LUCSUS Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies

1_ View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Lund University Publications - Student Papers

Towards a Green Global Golden Age? ICT enabled cornucopian sustainability and a suggestion for its reform

Kai Christian Wagner

Master Thesis Series in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science, No 2017:018

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Lund University International Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science (30hp/credits)

LUCSUS Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies

Towards a Green Global Golden Age? ICT enabled cornucopian sustainability and a suggestion for its reform

Kai Christian Wagner

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Lund University International Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science Submitted May 16, 2017 Supervisor: Henrik Thorén, LUCSUS, Lund University

Page intentionally left blank

Abstract:

This conceptual thesis analyses Carlota Pérez vision of a ‘Green Global Golden Age’ that is supposed to reconcile the tension between economic growth and sustainability (Pérez, 2016b). Aiming to address the pressing issue of continued unsustainability, Pérez’ proposed solution is based on the assumption that technological innovation in the field of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) can successfully decouple economic growth from unsustainable levels of raw material consumption and environmental pollution. This shall be achieved by a combination of circular economy principles and dematerialized consumption patterns. The feasibility of Pérez’ proposal is analysed from a sustainability science perspective. This is done via applying a systems perspective on the implications of Pérez’ assumptions regarding ICT with a particular focus on sustainability. The analysis of Pérez’ proposal, its discussion and the later normative extension is structured with the help of the reinterpreted three-dimensional research matrix by Jerneck et al. (2011) that has been appropriated for this thesis. Based on a literary review, Pérez’ proposal is found to present significant trade-offs between the objectives of economic growth and sustainability. With the aim to contribute both, a critical analysis of the sustainability implications of Pérez’ ‘Green Global Golden Age’ and a normative discussion of its potential reform, the second part of this thesis is focusing on the identification of Pérez’ overarching objective and alternative strategies to achieve them. In this analysis, Human wellbeing is identified to be this underlying objective. In contrast to the mainstream operationalization of wellbeing as the number of goods and services an individual enjoys, Amartya Sen’s work on ‘Development as Freedom’ (1999) is introduced as an alternative operationalization of human wellbeing. Following the objective to provide an alternative economic paradigm that unites environmental concerns with human wellbeing in the sense of Sen, Kate Raworth’s (2012) idea of doughnut economics is introduced. Linking back to the review of ICT and its effects on sustainability, the last part is concerned with the critical discussion of Pérez’ Cornucopian perspective on technology. As a result of this discussion, it is made clear that technology plays an important role in the transition towards a sustainable future, but only if its limitations are acknowledged. The thesis concludes with a short summary of the different chapters, and two possible directions for future research.

Keywords: green growth, ICT, rebound effect, human development, doughnut economics, dematerialization

Word count (thesis): 13973

Acknowledgements

As much as I had looked forward to this process of writing the thesis and getting lost in a topic, as much did I experience the challenge of finding a way to convert my curiosity and multiple interests into an actual output. Looking at the topics I engage with in this thesis, the present work necessarily represents just a very small fraction of the reading, discussing and thinking that I engaged in in the last year. I am thus very grateful for all the inspiration and challenging thoughts that I had the pleasure to share with many different people. As a result of this process, I am looking forward to what’s ahead of me, hoping to find a way to further develop my thoughts and practically contribute to sustainability.

I want to thank my LUMES classmates and particularly the people in my thesis group, for feedback and helpful comments that helped to strengthen this thesis. I owe the same gratitude to my supervisor Henrik Thorén and my teacher Turaj Faran who both supported me throughout this process and encouraged me to write about the issues that I care for. Last but not least, I want to thank Teresa, my family and my friend Lena for the wholehearted support in these stressful months.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Research Aim & Motivation ...... 2 1.2 Research Process ...... 2 1.3 Research Context ...... 3 1.4 Theoretical Stipulations ...... 7

2. Sustainability Implications of ICT ...... 9 2.1 Framework for ICT Effects with Relevance to Sustainability ...... 9 2.2 Direct Effects of ICT ...... 10 2.2.1 Productivity & Material Complexity ...... 10 2.2.2 Unmastered Complexity ...... 11 2.2.3 The ICT Life Cycle ...... 11 2.2.4 Social Dimensions of the ICT Life Cycle ...... 13 2.2.5 Implications for the Circular Economy ...... 14 2.3 Indirect Effects of ICT ...... 16 2.3.1 Positive Indirect Effects ...... 16 2.3.2 Negative Indirect Effects ...... 17 2.3.3 Implications for Dematerialization ...... 18 2.4 Systemic Effects of ICT ...... 19 2.4.1 Introduction to Rebound Effects ...... 20 2.4.2 Rebound Effects of ICT ...... 23 2.4.3 ICTs as a Critical Infrastructure ...... 25

3. Sustainability Implications of the ‘Green Global Golden Age’ ...... 26

4. Alternative Perspectives on the ‘Green Global Golden Age’ ...... 28 4.1 The Overarching Sustainability Goal ...... 28 4.2 An Alternative Strategy to Achieve Sustainability ...... 31 4.3 Perspectives on Technology in a Sustainable Future ...... 32

5. Summary and Conclusions ...... 34

References ...... 36

Glossary ...... 48

List of Figures

Figure 1: Three-dimensional research matrix ………………………………………………………………… 3 Figure 2: Technological Revolutions ………………………………………………………………………………. 4 Figure 3: Framework for ICT Effects on Sustainability .…………………………………………………… 9 Figure 4: Exemplary Life Cycle ………………………………………………………………………….…………… 12 Figure 5: The Doughnut Economy Paradigm …………………………………………………………………. 31

