Digitalisation is a major ‘wild-card’ in the pursuit of a cessation of global warming. Digital technologies can directly and indirectly increase or decrease GHG emissions, and these effects can be categorised into three types of effect:
1. First-order effects: direct GHG emissions from the raw material acquisition, production, use and end-of-life treatment of digital technologies (i.e., those comprising data centers, data transmission networks, and connected devices); also referred to as the footprint or lifecycle impacts of digital goods, networks or services or, using another categorization, of devices and digital infrastructure;
2. Second-order effects: indirect effects on emissions resulting from digitalization—the use of digital technologies and services—which can increase or decrease emissions beyond their footprint; positive second-order effects that decrease emissions are known under names such as ‘enabling effects’, ‘abatement’ and ‘avoided emissions’; this effect is sometimes also referred to as the ‘handprint’; negative second-order effects can be referred to as ‘added emissions’;
3. Third-order effects: other indirect effects on emissions stemming from the first- or second-order effects of digitalization, such as rebound, changes in consumption patterns, lifestyles and value systems, which can result in increased or decreased emissions. They are sometimes referred to as ‘other’ effects or ‘higher order’ effects.

This paper assesses the methodological challenges in estimating each of these effects, and thus the future of digitisation as a tool to combat global warming.

This study focuses on embodied carbon emissions of user devices associated with accessing networks, hence tablets, smartphones and feature phones, laptop and desktop PCs and customer premises equipment (CPEs). The purpose is to investigate the embodied carbon emissions by applying different approaches: i) the commonly used approach where estimated product carbon emissions are scaled up by shipments, ii) allocation of the electronic sector companies’ reported data combined with materials data for the products, and iii) the upstream carbon emissions reported by user device vendors (final manufacturers). Despite its sensitivity to allocation the second approach is considered to give the most reasonable overall result of about 180 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) related to chosen user device types and shipments in 2020.

Research has been conducted on electricity use associated with adigital services, but to date no complete study of television distribution has been conducted. Here the authors present the first assessment of electricity used for distribution and viewing of television over different distribution platforms terrestrial, satellite, cable and online streaming. It uses a novel methodology that combines life cycle assessment techniques with models of the diversity of actual user behaviour, derived from detailed audience monitoring and online behaviour analytics data.

Koomey and Masanet published a peer-reviewed commentary in the journal Joule, discussing the pitfalls that plague estimates of the internet’s energy and carbon impacts.

The paper describes how these errors can lead well-intentioned studies to predict massive energy growth in the information technology sector, which often doesn’t materialize. “We’re not saying the energy use of the internet isn’t a problem, or that we shouldn’t worry about it,” Masanet explained. “Rather, our main message is that we all need to get better at analysing internet energy use and avoiding these pitfalls moving forward.”

A new white paper published by the Carbon Trust estimates an average carbon footprint of 55gCO2e per hour of video streaming in Europe in 2020, with viewing device as the largest determining factor. The white paper was developed in close consultation with DIMPACT.

What’s the true impact of streaming on the climate? Some studies have tried to answer this question, but it’s hard to get right. Delivering an episode of Shadow and Bone to your screen requires different technologies that are constantly evolving - from the data centers where the data is housed, to the infrastructure that brings the internet to your home, to the electricity powering how you enjoy the show. Measuring those emissions took a lot of guesswork, resulting in studies with inaccurate estimates and myths - until now.

In this updated analysis, George Kamiya challenges the assumptions made by some estimates of the carbon impacts of video streaming. The article provides an estimate of the emissions based on the most up-to-date information (at the time of publishing).