We need a holistic approach to certify sustainability
The traditional way of focusing on material and recycling is not enough. We need to consider the entire product lifecycle all the way from sourcing and manufacturing to distribution and recycling.
According to the IEA report “Net Zero by 2025” about half of the CO2 emissions reductions necessary to reach net zero by 2050 may need to come from technologies that are not yet on the market.
This should not necessarily be interpreted as that all of it is expected to come from entirely new technology that is not yet invented. But rather that we should explore technology that may already exist but that needs to be optimised, made more efficient, refined in production and made commercially available.
In their ambition to reach different climate goals, a lot of governments are raising their R&D spending to boost all this new technology that have the potential to both increase our living standards and contribute to more sustainable societies. However, at this point it is important to point out that only throwing money at R&D in and by itself may not lead to more feasible technology solutions, as so well pointed out by Robinson Meyer in the article about Why America Doesn’t Really Make Solar Panels Anymore .
Given the time it takes to develop new technology and to make it scalable and commercially available it is high time for governments, institutions and investors to step up their game and be more specific in their investments. Investments today already focus on technology that is scalable, close to market launch and has the potential to make an impact both here and now and also in the long term perspective. But this is not enough. Other parameters needs to be taken into consideration to gain a holistic view and make a sustainability assessment of new technology.
Technical solutions should be assessed and evaluated not only for its applicational features but also on how it’s produced. Scientists may very well know of various technically feasible solutions but then it may turn out that production will require rare materials that are expensive, be very energy and/or water-intensive and require global logistics.
Another aspect of sustainable production concerns the conditions of labor. China is accused to use forced labor in the Xinjiang province and to repress Uyghurs and other muslim minorities there. The region produces a significant portion of the worlds polysilicon — a key material in making solar panels. This is not only being questioned but US now ban several of the polysilicon product from the region from being imported to US. This practice of pressure could be applied both by EU and other markets as well as in other exploited segments.
New technology needs to be assessed and evaluated on the entire CO2 footprint, societal effects and sustainability impact already from sourcing and production, whereas up until today a lot of focus has been on the recycling capacity. R&D support and financial investments should favour production in low-temperature, low-energy and water consumption and reduced need for transport/logistics. And it is also necessary to put a sustainability value on how people and societies are impacted from poor working conditions, political oppression, mining etc.
For smart buildings the emphasis has been on the energy savings that can be made by installing sensors to optimise the indoor environment and in retail much could be gained in terms of price optimisation by deploying electronic shelf labels, this is indisputable. But, what is not included in these calculations are all the millions of disposable batteries that are needed to power it all. To make buildings and digitalisation green and sustainable, IoT devices should be made self-powered by renewable energy. Only then can we get a fair calculation on cost benefit and be able to put a true value on the sustainability impact.