List of Abbreviations

GDP: Gross Domestic Product GGGA: Green Global Golden Age GPT: General-purpose Technology GWP: Global Warming Potential ICT: Information and Communication Technology LCA: Life Cycle Assessment/Analysis REMs: Rare Earth Metals SS: Sustainability Science

1. Introduction

Climate change is a major challenge for the 21st century, with anthropocentric greenhouse gas emissions leading to unprecedented global warming (IPCC, 2014). While the challenge of climate change is being politically recognised in the Paris Agreement to limit warming below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels (UNFCCC, 2015), humanity’s life support systems are threatened in many more ways (Steffen et al., 2015), making sustainability the overarching objective of the centuries ahead. To sustain a ‘safe operating space for humanity’ (Rockström et al., 2009) requires a transformation of unsustainable practices on all levels and across multiple scales to make sure that the Anthropocene (Crutzen, 2002) can host its creators in the future.

This thesis provides a theoretical discussion of one potential approach towards such a transformation. In her proposal for a sustainable reform of the economy, the influential economic historian Carlota Pérez developed the proposal for a ‘Green Global Golden Age’ (GGGA) that is aiming to reconcile the tension between economic growth and sustainability concerns (Pérez, 2016b). With a focus on technological innovation in the field of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)1, Pérez’ envisions an economy that is built upon circular material flows that are decoupled from unsustainable patterns of extraction. Acknowledging the need to keep material throughput at a constant rate, her proposal sees economic growth to be generated by a growing proportion of intangible goods and services as a part of the Gross domestic product (GDP).

With Pérez’ vision relying heavily on the potential of ICTs to enable dematerialized economic growth, while increasing material productivity throughout the economy, many assumptions are made about the capacities of ICTs. Aiming to analyse and discuss these assumptions from a Sustainability Science (SS) perspective, this thesis employs a systems perspective on the implications of ICTs in Pérez’ proposal. Based on this analysis, three major tensions in Pérez’ assumptions are identified and addressed with a discussion of the overarching objectives of both, economic growth and technological innovation. With reference to different concepts of sustainable development, these discussions are extended by normative proposals for alternative strategies to achieve the overarching objective of sustainable development in the sense of Amartya Sen’s idea of ‘Development as Freedom’.

1 The use of ICT as a term in this thesis is referring to Information and Communication Technologies and electronics as understood by Galvin (2015). In his use of the term, ICT refers to electrical components (valves & transistors) and devices that are containing such components (Galvin, 2015). This definition is assumed to be in line with Pérez’ understanding of ICT, which is not defined, but implicitly rests on the assumption of ICT being embedded in all kinds of products. 1

1.1 Research Aim & Motivation The decision to look at Pérez’ proposal from a SS perspective is motivated by the interesting combination of approaches that her work represents. Her focus on technology enabled dematerialization as a way to overcome the inherent tension of environmental impact and economic growth poses important questions. With her proposal aiming for a paradigm shift (Pérez, 2016b), which is described as a very deep (effective) leverage point2 for sustainability by Abson et al. (2016), a closer analysis of the feasibility of the GGGA is both interesting and relevant from a SS perspective. A closer look at Pérez’ proposed technological solution of efficiency and dematerialization is thus needed to discuss its implications for sustainability. Based on the described motivation, this thesis aims to discuss the following question:

Whether and how is the ‘Green Global Golden Age’ feasible with the proposed technological solutions based on the available Information about the sustainability implications of ICT?

1.2 Research Process This conceptual thesis engages with Pérez’ proposal on a theoretical level. To answer the question stated above, a review of existing research on the sustainability implications of ICT is presented with a particular focus on the assumptions of Pérez’ proposal:

• No or very low consumption of non-renewable resources in a circular economy • The substitution of physical products with intangibles and services • Increased productivity throughout the economy enabled by ICT

Information on these assumptions was collected based on a very broad literary research, utilizing both, fixed search terms (i.e. ICT; sustainability; dematerialization) as well as snowball research based on the initial stock of literature found via search in databases such as Google Scholar and Web of Science. Although this approach is very dynamic and exact replication could be challenging, the aim of this thesis is to provide a theoretical discussion of Pérez proposal for ICT enabled sustainability rather than a systematic literature review. It is further important to mention that this thesis does not engage with a discussion of Pérez use of economic theory, but only with Pérez’ perspective on technology and its role to allow for continued economic growth.

2 Based on work by Meadows (1997), Abson et al. (2016) argue that there are different ways to intervene in a system (and transform it). Differentiating 12 leverage points in a nested hierarchy, Abson et al. (2016) argue that paradigm-change is a very powerful point of leverage, offering the possibility to transform the system. 2

It is therefore important to highlight that this mode of research allowed for a very specific search that resulted in the literature review and analysis part presented in this thesis. Information on the GGGA is first of all based on the aforementioned book chapter, but also informed by other articles and public talks from Pérez that are referenced accordingly.

