Transforming technology frameworks for the planet | IGF 2023

Knowledge Graph of Debate

Session report

Online Moderator

The summaries present an engaging inquiry into the practices of large technology corporations, often referred to as big tech, particularly in the realm of digital transformation. The central argument revolves around big tech’s extractivist approach, extending beyond data to include water and natural resources. This is seen as significantly contributing to the ongoing climate and ecological crises. The conversation points out that the ‘green’ solutions proposed by these companies have been problematic due to their inherent extractive nature. This substantiates the negative sentiment woven throughout the discussion.

Another focus topic in the discussion is electronic waste, also termed as e-waste. This is increasingly produced as a byproduct of significant digital transformation and infrastructure expansions. The problem of responsibility for e-waste is underlined, highlighting the associated Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to responsible consumption and sustainable urban environments. The Nodotao project in Argentina, which addresses e-waste, is cited as a supporting evidence. However, the query regarding who should be accountable for managing this still lingers.

Furthermore, the role of governments in instigating this situation is sternly questioned. They are criticised for funding traditional big tech models, thus displaying a lack of support for alternative technological business models. This criticism is particularly directed at local governments in Latin America, implying an inequality in resources distribution and hindrance of innovative potential in these regions.

In addition to the central debates, the summary also shines a light on the underpinning themes linked with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These include SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure; SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities; SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities; SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production; SDG 13: Climate Action; and SDG 15: Life on Land.

On the whole, the discourse emphasises the urgency for responsible, sustainable practices in digital transformation, challenges the extractivist model of big tech, calls for governmental reinforcements for alternative business strategies, and advocates for accountability in e-waste management.

Becky Kazansky

The analysis spans a wide range of themes intersecting technology, sustainable production, and climate action. A dominant sentiment of concern emerges regarding the environmental impact of emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI). Evidence suggests that every five enquiries made to AI chatbots result in half a litre of water being used, raising questions about resource consumption. Significant criticism is further directed towards carbon offsets, primarily due to evidence that over 90% of validated and standard-conforming offsets are ineffective and do not operate as anticipated.

Against this backdrop, the EU Green Claims Directive emerges as a positive development. This innovative policy aims to enhance transparency in sustainability claims, empowering consumers to discern the true environmental impact of products. This directive also dispels the notion that companies can achieve climate neutrality or sustainability through carbon offsets alone.

Further scrutiny in the realm of carbon markets and offset mechanisms is encouraged. The analysis suggests that even well-intended strategies may be inadequate, with bona fide carbon offsets often failing to function ecologically as initially planned. Civil society is urged to pursue a more comprehensive and fundamental critique of carbon offsets, highlighting the need for decisive climate action strategies.

Solar geoengineering, a speculative technology, warrants examination due to its potential to exacerbate rather than mitigate climate change. This technology, which necessitates broad-scale coordination, has solicited scepticism from scientists worldwide. Over 400 scientists question the practicality of governing such an expansive, potentially hazardous technology, advocating instead for a precautionary approach.

The analysis also voices strong support for just transitions – socio-economic and environmental strategies seeking equitable outcomes for society at large. A call for action is made to challenge potentially misleading climate solutions, a contentious issue the climate justice movement has been fervently addressing for decades.

The need for robust regulation of speculative, potentially harmful climate technologies is emphasised, amidst concerns over excessive investment by tech giants. The need for greater engagement and open dialogue surrounding these controversial climate technologies is also underscored, considering the propensity of large tech corporations to invest heavily in such technologies as part of their ongoing profit models.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the profound links between climate action, sustainable production and innovative technology. It brings to light pressing issues over resource management and the veracity of ‘green’ strategies, underscores both regulatory and consumer measures to scrutinise and verify sustainability claims, and stresses the need for thorough critique, regulation and discussion around speculative technological responses to climate change.

Onsite Moderator

In her reflections, Kemly Camacho affirmed the paramount importance of incorporating human-scaled values, such as solidarity, friendship, happiness, and passion, into the spheres of globalisation and digitalisation. She emphasises the integration of these values into business models, accounting, project management, and team collectives as promising pathways to effectively tackle significant socio-economic and cultural matters. She also heralded non-profit business models as viable, sustainable solutions capable of addressing these challenges. The sentiment expressed towards this approach is categorically positive.

Further, Camacho ardently advocated for the formation of alternative business models as a potent solution to the ongoing climate crisis and the worsening contributions of the digital economy. She underscored the unsustainability of current models due to their heavy reliance on extractivism. Pointing to organic agriculture and social economy, she proposed these as positive examples of alternative models that prioritise sustainable business practices.

