Why 2012 was the best year ever – and how 2013 can be even better

December 26, 2012 | Leave a comment

Sunset silhouetteThe Spectator explains why 2012 was the best year in the history of the world:

It may not feel like it, but 2012 has been the greatest year in the history of the world. That sounds like an extravagant claim, but it is borne out by evidence. Never has there been less hunger, less disease or more prosperity. The West remains in the economic doldrums, but most developing countries are charging ahead, and people are being lifted out of poverty at the fastest rate ever recorded. The death toll inflicted by war and natural disasters is also mercifully low. We are living in a golden age.

This is a lovely piece of news to be greeted with at the end of the year. I disagree with the article in some ways – for example, it lauds fracking as delivering an era of energy abundance – but the message is one that’s easy to get behind. Our modern age is bringing about unprecedented human prosperity through connectedness and technology. One of the hallmarks of the Internet age is that national identity is being slowly replaced by an international identity – more and more, individuals are forming strong bonds with people in other nations, who they may never meet in person. It’s got a long way to go, but nationalism is slowly becoming extinct.

Wonderful! So, isn’t it time we dealt with the elephant in the room?

The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 54% higher than the 1990 baseline. That means it’s going to be almost impossible to limit global warming to the 2°C limit that was set just three years ago – which in itself wasn’t enough to prevent environmental disaster. That disaster isn’t abstract, and should worry you even if you don’t care about the environment itself: it translates directly to the death of at least 100 million people and severe economic troubles by 2030. Climate change touches everything, and again, even if you’re a money-orientated Randian who couldn’t give a jot about the rest of us, it will make you poorer. That should be enough to make even the staunchest conservatives sit up and take notice.

Of course, there are people who don’t believe in climate change at all, but the arguments against don’t hold water scientifically. (That last linked page is so good, so full of fact-filled resources, that I’ll link to it again. Go take a look.) There are fatuous religious arguments from the Christian right, which I’m not sure even adhere to their own internal logic. In general, the arguments against rip climate change into the realm of politics, when it stands pretty firmly in the realm of scientific fact.

So what can we do about it? Here, then, is how technologists like us can make 2013 even better than the year gone by, both for our own individual prosperity and for everyone’s. We can continue to make the world a more peaceful and prosperous place in the short term by doing all the things we already do – and additionally work towards making it a sustainable peace and prosperity, in all senses of that word. We should all be striving to minimize resource conflicts, and to make all of our communities sustainable in their own right without polluting anyone else’s – while ensuring that we don’t lose any of the wonderful things the last hundred years has brought human society. Global travel, the Internet, widely-accessible personal computing, medical advances – all of these things need to be here to stay (and should have the freedom to evolve and progress).

I strongly believe that while neither technology nor individual action can bring about this change by themselves, together they have a chance. I’m not alone: Google, for example, has invested nearly a billion dollars in clean energy, and green investors (when they have domain expertise) are thriving. VCs are warming up to energy efficiency platforms, and of course, Tesla Motors became cashflow positive this year, raising further interest in the space.

Customer interest in green technology is already increasing, due to high fuel prices and better general awareness. I think 2013 could be the year that investor interest in green technology takes off, and correspondingly, I think we’ll see a slew of new companies whose interests are aligned with their customers’, not just in the short term, but with a very long term view as well. That’s a great thing for the startup ecosystem, it’s a great thing for web customers, and it’s a great thing for every single person on the planet.

Living sustainably in a digital society: is it even possible?

August 23, 2012 | 2 comments

Desert tankI had an interesting conversation about sustainable lifestyles on Twitter this morning.

I believe that climate change is a major threat to our planet, and that we’re in danger of reaching a tipping point beyond which there is no return. More generally, because my personal mission statement is to have a positive impact on the world, I’m conscious that I don’t want to make an unsustainable amount of waste.

Which of course, I do. Although I try to be a good citizen – I consume locally-produced products, I take public transport rather than driving whenever possible – I’m aware of my relatively large carbon footprint. In particular, I fly a fair amount, often across large distances, I run computer servers, which by necessity are switched on all the time, and I buy electronics, which have an appalling environmental impact. (It’s sometimes easy to forget how much of an impact computing has, because it feels clean – the impacts are out of sight, out of mind. Truthiness in consumption.)

I travel less than I could, of course. A lot of my meetings happen over Google+ Hangouts or Skype, which let me see people without having to actually be in the same room with them. BART makes traveling across the bay to San Francisco simple and relatively clean (PDF link). But I do own a car, which I drive two or three times a week, and I will be flying both to XOXO in Portland, and to Austin, next month. It’s by far the cheapest way to get there.

And that’s the kicker. I could run the server that powers this website through a renewably-powered web host like AISO, for example, but I don’t. A dedicated server through a green host is simply much more expensive than through my existing host. Every financial transaction counts, particularly in the midst of a financial crisis, and I need to think about my costs.

Because flying is cheaper than taking the train – a ludicrous state of affairs – people will fly. It’s as simple as that. Making any other decision is solely the domain of people who don’t need to worry about money, and that’s not most of us. Anyone who’s run a startup knows that the bottom line is important. The key is making products and services available that don’t kill the earth, but are also economically competitive. They’ve got to be affordable. That’s the real-world requirement for most people.

A lot of our environmentally unsustainable practices are due to the economies of bulk production. My hope is that the web can help with this: because it’s now easier to connect ourselves together than ever before, and take payments through awesome services like Square, theoretically local producers can make themselves more available to local customers than ever before. There’s less of a need to ship many products – particularly food – from half a world away, or to make many things in very centralized ways. But the reality is also that, without a Stargate at our disposal, materials still need to be shipped. Everything isn’t available everywhere. That’s just how the world is. (I’m lucky that I live in California, which is a major food producer – there are a great deal more local resources than there were, for example, when I lived in Scotland.)

Technology can help in other ways. Meat is unsustainable. I’m not a vegetarian, but I’ve tried Beyond Meat, and I like it. I also like their mission, which is to create a product that is healthier and more environmentally sustainable than meat, but also cheaper. That’s smart, and is exactly the kind of pragmatic thinking that will change peoples’ lifestyles. I don’t think that people are going to be moving from chicken to reclaimed pea protein in droves, at least not immediately, but I respect that they’ve considered peoples’ real-life needs, and aren’t creating an elitist product. (And I do honestly think it’s pretty tasty.)

Ultimately, though, we’ve created a society based around production and consumption, and we’re all active participants. In fact, we love it – and that’s okay. What we can do, though, is understand that a more efficient infrastructure is also more sustainable – both economically and environmentally. Well-built public transport would lower our costs as business people, stimulate economic growth by encouraging trade, and would also lower our emissions. Better datacenters and less wasteful methods of production would reduce our costs, and also reduce the impact of the products and services we consume.

But it also requires longer-term thinking. Products that consume less electricity cost less in the long term, but might have a higher up-front price. We might pay a little more tax as a percentage to get a high-speed rail link up and running, but we will be repaid by the economic benefits. Modern distribution methods require money to install, but they eventually more than pay for themselves. We need a more efficient infrastructure to do business in the 21st century, and it just so happens that establishing that will be better for our planet – which in turn will result in fewer of the negative effects of climate change and resource depletion, and will also leave us correspondingly wealthier.

The politicians and businessmen who stand in the way of this are in it for the short-term, and are in it for themselves. It’s not just that they want to spend the money on infrastructure upgrades – they want to keep economic value locked up legacy gatekeeper structures, and prevent us from doing business on our terms. I’m not sure it’s possible to live sustainably in a digital society, but it can be, and it should be.

We’ve got to keep moving forward.