To analyse Pérez’ proposal from a Sustainability Science perspective, the three-dimensional research platform provided by Jerneck et al. (2011) is utilised to describe and structure the different dimensions that are touched upon in the coming chapters (Figure 1). This thesis aims to achieve both: a critical analysis of the implications of Pérez’ proposal (3.) and a normative discussion that could contribute to the solution of tensions within Pérez proposal (4.). A basis for the scientific understanding of Pérez’ proposal regarding technology and its sustainability implications is provided firstly via the analysis of her proposal (1.3) and secondly with the detailed literary review on ICTs sustainability implications (2. & 3.). The sustainability goals of the GGGA are discussed (4.1) and in the final and third step, alternative perspectives on these sustainability goals are discussed (4.2 & 4.3). The sustainability challenges arising from Pérez’ proposal will inform all these steps. The three- dimensional research matrix is thus appropriated for the purpose of structuring this theoretical analysis and discussion of Pérez’ proposal. Figure 1 This three-dimensional research matrix is taken from Jerneck et al. (2011, p. 72), where it is presented as a tool for the exploration of sustainability challenges. This is achieved via providing a generic model for knowledge structuring that can be utilised to structure and create new knowledge (Jerneck et al., 2011). (For a detailed account on the interpretation and utilization of this matrix in the context of this thesis, please see the text above.)

1.3 Research Context In her contribution to the book “Rethinking Capitalism: Economics and Policy for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth” (Jacobs & Mazzucato, 2016) Pérez’ proposed her vision to achieve the objective to live sustainably on the planet (Pérez, 2016b). Based on a four-year research project in continuation of her earlier work (Pérez, 2013, 2015, 2016a), she builds on the idea of business cycles as introduced by Schumpeter (1939) in his extension on the long-wave theory by Nikolai Kondratiev.

In her historical analysis, Pérez’ identifies Techno-Economic Paradigm Shifts to describe the dynamics of ‘creative destruction’ in ‘technological revolutions’ (Figure 2), that follow a similar pattern of successive “great surges of development” (Pérez, 2016b, p. 195). Her proposal is situating us in the middle of the 5th technological revolution, the ‘ICT-Revolution’ (Pérez, 2016b). Since its start with the invention of the microchip in 1971, ‘creative destruction’ has changed the economy in multiple ways (installation phase), while the Dot-com bubble of 2000 and the financial crisis since 2008 represent the turning points (Pérez, 2016b). Following her analysis, the ‘deployment phase’ of the ‘ICT-Revolution’ should now be initiated by appropriate policy reforms and a redefinition of the ‘good life’ to initiate a GGGA (Pérez, 2016b). This GGGA would be characterized by different values and a new economy moving in a ‘green’ direction (Pérez, 2016b).

Figure 2 This graphic is taken from Pérez’ proposal to describe her understanding of economic development and its linkages with technological innovation (Pérez, 2016b, p. 195). Technological revolutions are characterized by the emergence of new technological opportunities and innovation dynamics, leading to the subsequent replacement of old technologies and potentially complete industries, all fuelled by easily available finance encouraged by the promises of new technology. At some point during this ‘installation period’, the promise of new technologies creates a major financial bubble that eventually leads into recession, thereby slowing the economy through lacking trust, resulting in underinvestment and the innovation potential to lay fallow. Pérez’ argument is that the following ‘deployment period’ leads to the full potential of the technological solution to unfold for society (Pérez, 2016b).

The elements that constitute this ‘green’ direction are: increased productivity across all sectors of the economy enabled by innovation in ICTs, product durability and quality, increased efforts to close material cycles (circular economy), the emergence of successive reuse markets for physical goods and a general trend towards services and immaterial goods enabled by ICT.

In a concerted effort, these elements are suggested to lead to increased resource and material efficiency, higher material productivity and a steady growing proportion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) comprised of services and intangible goods (Pérez, 2016b).

For Pérez, the deployment phase is signified by ‘creative construction’ that is unlike the ‘installation period’ characterized by increased levels of wellbeing for the whole population (Pérez, 2017). To enable this dynamic towards a GGGA Pérez (2016b) describes the following two aspects as necessary:

• The technological potential has to be revived via policies that signal a clear direction for innovation. Pérez (2016b) describes this as an active effort of the state to tilt the playing field and generate new trust into technological change and the reshaping of the economy, creating a demand-pull for new technologies and increased productivity throughout the economy. • A shift in values accompanied by a redefinition of the aspirational ‘good life’ is necessary to change consumption patterns and by that demand for newly emerging sustainable consumption of products and services (Pérez, 2016b). Pérez sees this change to already take place among the young and educated elites that she assumes to be the role models (defining an aspirational lifestyle that is subsequently adopted by the rest of the population).

The objective of Pérez’ proposal is sustainable3 economic growth that benefits the whole society. Her pathway towards that aim differs from mainstream economic thinking4, focusing on the reform of both formal and informal institutions (policy reforms and values)(Schuckmann, 2015). Ultimately, these changes shall enable sustainable consumption that is based on three perspectives (Sachs, Santarius, & Camiller, 2007):

• Efficiency (In production and use of energy and resources) • Consistency (A shift from non-renewable to renewable resources) • Sufficiency (Reduced volume of products and services)

3 Pérez’ definition of sustainability remains vague, but her focus is on lower resource consumption to ensure reduced environmental impact to stay within the regenerative capacity of the planet and further improve global justice, thus having both, environmental and social dimensions (Pérez, 2016b). 4 A framework for approaches to sustainability within capitalism is differentiating them based on whether they require change in both formal and informal institutions (Schuckmann, 2015, p. 10). Requiring changes in the formal and informal institutional setting with an emphasis on government reform, Pérez’ proposal would be placed at the radical end of the spectrum far-off from mainstream approaches. 5

Pérez’ proposal is in line with this definition and by that very close to other ‘Green Growth’ approaches. But in contrast to these approaches, her proposal does not rely on the mainstream ‘Green Growth’ concept of economic valuation (i.e. Payment for Ecosystem Services) to reconcile the tension between the economy and the environment (Solow, 1993). In her proposal, economic growth is achieved via an increasing proportion of intangible goods and services as a part of economic activity, while the physical economy (producing material/tangible goods) remains at a stable level of resource consumption (Pérez 2016b). This approach is called dematerialization and is supposedly enabled by ICTs.

