ICT, Sustainability, and the Rebound Effect

It’s impossible to argue against the concept that information and communications technologies (ICT) has revolutionized nearly every aspect of the lives of those living in developed, affluent nations. 

Certainly the arguments about whether these alterations in the current state of our (less-than sustainability-minded) economy, modes of production, manners and nature of communicating, and general process of understanding our place in the global network are varied and equally heated. Some contend that ICT has spawned the greatest revolution in production and consumption since the discovery of fire whereas others see the mass, rapid advancement in technology to be moving forward too quickly for us to process responsibly. Actually, I think most of us rotate between these two poles of belief and perhaps that’s the most responsible way to consider ICT anyway… 

While many of the arguments I make here hinge on the ultimate possibilities offered by ICT as a whole, I realize that there are certain explicit problems that are far too often ignored, especially by those who tend to view technology as a panacea to the world’s problems. I tend to fall into that rose-tinted glasses category myself, so I understand. But without a doubt, there are gaping holes in theory of the global salve of tech—and unfortunately, these problems are related to the same issues that so often cause me to herald the glories of ICT and its positive role in reshaping commuting and consumption patterns in the first place; sustainability.

The notion of the “rebound effect” as it relates to the explosion of widely available technologies and the associated impact on sustainability has been receiving a great deal of attention lately, although the idea has been around for decades. One of the most thorough explanations of the rebound effect and ICT (and one that happens to relate to a topic that is of interest for the Remote Revolution; distributed workplaces) is provided in the 2004 book by Harrison, Wheeler, and Whitehead called, not surprisingly, “Distributed Work” (Taylor and Francis). 

Using sustainability in technology as a springboard to launch their ideas about the possibilities of distributed workplaces, the authors suggest that “although new technology enables production to occur with reduced resource consumption per unit, the subsequent increased availability of products and services stimulates demand, thus increasing resource use overall. These factors are known as the rebound effect.”

While you’re likely to find other succinct definitions of the rebound effect scattered throughout the literature in nearly every field of study (ecology, population studies, economics, etc) I find the speculative thrust of their theories compelling, disturbing, and spot-on correct.

In essence though, what this rebound effect means is that with advancement and efficiency comes increased demand, which does not cure the initial problem of consumption—an issue that the wide availability of ICT was supposed to remedy in the first place.

Harrison, Wheeler, and Whitehead go on to provide examples of the rebound effect of ICT, suggesting that mobile technologies has created an unexpected side-demand for actual travel because the very nature of instant communication allows us to arrange meetings and leave the work site, no matter where that might be. They state that as a system, remote work’s ability to enable work from anywhere while still being linked into their networks by proxy creates a situation where the worker can be mobile while working. In other words, according to the rebound effect, telework necessitates travel and new ways of physically and geographically expanding outward, just in different ways than might have existed before the advent of mobile working arrangements.

Additionally, there are larger issues of consumption and production—what about the wide availability of computers, netbooks, mobile devices? Higher demand creates increased production, which then leads to use, which itself lends to its own different but nonetheless sinister polluting side-effects.

It’s a Catch-22 here.

And frankly, I do not pretend to have any solution—not even a proposal for one. Is it true that as a society, when considering sustainability we’re going to have to choose between the lesser of two evils? I wonder as well, unless the economy as we know it—the global economy, not just the grossly ethnocentric Western one—is completely toppled, if we are simply doomed by this endless cycle of demand, production, consumption, pollution. What I mean to say by that is simply, “is technology—ICT—simply the new commodity that we will use to justify a tired economic system that works against all of our lofty goals of sustainability?”

Great. Now my head hurts.

I like this quote from the “Distributed Workplace” book about sustainability and ICT because it sums up quite perfectly the limitless sense of distress and hopelessness I sometimes feel when considering whether or not there are any solutions at this point—at least in the macro sense:

Sustainability needs to be seen as a dynamic process, not a fixed and attainable state. It is rather like the mathematical concept of a limit—an end point that does not exist as such, and cannot be reached, but represents the hypothetical end point of a tendency

(Harrison, Wheeler, & Whitehead, 2004).

Thoughts? I want to know what you think as I kick off a week discussing the concept of distributed workplaces and more specific ICT-related issues.