our territories under pressure. These issues have of course been present in information technology for some time. What is new, however, is that these tools are now in the hands of very many people, while at the same time, and on an unprecedented scale, a decisive share of resources, data, revenue and power is held by the giants. But also because today's digital technology is not suited to the world ahead of us.[xv]

Starting by measuring the indicators to be developed and ensuring transparency will mean that actions can be prioritised and a democratic decision-making process can be initiated. Reorganising our society towards more sober use of digital technology should be part of the environmental equation from now on. Training a large number of stakeholders is also part of this, in order to mobilise the necessary skills in the major families of stakeholders. Understanding of the societal and environmental challenges posed by digital technology, as well as the desirable shifts in direction, should therefore be developed at different levels of these families, not to mention the need for technical training for those involved in digital technology and certain users.

Changing the main purpose of digital tools is a profound and complex issue, calling into question the dominant economic principles. So without major government or European intervention (such as developing a high-performance public search engine or imposing very high standards of standardisation), there is no chance that Big Tech will start working for the public good. For example, the Handimap application, which suggests routes accessible to people with reduced mobility, taking into account low pavements, has been hampered in its development by the lack of standardisation of data on road accessibility.[xvi] We therefore need to move beyond regulations that are of course necessary but still slow and lacking in ambition.

The stakeholders in the digital ecosystem have the power (and the duty?) to take immediate concrete action to reduce the total energy and hardware consumption of architectures, devices and software, and to create interfaces that are more respectful of human needs. They can also train their employees and users, contribute to the reflection and dissemination of essential debates on the aims and desirable developments of digital technology, make the decision-making processes based on algorithms transparent and intelligible, develop common goods such as standards or open software, etc.

As there can be no responsible digital approach for an irresponsible organisation[xvii], we have to question the economic models at work. This is an arduous undertaking, and ideally, we would divide the private market into three categories: listed companies, unlisted companies and companies in the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE). Listed companies would not be able to support digital projects of general interest, such as public software of interest to society.[xviii]

In order to decide on relevant, acceptable and accepted directions, we need to take the time to analyse, debate, question, imagine, develop institutions and standards, dare to be radical and transparent (about decisions and funding), and realise that we all have a role to play as individuals and professionals. We mustn’t be fooled by the impression of a technological lock-in[4]: do we really want to let technology decide for us?

Illustration : Joshua Sortino, Unsplash

[1] Neologism: Perpetual state of crisis (economy, energy, environment, health, armed conflicts, etc.)

[2] Objects, systems, techniques, services, know-how, practices, lifestyles and ways of thinking that integrate technology according to three main principles: useful, accessible and sustainable. “Low-tech Lab”, https://lowtechlab.org/fr&gt.

[3] Artificial Intelligence

[4] Situation in which technology A can be adopted sustainably to the detriment of technology B, even if technology B subsequently appears to be the more suitable technology