Sufficiency is thus only concerned with the use of material resources, while consumption is supposed to grow independently from resource use. Regarding tangible products based on material resources (food, clothing, ICT-hardware), Pérez’ envisions a circular economy that is very efficient in its use of resources, using them either circularly or obtaining them from renewable sources (Pérez, 2016b).

Technological efficiency (enabled by ICTs) is therefore understood to lead to absolute decoupling5, which is reflected in her description of a ‘green’ direction defining efficiency as a prime concern for innovation (Pérez, 2016b). Her vision thus relies on a change in technologies and values that lead to dematerialized consumption, allowing for growth irrespective of stable material consumption (Pérez, 2016b).

It is important to highlight that Pérez’ focus on economic growth seems to be based on the assumption that it is a driver of innovation and important for human wellbeing, described in the metaphor that a rising tide will “. . . lift all boats.” (Pérez, 2016b, p. 200) or when Pérez’ highlights that capitalism is only legitimate when it enables “. . . the successful ambitions of the few to benefit the many” (Pérez, 2016b, p. 215).

In summary, her proposal is based on dematerialization that in her words is brought about by „ . . . increasing the proportion of services and intangibles, both in GDP and in the individual satisfaction of needs.“ (Pérez, 2016b, p. 203). With reference to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015, p. 23), this shall be achieved through a reorganization of the economy towards a new mode of value creation that is independent from the utilization of finite resources.

5 In this thesis, decoupling refers to resource decoupling (reduction of the rate of [primary] resources per unit of economic activity) and impact decoupling (reduction of negative environmental impacts per unit of economic activity) (Fischer-Kowalski et al., 2011). For both types, absolute decoupling should be achieved, being defined as an absolute reduction in resource use irrespective of the economic growth rate. 6

In a circular economy, natural capital is sustained or even increased while resources are recycled in the best possible condition to allow for maximum utility while negative side effects of resource utilization such as pollution or health risks are eradicated (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). To ensure that economic growth is successfully decoupled from resource use, Pérez vision relies on steep increases in productivity throughout the economy enabled by technological innovation (Pérez, 2016b).

1.4 Theoretical Stipulations Theoretical questions will mostly be discussed in the respective sections. Here, only the broader theoretical background is presented to inform about the general approach taken in the analysis and discussion of Pérez proposal.

Sustainability Science (SS) is a dynamic and diverse field of research, making it necessary to clarify applied definitions and stipulations up front in order to facilitate constructive interdisciplinary work. Cardinally, SS is open to a variety of definitions6 which Miller (2013) differentiates into ‘Universalist Sustainability’ and ‘Procedural Sustainability’.

Following a popular definition, sustainable development „. . . implies meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. . . “ (United Nations, 1987, p. 1; World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). This Universalist (‘thin’) definition of sustainability is said to represent a minimal definition of sustainability that everyone can agree on (as noted by Thomas Parris in (Miller, 2013)) thus having the ability to instigate agreement without the necessity to agree upon anything concrete (Miller, 2013).

‘Procedural Sustainability’ on the other hand is defining sustainability as the outcome of a participatory process in which societal values and pathways for a desirable future are defined (Miller, 2013). ‘Procedural Sustainability’ is ultimately ‘thick’ and context dependent, representing a participatory process in which the contextual meaning of sustainability has been defined in multiple layers of specification (Miller, 2013).

6 Another popular definition, differentiating ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ sustainability is taken up in chapter four. 7

If not stated otherwise, sustainability will be used with its Universalist definition throughout this thesis. Pérez’ implicit statements on sustainability are in line with this Universalist definition of sustainability (Pérez, 2016b), and its openness allows for the broad discussion of sustainability implications that is undertaken in this thesis.

In the discussion of Pérez’ proposal, her work is understood to aim at the resolution of tensions between economic growth and the environment. This very tension is described as the meaning of sustainable development, understanding it as the field in which the inherent tensions between environmental concerns and economic growth unfold (Faran, 2010, p. 2). Building on this assumption, Pérez proposal is aimed at sustainable development, arguing for the tension between environmental impact and economic growth to be solved via technological innovation.

To exemplify Pérez proposed solution, the IPAT identity introduced by Ehrlich and Holdren (1971) is utilized to understand human impact on the environment. This simple model states that environmental impact (I) is the product of: world population (P), affluence (A) and technological efficiency (T) (Chertow, 2000). Hence, changes in Population, Affluence and Technology can level out. Introduced to discuss the problems associated with a growing world population7, it has since been interpreted in many different ways and received both praise and criticism for its capability as a reductionist model for human impact on the environment (Chertow, 2000).

