Sustainable IT: How to Reduce IT Carbon Footprint by 50% and Minimize E-waste

End user computing devices create over 1% of annual GHG emissions [1] and, therefore, meaningfully contribute to global warming and, ultimately, climate change.

On average, eighty percent of this carbon footprint is generated by more than 665 million new computers, such as desktops and laptops, being manufactured and supplied each year[2]. The remainder is caused by an estimated 4.2 billion users consuming electricity as they operate existing and new personal computers at work and at home.

To help you decide if it’s worth taking action to reduce this impact, it’s worthwhile considering that this footprint requires a forest the size of Argentina to remove the resulting carbon from Earth’s atmosphere every year.  Comparatively, only 50 years ago the worldwide carbon footprint created by personal computers would have been photosynthesised by a single oak tree. That’s a perplexing thought.

My point is that unless we apply the United Nations goal of ‘responsible consumption’ to an ever-growing end user computing carbon footprint, we won’t prevent that 1% contribution to emissions from quickly becoming 2% as new product demand grows alongside swelling numbers of users.

On this point, I’m often asked if tackling end user computing emissions is feasible. In fact, my research shows that most company stakeholders consider sustainable information technology strategies complex, expensive and with little impact [3] and therefore shy away from it.

However, the same body of research dispels this opinion, showing that in fact sustainable IT is often very simple to plan for and accomplish and significantly reduces both carbon footprint and costs [4].

This is particularly relevant when adopting what I consider to be the most meaningful sustainable IT strategy of all: ‘keeping devices for longer’.

On average companies keep personal computers for approximately 4 years. It doesn’t take a scientist to point out that by keeping them for twice as long reduces supply chain carbon footprint and procurement costs by half. It’s simple maths; you will be buying new products 50% less often, meaning 50% less new product demand and manufacturing and 50% less capital expenditure.

I often receive resistance when suggesting the concept and it’s usually focused on concerns about OS obsolescence and ongoing device performance. My usual reply is, ‘could the devices be repurposed in different roles or in a way that offloads performance to the cloud?’. Usually, the answer is yes and the results are compelling.

As an example, I recently scientifically tested the practice [5]. Instead of disposing of existing computers and buying new devices, a financial sector organisation repurposed over 3,000 desktops to become thin clients using IGEL OS. By doing so the lifespan of the computers was doubled due to their new role.

Having avoided emissions associated with end of asset recycling and disposal plus new product manufacture and supply, the company reduced the IT project’s carbon footprint by 1.4 million kgCO₂e. In context that’s equivalent emissions caused by driving a combustion engine car 8.5 million km or 212 times around the Earth.

Additionally, £1.7 million in new product costs was avoided proving that sustainable IT is in fact good for the planet and for profit.

With sustainable IT options such as IGEL, barriers to adopting sustainable IT are removed and particularly ‘keeping devices for longer’ becomes a very potent reality when considering GHG abatement.

Adopted at scale the impact is significant. It is feasible that if the industry standard retention period was to transition from 4 years to 8 years, then new product demand globally will plummet by 50%. This would mean the annual production of over 300 million new devices would cease.

So, the question is, do we want to continue to need a forest the size of Argentina to clean up our end user computing emissions? Or do we want to collectively realise UN SDG 12 responsible consumption and drive goal number 13 climate action to build a more sustainable future?

References

[1] Sutton-Parker, J. (2022), ‘Is sufficient carbon footprint information available to make sustainability focused computer procurement strategies meaningful?’. 1877-0509. Procedia Computer Science, Volume 203, 2022, Pages 280-289. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Science Direct, Elsevier B.V.
Available at: <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187705092200641X

[2] Sutton-Parker, J. and Procter, R. (2023), ‘Determining UK government scope 2 and 3 computer greenhouse gas emissions’. Procedia Computer Science 224C (2023) pp. 336-342. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Science Direct, Elsevier B.V.
Available at: <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187705092301092X>

[3] Sutton-Parker, J. (2020), ‘Quantifying resistance to the diffusion of information technology sustainability practices in the United Kingdom service sector’. Volume 175, 2020, Pages 517-524. doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.07.073. 1877-0509. Procedia Computer Science. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Science Direct, Elsevier B.V.

Available at: <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050920317737>

[4]  Sutton-Parker, J. (2022), ‘The impact of end user computing carbon footprint information on human behavioural change and greenhouse gas emission abatement.’ Warwick, UK: University of Warwick, Computer Science Dept.

[5] Sutton-Parker, J. and Procter, R. (2023), ‘Greenhouse gas abatement via repurposing computers’. Procedia Computer Science 224C (2023) pp. 296-305. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Science Direct, Elsevier B.V.
Available at: <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050923010876>