數(shù)據(jù)中心碳排量等同全球航空公司

杰西卡·麥克萊恩

Digital technologies are often put forward as a solution to environmental dilemmas. The spread of the Internet came with claims of a huge reduction in printing， and by replacing paper with bytes， we thought wed reduce our negative environmental impact.

But this early promise of solving environmental problems may not be delivering because digital devices， like most technologies， also have environmental impacts. Devices are powered by electricity—often produced in coal-fired plants—and are manufactured from materials such as metals， glass and plastics. These materials also have to be mined， made or recycled.

So， while digital technologies can facilitate environmental benefits， we shouldnt assume they always do. My research published this year shows much more needs to be done to debunk such myths.

Measuring digital eco-footprints

Its difficult to measure the environmental impacts of our digital lives， partly because the digital ecosystems that facilitate the Internet are complex. The United Nations Environment Assembly defines a digital ecosystem as “a complex distributed network or interconnected socio-technological system”.

Simply， digital ecosystems are the result of humans， digital infrastructure and devices interacting with one another. They rely on energy consumption at multiple scales. The term “digital ecosystem” relates to ecological thinking， specifically in terms of how human-technological systems work.

However， theres nothing inherently environmentally sustainable about digital ecosystems. Its worthwhile considering digital ecosystems environmental impacts as they grow.

In 2017， it was reported in Nature that Internet traffic （to and from data centers） was increasing at an exponential rate. At that stage， it had reached 1.1 zettabytes （a zettabyte equals one trillion gigabytes）. As our digital use continues， so do our carbon emissions.

Dangers of data centers

Data centers majorly contribute to the carbon emissions of digital ecosystems. They are basically factories that store， backup and recover our data. In April last year， it was estimated data centers around the world used more than 2% of the worlds electricity， and generated the same amount of carbon emissions as the global airline industry （in terms of fuel use）.

While there is debate about the impact of flying on climate change， were less likely to evaluate our digital lives the same way. According to British Open University Professor John Naughton， data centers make up about 50% of all energy consumed by digital ecosystems. Personal devices use another 34%， and the industries responsible for manufacturing them use 16%.

Tech giants such as Apple and Google have committed to 100% renewable targets， but theyre just one part of our giant digital ecosystem. Also， on many occasions， they rely on carbon offsets to achieve this. Offsets involve people and organizations investing in environmental projects to balance their carbon emissions from other activities. For instance， people can buy carbon offsets when booking flights.

Offsets have been critiqued for not effectively reducing the carbon footprints of wealthy people， while absolving guilt from continued consumption.

A carbon-filled road ahead

With more digital technologies emerging， the environmental impacts of digital ecosystems are probably going to increase. Apart from the obvious social and economic impacts， artificial intelligences （AI） environmental implications should be seriously considered.

A paper published in June by University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers revealed training a large AI machine could produce five times as much carbon as what one car （including fuel） emits over a persons lifetime， on average. Also， this figure only relates to training a large AI machine. There are various other ways these machines suck energy.

Similarly， bitcoin mining （an application of blockchain） continues to consume large amounts of energy， and is increasing on a global scale. According to the International Energy Agency， bitcoin mining uses more energy than some countries， including Austria and Colombia.

Putting the “eco” back in digital ecosystem

The digital ecosystem that supports our devices includes storage systems and networks that arent in our homes or workplaces， such as “the cloud”. But we should still take responsibility for the impact of such systems. Satellites are in space. Wires run beneath footpaths， roads and oceans.

All the while， the Internet of Things is creeping into old technologies and transforming how we use them. These underground and distant aspects of digital ecosystems may partly explain why the growing environmental impacts of digital are sidelined.

There are some ways people can find out more about responsible tech options. A 2017 guide by Greenpeace rated digital tech companies on their green credentials. It assessed a range of corporations， including some managing digital platforms， and others hosting data centers.

But while the guide is useful， its also limited by a lack of transparency， because corporations arent obliged to share information on how much energy is needed or supplied for their data centers.

Holding big tech accountable

The responsibility to make our digital lives more sustainable shouldnt lie solely with individuals. Governments should provide a regulatory environment that demands greater transparency on how digital corporations use energy. And holding these corporations accountable should include reporting on whether they are improving the sustainability of their practices.

One immediate step could be for corporations that produce digital devices to move away from planned obsolescence1. One example of this is when companies including Apple and Samsung manufacture smartphones that are not designed to last. Digital sustainability is a useful way to frame how digital technologies affect our environmental world.

We need to acknowledge that technology isnt just a source of environmental solutions， but also has the potential for negative environmental impact. Only then can we start to effectively transition to a more sustainable future that also includes digital technologies.

人們常說數(shù)字技術是解決環(huán)境困境的救星。互聯(lián)網普及之初，人們宣稱其將大幅減少印刷，通過用字節(jié)替換紙張，我們以為這樣就可以降低對環(huán)境的負面影響。

但這種解決環(huán)境問題的初期愿景可能無法實現(xiàn)，因為數(shù)字設備和大多數(shù)技術一樣，也會對環(huán)境產生影響。這些設備通常由燃煤電廠生產的電力驅動，由金屬、玻璃和塑料等材料制成，而要獲取這些材料還須進行開采、制造或回收。