Since the first introduction of the IPAT identity, technological efficiency emerged as the major lever for a reduction of environmental impact due to population regulation being a delicate political issue, and affluence, usually equated with economic growth, being seen as a necessity for development (Chertow, 2000). Making little change in the socioeconomic system necessary, technological efficiency is since expected to compensate for human impact through population dynamics (P) and economic growth (A) (Chertow, 2000).

Explained with the IPAT identity: Pérez’ proposal expects a reduction of (T) and continued growth in affluence (A) to keep human environmental impact at a sustainable level (Population is as usual left out in her proposal).

7 In the debate over the ‘population explosion’ in the early 1970’s, environmentalist argued that the world population should be narrowed down to a constant number of people in order to reduce negative environmental effects (Chertow, 2000). 8

2. Sustainability Implications of ICT

In this chapter, research on the sustainability implications of ICTs is provided to present the scientific understanding necessary for the in-depth discussion of Pérez’ proposal. Utilizing a framework for the effects of ICTs with relevance to sustainability, this chapter is structured as follows: Starting with the description of direct effects of ICTs, a focus is put on the technological implications of ICTs, both in terms of ICT hardware and software from a life cycle perspective. Implications for Pérez’ stipulation of circular material flows are discussed based on the aforementioned sections. Indirect effects are presented with reference to positive and negative indirect effects, leading into the discussion of implications for dematerialization. Systemic effects are addressed with a focus on rebound effects of ICTs and the role of ICTs as critical infrastructures.

2.1 Framework for ICT Effects with Relevance to Sustainability Based on the pioneering work of Berkhout and Hertin (2001), their framework for the effects of ICT with relevance to sustainability has recently been updated by Hilty and Aebischer (2015). While researchers focus on different parts of that framework (and some do not explicitly reference it) their categorization of effects is constant (Andrae & Edler, 2015; Bonvoisin, Lelah, Mathieux, & Brissaud, 2014; Chen, 2016; Maxwell & Miller, 2012; Penzenstadler, Raturi, Richardson, & Tomlinson, 2014; Williams, 2011).

Figure 3. The most recent version of the conceptual framework for ICT effects relevant in the context of sustainability as suggested by Hilty and Aebischer (2015, p. 25) (originally developed by (Berkhout & Hertin, 2001)). The graphic is showing the effects of ICTS on different levels, while categorizing them according to their capacity to be a part of the problem or the solution. The framework is thereby providing a very basic overview of ICT effects on sustainability, without claiming to be exhaustive. The categorization of effects into causing problems and providing solutions is referring to typical cases without claiming to be valid for all possible cases.

2.2 Direct Effects of ICT Direct or first order effects of ICTs, are concerned with the effects of ICTs as a technology. Sustainability can be directly affected by ICT hardware (2.2.1), the corresponding software (2.2.2) or the Life Cycle of ICTs (2.2.3 & 2.2.4).

2.2.1 Productivity & Material Complexity Computing power and energy efficiency of ICT have historically been described with two observations. The first one was originally suggested in 1965 and is known as ‘Moore’s law’. Though not being an actual law, it describes that the number of transistors (reflecting computing power) that can be built into an integrated circuit doubles every 18 months (Moore, 1998). This observed growth rate has since served as an incentive to further increase computing capacity, thereby transforming the observation into a self-fulfilling prophecy (Williams, 2011, p. 354). Researching this historic development, Koomey, Berard, Sanchez and Wong (2011, p.49) found that these gains in computing capacity made improvements in energy efficiency necessary to keep the power densities of microchips on a manageable level. This was achieved via increased miniaturization (equally powerful ICT components becoming smaller and cheaper(Hilty, 2008)) and material complexity (the number of different elements that are used to manufacture a specific component), increasing not only energy efficiency but with it material productivity (using less material for the same output = computing power) (Koomey et al., 2011, p. 49). The observation that results from this trend is that computations per kilowatt-hour (energy efficiency) have doubled roughly every 18 months (Koomey et al., 2011), resulting in the proverbial ‘Koomeys law’.

But, material productivity was made possible with increased material complexity, resulting in the number of chemical elements used in the manufacturing process of Microprocessors to increase from 12 in the 1980’s to 57 and more in 2010, a trend that is also observed in other indispensable ICT components such as storage devices (Hilty, Lohmann, & Huang, 2011).

Increased material complexity alongside continuous growth in electronics consumption led to a rising demand for many so called Rare Earth Metals (REMs), a group of elements that can be found within most advanced electronic components such as microprocessors, batteries, magnets and due to that also in renewable energy technologies from solar panels to wind turbines (Massari & Ruberti, 2013). Most of these minerals are not rare in terms of total deposits, but in relative deposits, leading to a very limited number of places where concentrations make mining economically viable (Massari & Ruberti, 2013).

Beyond the important factor of trade politics, this led to REMs being classified as critical resources by the European Commission (2010). Their supply concentration and scarcity (Ragnarsdottir, 2008), the lack of appropriate substitutes (Massari & Ruberti, 2013) and their limited recycling potential (Binnemans et al., 2013) pose a significant challenge to the ICT industry that is dependent on raw materials with high purity levels, to further improve computing power and energy efficiency (Koomey, Scott Matthews, & Williams, 2013).