The Onsite Moderator voiced the belief that it is possible to foster a digital economy that respects and upholds planetary justice, environmental justice, care, and solidarity. Such principles are recognised as integral to realising SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure). Moreover, the intersectionality of environmental sustainability and the exercise of digital rights, both online and offline, was highlighted.

The pivotal role of governments as allies and champions of environmental justice was acknowledged. The Moderator posits that cooperation, standardisation, global norms, and internet governance in the digital realm can offer significant support to these governmental initiatives and facilitate a fair and just transition.

There was an emphatic call for governments to take bold steps in supporting alternative business models, particularly in light of the climate and ecological crisis. It was argued that governments should not only tackle the sustainability challenges associated with Big Tech’s business models but should also allocate funds to promote alternative business models. The limiting and problematic elements of Big Tech’s model, particularly its generation of e-waste and overdependence on data extractivism, were spotlighted as areas requiring significant overhaul and improvement.

Camacho stressed the need to pivot from digital transformation to digital appropriation. Traditional models, including start-ups, unicorns, and big techs, were identified as requiring a reevaluation as they priortise value addition and accumulation over redistribution and solidarity. She championed digital appropriation as a means to curtail consumption and develop essential digital tools.

Finally, the importance of considering different contextual factors in AI usage and data collection was underlined. Solutions need to be customised and tailored to respective communities, with the global community ensuring that those impacted are meaningfully included in discussions. The role of local communities was emphasised, and the voices of those affected were recognised as essential to the decision-making process.

In summary, the predominant sentiment advocates for a paradigm shift in business practices towards more sustainable, inclusive, and just models. This shift is expected to support several UN Sustainable Development Goals and pave the way for a sustainable digital economy and responsible AI usage.

Jaime Villareal

The May 1st Movement Technology Cooperative promotes social and environmental justice by providing an autonomous communications infrastructure. This infrastructure, which is collectively owned and democratically governed by the cooperative’s members, supports communication services, such as email, web hosting, and file sharing. This cooperative model promotes democratic leadership and communal ownership, contributing significantly to societal growth and development.

Contrasting with data-centric corporate internet services, the cooperative’s primary focus is not on data collection or data mining. Members consistently vote to maintain the infrastructure free from surveillance or exploitation, emphasising transparency and respect for privacy.

However, the cooperative faces challenges due to resource scarcity, limited capital, and lack of suitably-located server facilities. Constraints include insufficient funds for building personal data centres or gaining direct access to renewable energy resources, and finding cost-effective solutions for managing electronic waste is a challenge.

Despite these hurdles, the cooperative strives to increase environmental sustainability and reduce their carbon footprint. The cooperative’s operations are less environmentally damaging than corporate internet services owing to their avoidance of an extractive business model.

The cooperative strongly opposes corporate internet services’ surveillance and data collection practices, viewing them as coercive and exploitative. They critically analyse the capitalist narrative that advocates for high-yield businesses as the sole solution to climate change. They argue that the implementation of policies such as artificial intelligence (AI) — fuelled by data extraction and knowledge accumulation — have significant environmental and societal impacts.

Favouring collaborative working, the cooperative advocates for community or cooperative-based models for climate control and societal issues. They emphasise on fostering long-term sustainable development through engagement, communication, and cooperation, rather than domination and extraction.

The cooperative is critical of businesses that participate in ‘greenwashing’, making false claims of environmentally-friendly practices, while operating with extractive business models. Additionally, they reject the proposal of paying fines or taxes as atonement for corporate misconduct, comparing it to the flawed carbon credit system.

They express concern over large companies’ unauthorised use of user data for AI model training, deeming it exploitative. There’s also worry over users being unknowingly coerced into participating in AI training.

The cooperative opposes universal solutions for preserving local languages and indigenous cultures, insisting that proper consultation with local communities is vital. They stress the importance of recognising each community’s unique needs and interests. Overall, the cooperative is firmly dedicated to privacy, community engagement, and environmental sustainability, continuing to navigate through their challenges and make strides towards achieving their goals.

Florencia Roveri

Florencia Roveri champions the concept of a digital economy that incorporates elements of environmental justice, sustainability, e-waste management, and digital inclusion. This is exemplified by their organisation’s establishment in 1995 by a team of engineers, educators and social activists. The main motivation for their initiative was the growing need for effective and sustainable management of the increasing volumes of e-waste sourced from companies.

