Well done!

+1 Ilias

Additional proposal from Ilias IAKOVIDIS (Ilias.Iakovidis@ec.europa.eu), that I agree with,

Rephrase as follows:

‘To reduce the environmental impact of the digital world, it is necessary to adopt measures to optimize  energy and material efficiency (circularity) of digital sector. For example, increase the use of renewables, innovate for low energy consumption,  keeping devices longer in use, facilitating re-use, improving reparability and recyclability, and, adopting sustainable business models.”

Additional proposal from Ilias IAKOVIDIS (Ilias.Iakovidis@ec.europa.eu), that I agree with,

Rephrase as follows:

A standardized methodology and indicators are necessary to assess and monitor the environmental and social impact of digital technologies to enable evidence based decision making at the regulatory and political levels

Ooops, commented on the wrong paragraph. Please disregard my previous comment on this one, Andrijana did a great job and I have nothing to comment here 🙂

One thing I presented is that the environmental impact of digital technologies is multiple: it’s about GHG emissions but also about energy, water and abiotic resource depletion. If you focus your actions on one indicator only (let’s say GHG emissions), you may for example end up having a very negative effect on abiotic resources, some of which are becoming dangerously scarce. This is why analysis and recommendations should be based on ISO 14040/14044 LCA methodology which, in my understanding, is multicriteria-based.
 
I also mentioned briefly the social impact that IT can have (e.g. I talked about jobs that can be created through the refurbishment sector, but it is of course a much larger topic like the work conditions to extract natural resources in mines in Congo RDC and other area, to manufacture devices in factories like Foxconn, or positive aspects that technology can bring to society).
 
So I’d like to propose a small modification along the following sentence:
“A set of indicators that measure the environmental and social impacts of digital technologies is necessary to enable making the right decisions at the regulatory and political levels.”

Many thanks,
Olivier
feedback from other panelists:

===============================
I agree with Olivier – I think we will need a set of indicators because a single indicator is not practical. 
 
For instance, data centres have a range of performance metrics  – see this briefing note I did a few years back.  It’s a bit out of date now as there are new metrics and many of those listed have now been formally standardised.  Single metrics also tend to get misused, like PUE, which should be for trend analysis but is used to compare facilities often in a misleading way.
 
https://www.techuk.org/images/Data_centre_performance_metrics_for_Tiny_Tots.pdf
 
We also did a map of environmental standards relevant to data centres.  Again it is a bit out of date but does demonstrate the range of standards applicable and in use within the sector.  Some of these standards are now becoming the basis for regulation or procurement requirements.   
 
https://www.techuk.org/insights/news/item/15702-mapping-data-centre-standards  (scroll down to the pink bar at the bottom for the pdf)
 
Best
Emma
===================================
Dear Olivier, dear all,
 
I was going to make the same comment, suggesting to also include metrics that take into account rebound effects.
 
Kind regards,
Beat

One thing I presented is that the environmental impact of digital technologies is multiple: it’s about GHG emissions but also about energy, water and abiotic resource depletion. If you focus your actions on one indicator only (let’s say GHG emissions), you may for example end up having a very negative effect on abiotic resources, some of which are becoming dangerously scarce. This is why analysis and recommendations should be based on ISO 14040/14044 LCA methodology which, in my understanding, is multicriteria-based.
I also mentioned briefly the social impact that IT can have (e.g. I talked about jobs that can be created through the refurbishment sector, but it is of course a much larger topic like the work conditions to extract natural resources in mines in Congo RDC and other area, to manufacture devices in factories like Foxconn, or positive aspects that technology can bring to society).
So I’d like to propose a small modification along the following sentence:
“A set of indicators that measure the environmental and social impacts of digital technologies is necessary to enable making the right decisions at the regulatory and political levels.”.
Kind regards,

Olivier

Feedback from other panelists:

======================================
I agree with Olivier – I think we will need a set of indicators because a single indicator is not practical. 
 
For instance, data centres have a range of performance metrics  – see this briefing note I did a few years back.  It’s a bit out of date now as there are new metrics and many of those listed have now been formally standardised.  Single metrics also tend to get misused, like PUE, which should be for trend analysis but is used to compare facilities often in a misleading way.
 
https://www.techuk.org/images/Data_centre_performance_metrics_for_Tiny_Tots.pdf
 
We also did a map of environmental standards relevant to data centres.  Again it is a bit out of date but does demonstrate the range of standards applicable and in use within the sector.  Some of these standards are now becoming the basis for regulation or procurement requirements.   
 
https://www.techuk.org/insights/news/item/15702-mapping-data-centre-standards  (scroll down to the pink bar at the bottom for the pdf)
 
Best
 
Emma
======================================
Dear Olivier, dear all,
 
I was going to make the same comment, suggesting to also include metrics that take into account rebound effects.
 
Kind regards,
 
Beat