2.2.2 Unmastered Complexity Apart from the dynamics in the development of computer hardware, similarly important dynamics can be observed in the software field. Potentially most important is that computer software is not created in the most efficient way, described as ‘unmastered complexity’ (Dijkstra, 1996), being a result of the high speed of hardware development making more efficient programming a minor concern8 (Hilty et al., 2011). Related to this is the empirical observation referred to as ‘Wirth’s law’, describing the paradox of commercial software getting slower more rapidly than hardware getting faster (Wirth, 1995).

In practice, this can lead to premature obsolescence caused either via the introduction of new features (Dijkstra, 1996) or more importantly in the form of upgrades required to ensure further compatibility with new software (Bradley, 2007; Mobbs, 2012). Lacking interoperability between software and hardware thereby leads to premature obsolescence of otherwise fully functional hardware (Stuermer, Abu-Tayeh, & Myrach, 2017).

2.2.3 The ICT Life Cycle One popular way to assess the environmental impact of a product is to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment/Analysis (LCA). Taking into account the complete product life cycle, from the first stage of raw material extraction all the way to the End-of-Life Treatment (Figure 4). While LCAs are widely used to study environmental impacts, studies on ICTs are rare, as has been shown in a recent review by Arushanyan, Ekener-Petersen, and Finnveden (2014) finding 60 LCA studies concerned with ICTs. In the following section, I will shortly summarize the findings of this review and further studies.

8 Interestingly, limitations can propel innovation, exemplified in the emergence of mobile computing, where limitations in available energy and computing power made software efficiency a major concern, leading to reductions in ‘unmastered complexity’ (Hilty et al., 2011). 11

Figure 4. Simplified Life Cycle. In an LCA, each Life Cycle stage is studied in detail, further stages might as well be added. LCA studies can differ in scope and focus, making the underlying assumptions and methods an important aspect for critical review. (Arushanyan et al., 2014).

Arushanyan et al. (2014) found LCA studies to mostly focus on consumer products (computers, mobile phones, laptops or monitors) while business technologies (network technologies) or specific components (microprocessors) are rarely assessed. The different study types focus either on one specific product or the comparison of similar products, less frequent is the comparison of ICT based processes with non-ICT based processes (Arushanyan et al., 2014). The study found LCAs with a focus on energy consumption and global warming potential (GWP) to be the most frequent, whereas other important aspects such as raw material consumption, toxicity or social impacts are usually left unaddressed (Arushanyan et al., 2014).

In line with earlier research by Hilty et al. (2011), this focus on energy consumption and global warming potential is seen as a limitation to the usefulness of LCAs, particularly if LCAs inform the innovation process or guide policy, as they might underestimate raw material supply risks or environmental threats beyond GWP (Arushanyan et al., 2014). Most LCA studies were found to be based on unrealistic and widely differing assumptions, leading to reduced comparability and a reduced potential to inform decision making (Arushanyan et al., 2014).

In this context, Arushanyan et al. (2014) highlight that LCA studies underestimate the toxicological impact of ICTs, fail to model the actual treatment of electronic waste and lack a clear communication of assumptions regarding user behaviour, energy supply and product lifespan. Manhart et al. (2016) add to this that LCA studies systematically underestimate impacts related to raw material extraction and semiconductor manufacturing due to lack of data. This is described as very problematic regarding the energy requirements and potential environmental degradation associated with these processes. Arushanyan et al. (2014) further criticize that many studies are focused on determining the Life Cycle stage with the highest environmental impact, without reflecting on the origin of these differences coming from varying assumptions rather than data driven assessment. This is highly relevant, as most LCA studies are based on the same small set of primary data that is used in many different ways (Teehan & Kandlikar, 2012).

Börjesson Rivera, Håkansson, Svenfelt, and Finnveden (2014) stress that most LCA studies leave indirect and systemic effects unaddressed, limiting the significance of LCA results. Grunwald (2016) discusses the limitations of prospective LCAs, highlighting that irrespective of good intentions, innovation might still encompass adverse effects that are difficult to model and greatly increase uncertainty in the assessment of new technologies.

While Røpke (2012) describes efforts to determine the net environmental impact of ICTs to be practically impossible due to lack of data and unpredictable systemic effects, Hilty et al. (2011) maintain that LCAs are still the most comprehensive methodology available. On a similar note, Manhart et al. (2016) emphasize that LCAs can provide valuable insights for improvements in the ICT Life Cycle provided that its limitations are reflected properly. In conclusion, LCA studies on ICT should therefore be interpreted with great care, to distinguish general trends and dynamics in the Life Cycle from mere reflections of unrealistic assumptions (Börjesson Rivera et al., 2014; Bull & Kozak, 2014). This is particularly true if LCAs are used to inform policy making, even if the awareness of continued uncertainty results in apathy among decision makers (Erdmann & Hilty, 2010).

