Environmental Impact of Digital Communication with Helen Hayes Part II
Jordan 0:01
As author John Green said in his podcast and new book called The Anthropocene Reviewed, he said “In the Anthropocene” — the current geological age viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate in the environment — “there are no disinterested observers, there are only participants.” And that has never been more true and apparent now as we come to learn the devastating impacts of our internet and digital habits, and the systems and industries that make them up. As we learned in part one of this interview with PhD candidate Helen Hayes, from McGill University, our increasingly online lives — especially now due to COVID-19 — incurs massive amounts of environmental damage. If everything continues on its current course, the internet is expected to generate about 20% of the world's carbon emissions by 2030. This would make its environmental impact worse than any individual country on Earth, except for the US, China or India. The problem is that the internet has undergone explosive growth in recent years, and plays a critical role in all phases of economic and social activity, we cannot stop using the internet, which means we now need to reimagine a new world and new systems in place that will mitigate these effects on the planet, especially to BIPOC and other marginalized communities. And that is where we pick up in part two of this conversation with Helen, looking at mitigation techniques, and strategies in place for better habits, systems and policies needed to make profound change in this area.
[intro music]
Jordan 1:52
Hey, this is Jordan!
Mimi 1:53
And this is Mimi.
Jordan 1:54
And welcome to the Imperfect Eco-Hero podcast.
Mimi 1:58
The series that connects community, normalizes imperfections and empowers heroes.
[end of intro music]
Mimi 2:07
It’s…it's interesting to think about, like, the patterns of humanity in this because, you know, for so long humans, or at least, like, the mainstream Western colonial mindset was that Earth was infinite in that we could take lumber, we could take resources just as much as we want it ‘cause it was infinite. And then all of a sudden realized, “Oh, crap, no, it's not, like, we're…we're in big trouble here”. But now we've made almost the same mistake with the internet, like we don't even realize we think it's infinite. And it's, I think maybe there's a lesson for humans that like everything has a cost and nothing is infinite.
Helen 2:45
Yeah, exactly. It's like this…this narrative that all of our resources are renewable, and are necessarily available to us, is obviously such a problem, because in terms of the internet, the material ramifications are mostly hidden to the users. Especially if you're living in a North American city, you are of some privileged background, the ways in which you understand your impact on the climate, through those digital technologies is going to be minimal, unless you're aware, specifically, of let's say, the carbon emissions that are produced through your use of Zoom, or of Instagram or Facebook, right? And this leads to larger questions about what we can actually do to mitigate our environmental impact, while still using the internet and still using these digital devices. Because being realistic, our use of digital technologies is not going to change over at least the foreseeable future. And so learning how to still use these devices, but in a responsible and meaningful way, is something that can have a huge impact on our climate, a huge impact on our emissions, while having a relatively minor effect on the way that we still use the same technologies that we've always been using.
Mimi 4:46
From, like, a consumer point of view, or even, like, environmental communities, like, is there anything we can do as individuals to, like, make our digital use greener? Like, are there greener alternatives? Or is this being studied? Like, I'm— like, I just feel, like, really stuck right now. Because I'm like, how, how can I make this better from my own perspective? Like, how can I be greener in my digital technology use?
Helen 5:15
Yeah, for sure. So there are quite a few things that you can do to mitigate the environmental impact of your use of digital technologies. And they all are relatively easy to implement. So I'll just name a few. So for example, you can unsubscribe from unwanted newsletters sent to your email address, which I'm sure everyone wants to do anyway. But in doing that, you're reducing your carbon footprint. So to give you some, some real numbers here, every text-based email has about four grams of carbon dioxide associated with it. But if that email is a newsletter, or has an attachment, it goes up to about 50 grams of carbon dioxide to produce the energy that allows you to get that email, and then to read it.
Jordan 6:21
So almost like 12 times as much. It goes from four to 50. Wow!