因此，雖然數(shù)字技術可以提升環(huán)境效益，但我們不應該認為它們總會如此。我今年發(fā)表的研究表明，要破除這些誤解，還需要做更多的工作。

測量數(shù)字生態(tài)足跡

我們很難量化數(shù)字生活對環(huán)境的影響，部分原因在于支撐互聯(lián)網的數(shù)字生態(tài)系統(tǒng)十分復雜。聯(lián)合國環(huán)境大會將數(shù)字生態(tài)系統(tǒng)定義為“一種復雜的分布式網絡或互聯(lián)的社會技術系統(tǒng)”。

簡言之，數(shù)字生態(tài)系統(tǒng)是人類、數(shù)字基礎設施和設備相互作用的結果，依賴不同等級的能源消耗。“數(shù)字生態(tài)系統(tǒng)”一詞涉及生態(tài)思維，具體說就是人類―技術系統(tǒng)的工作機理。

然而，數(shù)字生態(tài)系統(tǒng)本質上并沒有環(huán)境可持續(xù)性。隨著數(shù)字生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的發(fā)展，其對環(huán)境的影響值得我們關注。

2017年，《自然》雜志報道，互聯(lián)網流量（進出數(shù)據(jù)中心）呈指數(shù)級增長。在那個階段，它已達到1.1澤字節(jié)（1澤字節(jié)等于1萬億吉字節(jié)）。隨著數(shù)字應用持續(xù)不斷，碳排放量也越來越多。

數(shù)據(jù)中心的危害

數(shù)據(jù)中心是數(shù)字生態(tài)系統(tǒng)碳排放的主要來源。從根本上說它們就是存儲、備份和恢復我們數(shù)據(jù)的工廠。據(jù)估計，2018年4月全世界的數(shù)據(jù)中心消耗了全球2%以上的電力，產生的碳排放量與全球航空業(yè)相當（就燃料使用而言）。

關于飛行對氣候變化的影響尚無定論，我們不太可能用同樣的方式來評估數(shù)字生活。據(jù)英國開放大學教授約翰·諾頓稱，數(shù)字生態(tài)系統(tǒng)消耗的能源中，數(shù)據(jù)中心約占50%，個人設備使用占34%，而制造這些設備的行業(yè)耗能占16%。

蘋果和谷歌等科技巨頭已承諾實現(xiàn)100%可再生能源目標，但它們只是龐大的數(shù)字生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的一部分。此外，很多情況下，它們主要依靠碳補償來實現(xiàn)這一目標。碳補償指的是個人和組織為環(huán)保項目提供資金以平衡在其他活動中造成的碳排放。例如，人們可以在預訂航班時購買碳補償。

然而碳補償措施受到了批判，原因在于這不僅沒能有效減少富人的碳足跡，還為他們持續(xù)消耗能源開脫責任。

“碳”路

隨著更多數(shù)字技術不斷出現(xiàn)，數(shù)字生態(tài)系統(tǒng)對環(huán)境的影響可能會加劇。除了明顯的社會和經濟影響外，人工智能的環(huán)境影響也值得認真考慮。

馬薩諸塞大學阿默斯特分校研究人員2019年6月發(fā)表的一篇論文顯示：訓練一臺大型人工智能機器，其平均碳排放量是一個人一輩子開的汽車（包括燃料）排放量的5倍。而且，這個數(shù)字只涉及一個大型人工智能機器的訓練環(huán)節(jié)。這些機器還有其他各種耗能方式。

同樣，比特幣開采（區(qū)塊鏈的一種應用）持續(xù)消耗著大量能源，且其規(guī)模在全球范圍內不斷擴大。據(jù)國際能源署稱，比特幣開采消耗的能源比某些國家，如奧地利和哥倫比亞全國的耗能還要多。

讓“生態(tài)”回歸數(shù)字生態(tài)系統(tǒng)

支持電子設備的數(shù)字生態(tài)系統(tǒng)包括那些不在自家或工作場所的存儲系統(tǒng)和網絡（如“云”），但我們仍應為這些系統(tǒng)的影響負責。衛(wèi)星飄浮在太空中，電纜穿行于人行道、道路和海洋之下。

一直以來，物聯(lián)網都在潛入舊技術，改變我們使用它們的方式。這些存在于地表下、遙遠空間中的數(shù)字生態(tài)系統(tǒng)可能在一定程度上解釋了為什么數(shù)字對環(huán)境日益增長的影響未能得到足夠的重視。

有一些方法可以讓人們發(fā)現(xiàn)更多負責任的科技選項。綠色和平組織2017年發(fā)布的一份指南對數(shù)字科技公司的綠色資質進行了評級。它評估了一系列公司，包括一些數(shù)字平臺管理公司，還有數(shù)據(jù)中心托管公司。

盡管該指南很有用，但它也受限于缺乏透明度——因為企業(yè)沒有義務共享數(shù)據(jù)中心需要或獲得多少能源的信息。

建立大科技公司問責制

讓數(shù)字生活更具可持續(xù)性的責任不應該僅由個人承擔。政府應提供一個監(jiān)管環(huán)境，要求數(shù)字公司就如何使用能源提高其透明度。建立企業(yè)問責制還應包括公布企業(yè)是否正在提升其各種行為的可持續(xù)性。

一個可以立即采取的措施是讓生產數(shù)字設備的公司取消“計劃報廢”的慣常做法。舉個例子，包括蘋果和三星在內的公司生產的智能手機并非為經久耐用而設計。數(shù)字可持續(xù)性是描述數(shù)字技術如何影響環(huán)境世界的有效方法。

我們需要承認，技術提供了環(huán)境問題的解決方案，但同時也有可能對環(huán)境產生負面影響。只有這樣，我們才能開始有效過渡到一個更可持續(xù)的數(shù)字未來。

（譯者單位：江西科技學院）