A contradiction,
What should we do?
Innovation for eviction,
Or bid sustainability adieu?
Many organisations have been focused on balancing sustainability with the value of face-to-face meetings. While there’s no single statistic directly comparing the carbon savings of avoiding in-person meetings, a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that skipping a return flight from London to Edinburgh could save around 380 kg of CO₂ per person. By contrast, a one-hour HD video conferencing call generates roughly 300 grams of CO₂, depending on the device and network.
Back in 2020, I shared a post on LinkedIn exploring this very theme, “Tech and the Carbon Spiral – What Is Right?”. In it, I highlighted some unsettling stats:
· “In 2019, a then little-known report by The Shift, a French think tank, claimed online video streaming in 2018 was responsible for nearly 300 million tonnes of CO₂—the equivalent of Spain’s total annual emissions from all sectors. That was before Disney and Apple really entered the streaming scene.”
· And from DW.com: “Digital technologies have even surpassed the aerospace industry in terms of carbon emissions. While aviation accounts for around 2.5% of global CO₂ emissions, nearly 4% can now be attributed to digital data transfer and its supporting infrastructure.”
Since then, Microsoft’s emissions rose 29% between 2020 and 2023, driven largely by AI infrastructure. Deloitte estimated that data centres would account for around 2% of global electricity consumption by 2025, and according to MIT, a single ChatGPT query consumes around five times more electricity than a standard web search. Technology simply carries a footprint. A quick Copilot search (yes, I see the irony) revealed that training GPT-3 reportedly produced around 552 metric tons of CO₂e, equivalent to the annual emissions of 120 petrol-powered cars. Each ChatGPT query emits about 4.32 grams of CO₂e, seemingly modest, until multiplied by millions. And as Professor Hannah Cloke from the University of Reading points out, these data centres rely on vast amounts of water for cooling, piling even more pressure on already stretched water supplies.
So, should we worry less about how we meet, and more about how the business itself operates?
Relevance.
But hark, I hear you say, your previous Collectively Better blog declared relevance isn’t a strategy, it’s a lifeline. Remaining relevant often means embracing AI experimentation, testing and retesting to craft something truly exceptional. But this process comes at a carbon cost. With a ‘proceed with caution’ approach, how can we be competitive?
Humanloop, Peptone, Triver, Hadean and Liberis are all UK tech startups that, as I understand it, have raised millions without environmental sustainability as a defining feature. Their strengths lie in AI productivity, healthtech innovation, SME finance and metaverse infrastructure. No one is denying the value they bring, and we all wish them continued, fruitful success. But the open question remains: can we collectively find a way?
A Collectively Better way?
There are heartening signs on the horizon. While not every investor prioritises environmental sustainability, there are encouraging green shoots of hope. Climate tech investment hit $70.1 billion globally in 2023, with strong momentum around AI-powered sustainability solutions. Breakthrough Energy Ventures (founded by Bill Gates), Lowercarbon Capital and Energy Impact Partners all appear to actively back start-ups focused on emissions reduction and energy efficiency. And BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has woven ESG metrics into its investment strategy. An approach I’d interpret as exerting pressure on tech firms to disclose and reduce emissions.
Some start-ups appear to be baking sustainability into their models, not as a compliance checkbox but as a core part of their value proposition. For instance, in the UK, Carbon Re uses AI to cut emissions in heavy industry and is supported by the Clean Growth Fund. Zedify, backed by Green Angel Syndicate, is rethinking urban logistics through zero-emissions delivery.
Where do you sit? No one holds the definitive answer (this is a live debate), but it’s worth asking, and important to know: are you clear on where you stand? If relevance is about focus, about homing in on one winning outcome, what happens when we widen the lens to include environmental responsibility? Do we dilute strategy, or do we deepen impact?
Just this week, I heard some parents of Gen Z say their children are refusing to use ChatGPT because of its environmental impact. Meanwhile, an article I read reports that this year, 65% of global tech executives said sustainability is now a core driver of innovation, not merely a compliance issue. Could this suggest we’re no longer choosing between innovation and responsibility, but beginning to intertwine them?
A stance to be taken,
Which way to go?
Is there a path to awaken,
A new route to tiptoe?