Helen 6:28
So if you unsubscribe from those promotional newsletters — that you probably don't read anyway — you're saving a significant amount of carbon emissions. That's just one example. You can also choose a green search engine. So there's a search engine called Ecosia, which operates relatively similarly to Google. But for each search that you perform through Ecosia, they…they plant a tree. And they're doing this to offset their carbon emissions. So they're a carbon neutral company. They also don't use third party app trackers or cookies, so it's better for your privacy as well. And then you're also reducing your carbon emissions because they're planting a tree on your behalf, which is great. Another thing you can do is to shut down your devices when they're not in use. So if you shut down or put your laptop into sleep mode, you're using less energy. And even if you unplug your chargers, when they aren't being used, you're saving a significant amount of energy as well. And the last example, on a personal level that I'll include is about Zoom. So if you're on Zoom, or any other video conferencing platform, and you turn off your camera, instead of having it run throughout the meeting, you'll reduce the environmental footprint of that meeting by 96%. So…
Jordan 8:14
Holy— Okay, turning off my video!
Mimi 8:15
Hoooly crap, are you serious?
Jordan 8:17
All of us turn off— All of us turn off our videos! [laughs]
Mimi 8:20
Yeah! [laughs]
Jordan 8:22
96%!
Helen 8:23
96%. So…
Mimi 8:25
Woow!
Helen 8:25
…the majority of Zoom calls and other video conferencing platforms, the energy that is produced to power those calls, goes primarily to the use of the video aspect of the platforms. So you can still participate in a meaningful way but with your camera off, and then reduce the environmental footprint of that call significantly by doing something very easy.
Mimi 8:59
That's sooo crazy! I wonder this might be like a really stupid question, but does the device you're working on make a difference? Like if you have a…an older computer and your computer or you're on a tablet or a phone, or it doesn't matter, it's just like we're talking strictly internet?
Helen 9:14
Yeah, we're talking strictly internet. So regardless of the…of the platf—, or of the device that you're using, it will still reduce your environmental footprint of that call by 96%.
Jordan 9:29
I guess what's so...
Mimi 9:29
Yeah...
Jordan 9:29
…tricky about this too, from what I was reading was, we also don't want to put the onus entirely on the individual when the individual is just using a system that technically is already…not broken, but is I guess, like…it's already a losing game for the individual because even if they do make these small changes, what really needs to happen is changes to the systems and and the way everything is but it's good to be aware that we CAN do something as individuals but, like, also not put the entire onus on…on our internet usage.
Helen 10:07
Well, that's a great point, Jordan. And something that is really important to any conversation about mitigation. Because not only should we be looking at the personal choices that we can be making, but we should also look at the system that allows corporations to offer these types of services in ways that don't consider the environmental impacts that those platforms and services have. So for example, working collectively, if 70 million Netflix subscribers switched from high definition, 4k streaming, to standard definition streaming 3.5 million tons of carbon emissions would be reduced each month. And this would also reduce personal carbon, water and land footprints by 84%. Just by switching from high definition streaming to standard definition streaming.
Jordan 11:19
Every month, like millions would be saved every month, just by not doing HD 4— Oh, wow!
Helen 11:27
Exactly.
Mimi 11:28
Woow! Crazy!
Helen 11:30
The thing is, though, is that in understanding that personal choice to let's say, switch your streaming quality, we should also be having a conversation about the systemic qualities of the system. Right? So Netflix offers 4k High Definition streaming. But should they be allowed to do that if it has such environmental ramifications? Or why does Zoom allow us to even have multi person video streaming? Or why are there not more robust regulations surrounding the services and these high energy demand platforms and infrastructures that produce such massive footprints that then rely on the users to make more ecologically friendly, right? So the conversation here is twofold. In that, yes, we have a personal responsibility to mitigate the environmental footprint of the digital communication technologies that we're using, but also the government should have the responsibility to regulate these platforms and services, in ways that ensure the environmental implications of these services and platforms are as reduced as possible. And so this is a structural response, not just a personal one. And we really need to understand that any conversation about environmental politics, environmental ramifications, climate change, they need to align with governmental policy and regulatory responses that are equally as stringent as personal choices to make our habits more environmentally friendly.
Jordan 13:59
That's a really interesting point, because I was thinking about…I was like, what could we do? What could these platforms do, but I didn't even think about the fact that they even offer them and put the entire onus on us to make the green decision when they just didn't have it. I would watch any video at any…any pixel they gave me, but like having the option to make it better, I always choose it. Like, it…I don't know. Yeah, that's an interesting…it's an interesting point about having these companies, like, put more of the onus on them to just not give us those options that have massive environmental impacts.