Their innovative and proactive step in transforming their e-waste management facility into a cooperative, initiated by seven founding members, was geared towards handling complex responsibilities such as production, commercialisation, and habilitation. This action demonstrated an awareness of the multifaceted challenges presented by e-waste and aimed at promoting social inclusion by incorporating more young individuals into the workforce. This aligns with the aims of SDG 8: ‘Decent Work and Economic Growth’.

Roveri emphasises the necessity for comprehensive e-waste management plans where responsibilities are shared amongst numerous actors. This includes government bodies playing a role in facilitating the disposal process, and companies generating e-waste ensuring its appropriate management. This reflects the importance of a united effort in achieving environmental sustainability, aligning with SDG 12 and 17—’Responsible Consumption and Production’ and ‘Partnerships for the Goals’, respectively.

Roveri also tackles a significant misconception about e-waste, underscoring it’s often misperceived as a ‘donation’ when, in reality, it’s a significant issue. They highlight the costs and risks associated with processing e-waste, demonstrating that it simply transfers the problem to other actors.

Moreover, Roveri proposes the idea of e-waste management being recognised as a public service due to its global impact and pervasive implications. They acknowledge the challenges in managing e-waste given its complex nature and the involvement of various stakeholders but also recognise the potential profits diligent e-waste management could yield.

Lastly, Roveri advocates for viewing e-waste management not solely as an environmental imperative but also as a potential source of job creation. They suggest it could serve as a solution to the ‘digital divide’, emphasising its societal and economic significance.

In conclusion, Roveri offers a comprehensive perspective that integrates the roles of diverse stakeholders to tackle the challenge of e-waste management effectively. This collective approach utilises e-waste management as a tool for job creation and a bridge to span the digital divide.

Kemly Camacho

Kemly has highlighted the urgent necessity to explore alternative business models, emphasising the gravity induced by societal factors as well as environmental crises. These new models are specifically designed to break socio-economic impasses and champion feminist entrepreneurship alongside businesses that regard care and solidarity as central principles. These values-driven business approaches have been identified as critical in addressing a complex interrelation of social, cultural, and economic issues.

A thorough critique of traditional models within the digital economy reveals their shortcomings in supporting entrepreneurs grappling with socio-economic problems. Notably, entrepreneurs frequently encountered obstacles in securing essential finance and technical support. This examination has been increased noting that business plans centred on fostering social and cultural awareness are rarely seen as viable under existing digital economy frameworks.

Kemly has further marked the current global environmental crisis as a patent symbol of urgency, necessitating a comprehensive reform of established business models. Predominant models, underpinned by extractivism, are now perceived as unsustainable, urgently demanding innovation.

Urgent changes in prevailing digital transformation narratives among governments, academia, and start-up ecosystems in Latin America were proposed. Currently, the dominating ideologies incline strongly towards consumption-based models. The recommendation for academia, incubators, and governments is a drastic revision of business methods and an uptake of digital appropriation models, which significantly contrast the current focus on consumption in digital transformation initiatives.

The dominant models within the digital economy and traditional business, owing to their extractive tendencies, have been subjected to rigorous critique, especially given the emergence of new values such as solidarity and care. This critique strongly advocates that platform companies should pivot their business models from value extraction and instead, concentrate on fostering and accelerating solidarity and care.

The digital appropriation strategy could present a valuable remedy, especially pertinent in the post-pandemic era. It accentuates the need to identify useful digital tools, aiming to reduce wasteful resource use. Furthermore, technology frameworks should echo this sentiment, focusing on solving tangible, real-life problems faced by women, including childcare and community care.

The concept of fair employment is emphasised as central to business models like cooperatives, and its vital contribution to the survival of humanity is unequivocally stated. Nonetheless, concerns have been raised about the growing acceptance of precarious work and the practice of charging for machine-learning training. These are seen as threats to the principles of human survival and equitable access to digital resources, respectively, thus underlining the necessity to integrate socio-economic and environmental sustainability and care-oriented values within current business models.

Audience

The comprehensive discourse highlights the divisive perceptions concerning the current practices of AI companies, particularly regarding their data usage and training techniques. Notably, there is a prevailing negative sentiment surrounding AI companies exploiting data without providing compensation or respecting copyright laws, a standpoint seen as discourteous, prompting suggestions to revisit these practices and potentially, levy relevant taxation. This concept is based on the understanding that the sophistication of AI relies heavily on the consumption of substantial data volumes, however, in the existing scenario, there is no remuneration structure for the people who generate or own the data.