2.2.4 Social Dimensions of the ICT Life Cycle Being mostly concerned with environmental effects, LCA studies can also address social dimensions. Studies that focus on this aspect are rare due to the recentness of Social Life Cycle Analysis as a method (Arushanyan et al., 2014). Research in this field tends to employ a Marxist perspective focusing on questions of class, labour and exploitation (Chen, 2016). For Brophy and de Peuter (2014, p. 61) this theoretical perspective reveals ‘circuits of exploitation’:

Starting with dangerous working conditions in the informal mining for raw materials, exploitation continues on the stage of manufacturing and assemblage with sweatshop conditions and further on to the software engineering stage where global competition for programming services is leading to a power imbalance in wage negotiation, a condition that also characterizes other stages such as call- centre and service work (Brophy & de Peuter, 2014). On the consumer side, prosumption has to be mentioned as a form of unpaid labour that is executed via the production of digital value (Charitsis, 2016), such as the generation of data through user behaviour that is then sold to advertising companies (Brophy & de Peuter, 2014). At the final stage of the life cycle, a major proportion of electronic waste is treated in the informal recycling sector of developing countries, causing occupational illness and shortened life expectancy as well as severe environmental pollution (LeBel, 2015), described as ‘slow violence’, referring to the long lasting effects caused by high speed consumption and the ever accelerating global turnover of ICT products. 13

2.2.5 Implications for the Circular Economy The circular economy is a necessary condition for the sustainability of Pérez’ proposal. With the aim to fully decouple economic activity from the consumption of non-renewable resources, it will be necessary to recycle all non-renewable raw materials at a consistent quality (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). This is supposed to be facilitated through novel design principles that are based on the prerequisite of continuous circulation of raw materials as nutrients in the economic process along with the full eradication of negative side effects (Braungart, McDonough, & Bollinger, 2007).

While Pérez’ rightly identifies obsolescence as driven by mass consumption, it is also caused by the innovation dynamics of ICT, exemplified by rapid growth in computing power (Moore, 1998) and energy efficiency (Koomey et al., 2011). Obsolescence is further caused by the rapid pace at which software is expanding its hardware requirements, discussed earlier with reference to ‘unmastered complexity’ and Wirth’s Law (Dijkstra, 1996; Wirth, 1995). Lacking interoperability, poor upgradeability and repair-ability as well as consumer behaviour and marketing efforts lead to premature disposal of ICTs, described in the literature as both planned and unplanned obsolescence (Forge, 2007; Hanks, Odom, Roedl, & Blevis, 2008; LeBel, 2015; Remy & Huang, 2015).

However fast obsolescence is generally framed as positive in the circular economy literature allowing for continuous consumption and ‘creative destruction’ as long as the materials are recovered and treated in a circular manner (Kostakis, Latoufis, Liarokapis, & Bauwens, 2016; Rammelt & Crisp, 2014; Valenzuela & Böhm, 2017). In fact, the assumption of steady increases in productivity and efficiency (Pérez, 2016b) might make such fast replacement necessary in the GGGA.

Indispensable for the circular economy is the prerequisite to completely recover non-renewable materials at constant quality (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). While complete recovery of materials at original quality is theoretically possible for all materials (Georgescu-Roegen, 1975), such recovery can require energy inputs that might as well render the process economically unattractive (Bardi, 2010). For ICT components with the current standards in computing capacity and energy efficiency, raw material quality (purity) has to be very high (Koomey et al., 2013). The previously described increase in energy intensity is mainly due to energy consumption associated with constant growth in purity requirements for materials and production facilities (Arushanyan et al., 2014; Williams, 2011), thus increasing the already growing energy debt of ICT production as a proportion of the Life Cycle (Arushanyan et al., 2014).

While miniaturization, increased material productivity and energy efficiency during use lead to growth in the utility of ICTs (Hilty et al., 2011), the corresponding increases in material complexity and miniaturization make complete material recovery technically challenging (Manhart et al., 2016). In fact, with present technologies, full recovery at constant quality is not possible9 (Davidson et al., 2014; Manhart et al., 2016). Although scarcity can be understood as a function of resource price and cost of resource production, the necessary levels of material purity for current ICT products would require enormous price increases to make recovery a viable alternative to mining (Bardi, 2010; Binnemans et al., 2013). While the cost of mining and material processing increase constantly, recovery is not about to be competitive (Davidson et al., 2014).

In summary, present performance levels of ICT in terms of computing power, energy efficiency and miniaturization stand in stark contrast to the objective of closed material cycles at constant quality. Whether this trade-off can be resolved with constant performance levels is questionable. If producer responsibility was extended to the whole life cycle (Pérez, 2016b), meaning that producers have the right to use the resource but are responsible for the quality of the material to be maintained, the ICT industry of today would dwindle facing extreme cost increases associated with energy use for full material recovery.

Considering Pérez proposal to foster a circular economy, ICTs life cycle dynamics would have to be steered towards a dynamic, where hardware is kept for a long time, while software is continuously updated to do more with less (Mobbs, 2012). This could potentially inverse the current practice of ‘unmastered complexity’ and ideally lead to a reversal of ‘Wirth’s law’, with software becoming faster, while hardware capabilities remain constant or develop at a far slower pace, potentially curbing economic growth associated with productivity gains from ICT (Wirth, 1995).

Modularity is often proposed as a way to achieve longer product lifetime. As highlighted by Soneji (2009), modularity is difficult to achieve because most relevant components are subject to continuous development of utility (such as microprocessors that strongly affect sustainability) and would have to be replaced frequently.

Irrespective of such strategies, material complexity is the biggest challenge for circular ICTs, due to the end of life challenges associated with recovery and toxicity as well as the systemic challenges

9 Small amounts used per component in combination with very similar chemical properties of materials (referring to REMs) make recovery technically challenging (Massari & Ruberti, 2013). Today, only some materials can be recovered and usually at a lower quality, while other materials are dissipated in the melting process (to very low levels of purity), making later recovery practically impossible (Davidson, Andrews, & Pauly, 2014; Hilty et al., 2011). 15

associated with the collection of ICT components (Binnemans et al., 2013; Manhart et al., 2016). Research efforts should therefore focus on production processes that yield high enough gains in computing power and efficiency, while circularity is the uppermost objective.