Mimi 14:34
How aware do you think telecommunication companies are, or like, even just like, like, things like Netflix, or whatever it is, like…Do you think that they’re really aware of this problem, and they're just like not communicating that to consumers? Or do you think nobody's aware of this problem except for a very few, like, amount of communities that are focusing on this like you are?
Helen 14:57
That's a good question, and one that I obviously can't answer with certainty. But more and more, demand has been placed on companies and large tech corporations specifically to produce sustainability or environmental assessments of their technologies. And so I think most people are operating under the assumption, right now, that these companies are aware of their environmental impact. But regardless, those corporations are in the business of making money, and of getting people to subscribe to their service for example, or to use their platform. And so they want to offer what they see as being the best service possible. So, for the video streaming example, if you can choose between a service that offers the highest definition quality video streaming, or one whose streaming service may be pixelated or lower quality, I would say a majority of people are going to pick the service with the better quality video, just naturally. That's why these corporations do what they do. Because they're in…they're in the business of making a profit, right? And just like oil companies, digital communications companies aren't necessarily concerned with the environment. And in order to keep users in the dark about their environmental impacts, companies use different media efforts to produce and circulate content in the service of maintaining what's called a petroculture, or a culture that isn't necessarily concerned with the environmental implications of its use. And this is what scholars refer to as petroturfing. So it's using these media tactics, like for example, calling digital services “the cloud” or using other environmental terminology, to draw people's attention away from the negative environmental impacts and the material ramifications of an— of digital media usage. Because in drawing people's attention to it, you're probably going to get less and less people using the services that are offered to them or available to them. And obviously, from a corporate standpoint, that's not at all in their interest. And so we're in…we're living in this social and economic society, where rhetoric and discourse is weaponized by corporations, to lessen users understanding of the social and ecological consequences of either the use of a platform, the use of a service, or the use of any digital technology. And that's a really big problem.
Mimi 18:54
I'm curious to know about like the…the disconnect between science and policy. I mean, that's a disconnect in…in every realm that there is, really, but in terms of this, like, kind of what you're saying, like, on how…how we can have these systemic changes. Like, I think a lot of that will have to come from policy, but I'm assuming because this isn't a very widely known subject, there's probably quite a bit of disconnect.
Helen 19:21
Yeah, there's definitely…there's definitely a disconnect, and that stems from climate change and environmental destruction being such a contentious issue when it really shouldn't be. But we're operating within this society where there are climate change deniers [different desk and paper noises], there are people who don't believe the scientific evidence that has been shown about, you know, rising temperatures, rising water levels, other ecological destruction and change… And so, we're in this society, where not only are we grappling between differences in policy making and scientific fact and corporate interest, but in order to make those changes, we need to have a broad understanding of the facts, and of how, let's say, our use of Facebook or Instagram has on the environment. And that is going to be contested, regardless of where we're at in the policy, because it's such a contentious issue. And, you know, one of the contributing factors to this is that scientists tend to be deeply divided about the severity of global warming. And not having a baseline discourse or rhetoric about the larger issue at hand — climate change — impacts the ways that we can regulate individual companies and corporations for their environmental impacts. So it's definitely presenting a gulf in understanding between scientific community, users of platforms, policy makers, academics... And, until there is a widespread understanding of how basically every single sector of our economy has some influence and some ramifications on the environment, then the regulatory capacity to make change will remain stifled. [mic noises]
Jordan 22:28
Why do you think there is such a disconnect? Do you think it stems from the way that we communicate about climate change? ‘Cause I know, there are a lot of studies that are out there right now that talk about how climate communication does tend to be quite polarized. And often the frameworks used to describe what's going on are vastly different. And I'm curious to know, because you are…you did study and you are studying communications, like, if you found that there are other methods, perspectives, that have been really effective at reducing this polarization at all. Like, have you noticed there…has there…if there's been a shift in traditional methods of communication?