On a positive note, there is substantial advocacy for delving into the economics of artificially intelligent platforms, reflecting the sentiment that there is a necessity to make AI smarter. Although this argument does not deliver direct supporting facts, it implies an expectation for a more robust and intelligently engineered AI system that is propelled by an integrated understanding of economics and data science.

Further positivity emanates from the discussion on innovation, particularly with the focus on alternative technology frameworks. Dialogues on this topic have spotlighted cooperative models as potential solutions. This argument suggests that the evolution of technology frameworks, specifically those with elements of social, ecological, and feminist policies, could be the key to surmounting prevailing challenges.

Simultaneously, the impact of AI on the industry landscape of Japan is notably significant. The transformative change ascribed to AI is predicted to disrupt the existing ‘pyramid’ structure prevalent in the industry. Insights indicate that the smaller ‘worker’ roles, traditionally executed by humans, are being replaced by AI, signalling a shift in the dynamics of the digital industry.

Indeed, this transition also emphasises new opportunities for work styles and business models. Within this ever-changing landscape, it’s suggested that AI training could emerge as a novel style of work, particularly for those proficient in Japanese, pointing to an evolving job market.

Conclusively, the analysis identifies a distinct disparity between current and AI-introduced business models. It suggests a shift in the layered fabric of the Japanese industry, indicating a dichotomy between a rich industrial history and the transformation instigated by AI-driven models.

Overall, the analysis presents a holistic image of the ongoing structural, operational, and ethical debates surrounding artificial intelligence. The future path seems to advocate diversity, questioning antiquated practises, and forging ahead with more cooperative, equitable, and mutually beneficial approaches for humans and AI.

Yilmaz Akkoyun

The BMZ, Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, is actively striving to enhance societal, political, and economic participation among individuals in its partner countries. A particular emphasis is placed on the most marginalised sections, demonstrating the ministry’s commitment to establishing a comprehensive, holistic approach to address the root causes of multifaceted issues.

Despite these efforts, a considerable digital divide exists globally. Nearly half of the world’s population lacks internet access, with internet usage dropping to fewer than 40% in partner countries. Worryingly, women and marginalised communities bear the brunt of this divide, highlighting significant and widespread inequality in digitalisation.

To counteract this issue, the BMZ has backed a fair, secure, open, and free internet under the banner of the Global Digital Compact. This step is considered a crucial driver in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Actively engaging in the associated dialogue and processes, the ministry is intent on promoting an inclusive digital transformation that is environmentally friendly, socially conscious, and feminist.

A human-centred perspective is core to digital transformation. Germany, in collaboration with the European Union, is shaping digitalisation to address potential environmental, human rights, and societal risks. The country’s digital policy is underpinned by three core elements: establishing standards and norms, Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and developing digital skills within society and the economy.

Importantly, digitalisation is being employed as a tool to actively combat environmental challenges. Germany partners with countries around the globe to advocate fair regulation of the digital economy. This is exemplified by their collaboration with Smart Africa in developing national Artificial Intelligence strategies focused on environmental challenges.

Education is pivotal for the successful enactment of digital transformation. Germany’s commitment to encouraging digital skills is demonstrated through platforms such as Attingi, which has engaged over 11 million individuals, most notably advancing young women’s comprehension of digitalisation.

Simultaneously, Germany expresses concerns over the misuse of data and the risk of exacerbating social divisions. Therefore, they are committed to ensuring their digital policy promotes a safe, inclusive internet and fair data markets in partner countries to circumvent these issues.

The sustainability of waste donation is questioned, with an expressed need for increased education in waste management. In terms of equity in digital transitions, the BEAMSET digital initiative supports fair digital transitions in partner countries. The initiative Fair Forward contributes to this goal, working to develop open-source AI models to stimulate local innovation.

The importance of economic aspects within these engagements is recognised, yet a global discussion on the topic is deemed necessary. In terms of international partnership, BMZ contributes significantly to global politics, maintaining robust relationships with a broad international network of governments and other stakeholders, especially civil society actors. This underlines the urgency of integrating local and national perspectives from the Global South into the international discourse.

In conclusion, according to the BMZ, global digital cooperation is essential for supporting a holistic approach to digital transformation. The guiding focus is on fostering international partnerships to drive digital transition that is both socially and environmentally sustainable.

Speakers