COP 30 Day 2: Mitigation Strategies for Technology and Waste & the Obligations of States
Stephanie Forbes
After our first full day on the ground in Belém, our group has started to navigate the chaos that is a COP. At any given time, there are nearly dozens of conversations and events going on, not to mention the sporadic negotiations that officially kicked off today. Each of us has been pursuing our own separate interests throughout our time here while managing to appreciate the event and the city of Belém. It’s been hard to make decisions about what to follow at COP and what events to sit in on; almost everything talked about feels important and crucial in its own respect. However, what’s been catching my attention recently has been the environmental impact of technology like artificial intelligence.
Technology and Climate Change
Throughout the past decade since the Paris Agreement, the Parties have been working to introduce technology solutions to address climate challenges and issues surrounding adaptation, particularly in the Global South. The discussion around the opportunities that technology creates feel endless; machine learning models can be used to predict energy usage, flooding, and weather patterns amongst other things. This information can then inform local and national governments to enact policies or optimize certain processes and mitigate their environmental impact. I attended a few panels where delegates from countries like Senegal, Uganda, Belize, and the Maldives spoke about different technological solutions their countries were able to enact to solve challenges in local communities. These individuals spoke about how they approach engaging the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Center Network (CTCN) to facilitate collaboration amongst innovators and local community members. In these discussions, there was a lot of emphasis on allowing local communities to take the lead on addressing the problems that they are facing and implement technological solutions, while also designing processes that are ideally scalable to a state or national level.
Yet, fewer discussions have touched upon the environmental impact of the very technologies aiming to solve climate change problems. Is there a balance that needs to be struck between the rapid adoption of digital technologies and doing so in a sustainable way? Are they mutually exclusive? Can developing countries learn from the missteps of the Global North and Western nations to create long-term solutions for their communities? Should we stop using Chat-GPT and AI for everything? In my opinion, the answer to each of these questions is likely, yes.
This morning, I heard from a panel of individuals working on addressing the environmental impact of AI throughout its lifecycle, from the intake of raw materials to build technology to the training and the resources required to run a data center. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is actively working on a report that addresses these very impacts and recently hosted a hackathon to track the environmental footprint of AI. The winner, GreenMind, created a platform called SumEarth AI (sumearth.ai) to “make the invisible visible”. They aim to pull back the curtains on the real environmental impact of using AI tools–both for individuals and organizations. The platform provides a dashboard to track energy and water consumption to give users a sense of tangibility and remind them that every tool requires resources to function. As its founder, Vishal Jain, pointed out, “true sustainability begins with conscious choices”, and this tool brings transparency to this crucial issue. At face value, it might not seem like one prompt to ChatGPT does much, but in the aggregate or on an organizational level, resource consumption can start to seriously add up and affect community members where the responsible data centers are located. Vishal related his work to an ancient vow in his culture called “anarthadana” which he described as “the practice of avoiding actions that are unnecessary and may cause harm, directly or indirectly.”
It seems, hopefully, that companies like Google are starting to think about the environmental footprint of this technology, as a Google representative highlighted a recent report analyzing their own environmental footprint and the steps they are taking to address it. However, another panelist representing the ITU and Huawei spoke of the role that standards can play to encourage companies sustainable practices. In a conversation I had following the panel with the ITU Rapporteur, we both shared the concern that voluntary standards, though useful, may not be entirely sufficient without regulatory mechanisms.
Waste Mitigation
In a similar theme, a few sessions today addressed the impact of electronic waste and solutions to repurpose that waste. Brazil’s Secretary of Telecommunications, Hermano Tercius, highlighted a program they have been working on over the past 20 years or so to recycle and refurbish technology devices that can then be donated to schools and organizations around the country. Individuals are taught how to use the technology and ultimately increase their digital literacy. Thus far, around 65,764 computers have been donated and saved, resulting in around 11,000 tons of waste disposed of responsibly.
Waste and the circular economy more generally felt like a larger theme today, with some other sessions touching upon municipal solutions to waste mitigation.
I would, however, be remiss not to mention the irony in these conversations. Despite the importance of this conference and the convening of delegates from around the world, the conference likely used loads of power to constantly pump air conditioning through the venue. Emissions from air travel to get to Belém likely aren’t in line with any of the conference’s goals. Single use plastics and papers were omnipresent in lieu of reusables, and I’m unclear how effectively recycling or composting functions. As an observer at my first COP, I somewhat expected this event to be the epitome of climate best practices. Nonetheless, I find the physical gathering of individuals from different regions around the world quite necessary–particularly in a city in the Global South.
Other Themes & the Obligations of States
Besides technology, a few notable themes have cropped up in the past few days. Notably, there is no U.S. delegation present at the COP, though Gavin Newsom did make a security-studded appearance today. Within the first few hours of our arrival at COP, several speakers alluded to this fact without quite explicitly saying so, instea d referring to the “major country not in the room.”
In many of those same comments, LDCs (least developed countries) and SIDS (small island developing states) emphasized the need for greater financial contribution across the board. From the technology conversations I attended to general sessions or conversations with delegates from around the world, like Rwanda, Brazil, and Senegal to name a few, the message was clear: there is a large gap in funding to solve all the problems on the table and somehow, more funding is needed. Apart from calls for funding from developed nations, climate finance has crept into conversations to find other, innovative ways to raise capital.
I’ve also noticed a common theme of subnational action and a “bottoms-up approach” being a key approach to look towards for climate solutions. In the United States, we’re seeing this as well where local communities, municipalities, and states are driving climate change in lieu of federal action.
Lastly, our delegation (comprised primarily of law students and a law professor, Prof. Moffa) closed our day by attending a panel on the advisory opinions that international courts have issued in the past year regarding states’ obligations in addressing climate change–the most notable being the International Court of Justice (ICJ). While non-binding advisory opinions lack enforcement mechanisms independently, the panel indicated promise that these advisory opinions will have a trickle-down effect into national courts. According to a panelist, the African Court of Human Rights is posed to issue a decision on a related question in the next year or so, which may guide national courts on the African Continent thereafter. It’s possible that this recent ICJ opinion will influence some of the negotiations over the next two weeks.
I look forward to following these issues and continuing to learn throughout the rest of the week here in Belém.
This is the part of a series of daily blog posts from the University of Maine delegation to COP30.