Helen 23:14
Yeah, so there are a variety of communication tactics used by various stakeholders in communicating environmental issues. And many media and communication scholars are looking at the ways that climate change is communicated to various audiences. So in general, regardless of the way that climate change is communicated, there tends to be a broad understanding that communication about the climate crisis needs to be more than simply informative. So we can't just rely on journalists explaining the facts, the scientific facts. Instead, in order to spark change, we also need to strive to enhance personal and collective agency of the people and communities that are operating within the zone of crisis or this zone of sacrifice that climate change presents. And to do so, we need to be looking at the stories of folks directly affected by climate change on a daily basis. We need to be talking about what information makes climate change meaningful to people and how exploring alternative social, cultural and political conditions will affect the way that people understand climate change, without having to understand the science behind it. And this is very important, because science literacy is difficult. If you're not a scientist, it is so hard to understand what a statistic about the amount of carbon emissions actually means. But if you hear a story about an indigenous community, seeing the material effects of climate change on their salmon fishing, on their berry production, and on the way that they live their lives and interact with the environment around them, you're more likely to understand the effects of climate change, and will be more likely to act on it, and to reframe your own habits in ways that will make meaningful change, right? So in other words, if we’re spotlighting ethical dimensions of climate change, rather than focusing specifically on the scientific statistics proving the…the existence of climate change itself, people are more likely to make a change. And we see this time and time again, not just in the climate change discourse or media representation, but also across fields in politics, in health, in various spaces, where the reframing of journalism to show the devastating implications of a given event on the places, on the people and on the communities that people know and love, will compel or persuade folks to actually make a change.
Jordan 27:17
Now you can…you can even see that in the way that the Coronavirus emergency has been, like, covered across media, and in places where, you know, they did focus on community and, like, collective positive action and doing things for the greater population. Those are the places that are, you know, out of the pandemic or who have a better handle on it.
Helen 27:42
Yeah, it, it basically boils down to looking at what scholars refer to as self transcending values. So you're looking at those shared moral, ethical, and humanitarian beliefs and values that people hold, that will spark their empathy for someone's experience. The thing that makes this tricky is that historically speaking [paper noise], disadvantaged populations, marginalized populations feel the effects of climate change more readily than white folks living in downtown, urban areas, right? So when I look out my window, I don't see the effects of climate change on my immediate environment. But folks who are reliant on harvesting their own food, who have a different relationship to the environment, and to the land, will feel those effects of rising sea levels, of greater temperatures, in a more immediate way. The problem here though, is that this relates to larger conversations about environmental racism, and what it actually means to value the experiences that non-western folks have in relation to their environment, and reorienting our conversations, to center those folks and their experiences is absolutely necessary. But it's also something that our current media, and journalism, and discourse, and rhetoric about climate change, and other environmental destruction doesn't necessarily do. And so this requires almost a paradigm shift in how we write about, how we speak about, and how we engage with climate discourse, because we need to be cognizant that I'll go as a white middle-class woman, I don't feel the effects of my use of Zoom, and the carbon emissions that it creates every day, or I— if I don't feel the effects of the fossil fuel emissions from driving my car, doesn't mean that someone else doesn't. And so we need to be looking at the stories, and the experiences of indigenous folks, of black folks, of other disadvantaged or marginalized populations, to really understand what climate change is doing. And to really reframe the journalism that people are reading and engaging with on a daily basis.
Mimi 31:01
That's so interesting, just like…I'm just like, letting that sit and processing that.
Jordan 31:06
Same.
Mimi 31:07
Yeah, I'm curious, like…like, at the beginning, you were talking about Hurricane Katrina. And obviously, with the rise or increase in climate change, we're gonna see more natural disasters. How…How does all of what you're saying right now kind of tie into that?
Helen 31:24
Yeah, great question. So let's tether this conversation to Hurricane Katrina, and to, let's say, the wildfire outbreak in California, just a few years ago. Look at the response there. Look at the governmental response to Hurricane Katrina, which as I mentioned before, five years later, the city was still decimated, the city's infrastructure was not built up, and folks were still living with the reality of the destruction that had happened years and years before. Now, look at the California wildfires, a majority of which affected people who lived in Beverly Hills, in Calabasas, in other very rich, wealthy communities. The response to those wildfires was much more immediate than the response to Hurricane Katrina. In understanding that, we need to look at the people who were affected: Rich white folks versus poor, low-income black folks. The correlation is pretty clear, right?
Mimi 32:56
Even in Hurricane Katrina, just using, like, just narrowing in on that one example. Like, all the middle-class and upper-class white folks were able to get in their cars, pack their essentials, and leave the city. Where if you look at, like, who was left in…I think it's called the Superdome, it was all like the lower class black families, like, it— ther— Like, I remember images from the news, and there weren't…there weren't white people in…in the Superdome. Like, it was just people of color.
Helen 33:26
Exactly. And so, we see the effects of natural disasters and of climate change, disproportionately affecting low-income marginalized people. But the response to those natural disasters and to climate change often leaves those people out, on both the policy side, and on a practical aid side, right? [glass noise] So we have, we really have to interrogate the way that we understand the environment by looking at the folks who are impacted by that natural disaster or by climate change directly, right? And doing that, like I mentioned, requires some type of transformative capacity, because our media doesn't currently value the traditional knowledge of indigenous folks when talking about climate change, for example. But it values white upper-class scientists who have the social and financial capital to engage in research in a scientific way, right? And so talking about any conversation about the environment, needs to focus more on the ways that indigenous folks, black folks, other marginalized folks live their lives grappling with the direct effects of the environment, and the ways that it's changing on a daily basis. And, you know, this is even distilled in who we value as an environmental activist. Like, are we valuing white environmental activists? Or are we valuing Indigenous environmental activists? And how does that play a role in the way that we consume our media discourse about climate change? Like, there are so many indigenous young environmental activists, yet who is in the mainstream news about environmental activism?
Jordan 36:03
Greta Thunberg.
Helen 36:04
Exactly. Like, we can't be talking about the environment, in such a white heteronormative colonial way. But that requires this paradigm shift that hopefully will happen. I think it's gaining more…more and more traction now, but it has a long way to go. And we need to be cognizant of that.
Jordan 36:33
I got two questions. The first one, which is on this topic of who…who the media fixates on. I remember listening to a podcast episode by How to Save a Planet, and it was Dr. Ayana Johnson, chatting with a couple of the Black Lives Matter activists in the US that were leading the charge back in 20…2019. And they were talking about, like, what the environmental movement could learn from the Black Lives Matter movement. And…I wish I could remember who they were speaking to, but the one of the…one of the Black Lives Matter activist said, it was: what the environmental movement is missing, that the Black Lives Matter movement did so well, is the Black Lives Matter movement was like 100…100 organizations, if I'm not mistaken, or 120 that came together under one message, and there was not one single activist or one single leader that led it, it was a collective. Like, I don't know about you guys, but when that…when I think back to the Black Lives Matter movement, I can't remember one single activist named. Like, I remember a lot of them, like I remember it being led by like a whole group of people. But when you think about the environmental movement, like, you can think of someone who's leading it because the media fixate so heavily on one, or two, or three people and they said, like, the environmental movement needs to really focus more on, like, community and coming together under one on one…one message. And I was curious, like, what you guys, like, if you…if you guys think that's kind of like what you're saying, Helen in the sense that like we…we need to not only come together and kind of be all on the same page, but at the same time, also elevate, like you said, other…other people's stories and other communities, and like, give them…like, pass the mic to them, almost.
Helen 38:40
Hm Mmm.
Jordan 38:41
Does that make sense?
Helen 38:42
Yeah, definitely. I think there's a strong power in collectivity and in the creation of a movement that is powered by numbers, for sure. That goes without doubt. Like, if we look historically at civil rights movements, for example. The greater the collective, the more impact it tends to have. The thing about the climate is that, like I've been mentioning, it affects certain people more heavily than others. But as it stands, our discourse about it in mainstream media doesn't necessarily value that. So if we are to really create a collective movement that is strong and impactful that collective movement will have to move away from, like, “white feminist environmentalism” and move toward an intersectional approach to the environment and its regulation. And so, part of that is going to be reframing our journalism to value those stories and to center those people, and then part of it will be a structural response, like I was mentioning earlier, where governments are better regulating corporations and companies. Not just in the amount of emissions that they can create or not, not just in imposing carbon taxes, but in actually making structural changes that get to the core of the environmental issues, like the offering of services that disproportionately produce carbon emissions, right? So this is a multi-pronged issue, that if we are to create a collect— a collective, to really make an impact, we need to maybe move away from metal straws and single use plastics, and move more towards corporate regulation, structural regulation, and prioritizing the stories of indigenous folks who live their lives so tethered to the land, and who experienced climate change and environmental destruction, through a totally different lens.
Jordan 41:43
Have you— Did you learn to take this, like, intersectional approach in, like, your courses…is…Are you trying to, like, incorporate that into your…your PhD research work, right now?
Helen 41:53
I actually used it in my master's thesis, looking at the policy processes for FEMA’s Hurricane Katrina and other environmental aid processes. And I was trying to adopt an intersectional lens to look at these environmental issues and the policy responses to them. Because policy in general, just like the law, tends to exclude people of color and people with intersectional identities. And so I have adopted this in— this intersectional lens, directly in my work. And I think, if you're any academic or any critical thinker, looking at the environment, you can't make a meaningful impact if you aren't considering the intersectionality of folks grappling with these environmental ramifications. Like, the way that different types of people experience natural disaster, experience climate change, and experience the policies that regulate those issues, is so important to developing robust change, but it tends to be marginal. Now though, [inaudible] of environmental racism, and so on, that are valuing intersectional approaches. But again, this is more of a new way of looking at environmental issues that still needs to catch on in more of a meaningful way. But if it does, I think that there can be some serious impact made in the field.
Mimi 43:52
I'm curious to know, like, more about your relationship with nature, like, even from, like, when you were a young kid, and then also how has your studies and this research impacted the way you view nature?
Helen 44:07
Hmm mm. Yeah, so like I had mentioned earlier, I've always been attuned to my environment and to nature, but it wasn't something I thought very critically about until university. And, now that it's part of my academic research and ambitions, I've become more aware of what I can personally do to make a better impact on the world, but I've also become very aware of how policy and regulatory structures need to be more robust in order for change to actually happen. So, I'm very cognizant of the small changes I can make to better my ecological footprint, like I was saying before, but I'm also very concerned about the impact that those changes will have if regulatory capacity does not change. And so, I would say my relationship to nature and to environment is contentious in that I want to make change, I want to do my part, and I feel an obligation to, but I know that part of that obligation needs to extend to, like, poli— policy lobbying, or making research that can be used in governmental processes, or, you know, creating activist groups that pressure the government to actually impose change and impose meaningful policy and regulation. And so…Yeah, there is kind of a nuanced perspective that I have now that I'm so steeped in this issue in an academic way, because I understand the multiplicity of the issue in ways that I didn't necessarily understand it before. And part of that was age, part of that was education, and part of that was just a growing awareness of what I personally can do to make an impact, and what the government can do to make an impact, and how those need to work together in order to actually mitigate the environmental impacts of not just digital communications, like I've been speaking about, but about any emissions from any corporation.
Mimi 47:15
Do you think that your privilege played a part in how you understand nature? Or if it didn't, like, how…how it didn't play that part?
Helen 47:26
I think it definitely did, I think it…I would be ignorant to think that it didn't. Part of that is having the financial and social capital to attend an educational institution where I could get this type of knowledge and pursue this type of research. Part of it is also, like I had mentioned earlier, not having to face the material effects of climate change on a daily basis, given my status, necessarily changed the way that I understood nature and the environment before I started researching it. So I think that is a critical point that I need to really understand and acknowledge. And that I think a lot of people working in writing about, thinking about the environment should…should also acknowledge because I'm not feeling the effects of environmental destruction in ways that are material to my life, but now that I've gotten that education and done the research, I understand that…that impact in a more nuanced way than I did before I got that education. But, like I said, that education is a privilege of mine. And the ability to study this stuff from an outsider's perspective is also a privileged place to be in. And I take that privilege, and I acknowledge it in my work and the ways that I live my life. And in my research, I do strive to send her the voices of folks who are more disproportionately affected by environmental destruction. And I plan to do that going forward because I think it's really important and something that needs to be more mainstream than it is right now.
[outro]
Mimi 50:02
Thanks for listening to this episode of Imperfect Eco-Hero. Stay connected with us through our instagram @Imperfect_ecohero or email us at imperfectecohero@gmail.com. If you want to learn more about our podcast or see resources related to this episode, visit our website imperfectecohero.com.