2.3 Indirect Effects of ICT Despite most research being focused on direct effects, (Arushanyan et al., 2014; Berkhout & Hertin, 2004), indirect (second order) effects are equally relevant to understand the implications of ICTs for sustainability (Andrae & Edler, 2015; Börjesson Rivera et al., 2014; Hilty, Köhler, Von Schéele, Zah, & Ruddy, 2006; Rammelt & Crisp, 2014). Positive or negative indirect effects on sustainability are determined by the effect of ICTs application on the demand for other products and processes. These effects can either improve the sustainability of other products and processes by optimization or substitution or impair sustainability through induction and obsolescence.

2.3.1 Positive Indirect Effects Optimization and substitution are both effects of ICT application that have the potential to positively affect sustainability. ICTs are either used to optimize the life cycle of another product via optimizing the design-, production-, use- or end-of-life treatment of another product or to substitute other processes or products. To positively affect sustainability, gains in productivity and efficiency through optimization and substitution have to surpass the negative direct effects of the ICT life cycle (Zapico, 2012). Research concerned with these effects is labelled Green by ICT, and mainly concerned with the improvement of previously non-ICT enabled processes or the further optimization of processes already reliant on ICT, as well as the substitution of non ICT products and processes with ICT based ones (DiSalvo, Sengers, & Brynjarsdóttir, 2010). The potential for such increases in efficiency and productivity is said to increase with growing material productivity and efficiency in the ICT sector, potentially outweighing negative first order effects (OECD, 2010).

Optimization describes the improvements in processes via ICT, by monitoring and controlling physical flows (Zapico, Brandt, & Turpeinen, 2010). While the price of optimization efforts decreases with the development towards miniaturization and energy efficiency of ICTs, measuring the net environmental effect of optimization is difficult and closely connected to the general challenges of LCA studies on ICTs (Zapico et al., 2010). It has to be highlighted that on top of the introduced challenges of LCAs, different sustainability impacts can hardly be compared due to different and unpredictable spatial and temporal scales (Bonvoisin et al., 2014; Røpke, 2012).

Substitution describes the full (virtualization) or partial replacement (dematerialization) of a product or process by another one, ideally with reduced negative effects to sustainability (Berkhout & Hertin, 2004). A typical substitution process is for example the transfer from paper based administrative processes to ICT based processes, such as in the case study by Mirabella, Rigamonti, and Scalbi (2013). Unfortunately, substitution does not automatically lead to sustainability. Beyond the mentioned limitations of LCA studies, substitution is hard to assess and positive or negative effects often depend on small differences in user behaviour (Bull & Kozak, 2014; Coroama, Moberg, & Hilty, 2015). This is particularly relevant for the type of consumption envisioned by Pérez, being highly individualized and diverse (Pérez, 2016b).

Following the assessment of Coroama et al. (2015), the smaller the niche for a digital product, the higher is the relative importance of the production phase in its life cycle. Individualized or niche media does therefore profit to a much lower extent from the sustainability potential of digital media replication and distribution, thereby curbing the positive sustainability effects associated with substitution.

Equally relevant in this discussion on substitution is the problem of functional equivalence. Hilty (2008) found that functional equivalence is rarely 100%, giving the example of telework and office- work having very different qualities beyond their structural differences, thus making comparison very difficult. Further can substitution effects hardly be assessed without an understanding of systemic effects (see 2.4). The provided examples refer to the production, provision, exchange and use of information. Information is a special case and ICTs are a very efficient technology in this context. For other parts of the economy with a stronger link to physical artefacts, substitution can hardly be 100%, but more likely address the information component of the respective case.

2.3.2 Negative Indirect Effects Induction and obsolescence make up the type of second order effects that are predominantly negative from a sustainability perspective. Induction10 is defined as increasing demand as the result of another process. An example is that the substitution of typewriters with computers and inkjet printers might induce the demand for paper, as the cheap and convenient mode of printing allows to have more information on paper than before (York, 2006).

10 Induction effects are different from rebound effects (see 2.4.1), describing increased consumption of another product along with the consumption of that product. 17

Obsolescence refers to all situations in which a product is going out of use due to various problems that affect its functionality. Such problems can be that cartridges for the printer are not sold anymore, in turn making the whole printer obsolete. Other examples are non-reparability due to lack of spare parts or service handbooks, non continuation of support for older software, leading to increased security risks and many more similar situations that cause the premature replacement of products (Forge, 2007; Remy & Huang, 2015; Stuermer et al., 2017).

2.3.3 Implications for Dematerialization Pérez’ proposal is depending largely on the assumption that the economy can be decoupled from the consumption of non-renewable resources enabled by the circular economy. Under the objective of a more sustainable form of economic growth, her proposal further relies on a growing proportion of GDP that is not based on the consumption of resources, but services and immaterial goods. Such a development is called dematerialization (reflected in the idea to replace products by services (Cooper & Evans, 2000)). Dematerialization can only be sustainable if second order effects compensate negative direct effects of the ICT life cycle, which can be challenging to assess, keeping in mind that second order effects have to reduce impacts in absolute terms, making systemic effects an important concern.

Dematerialization can be exemplified with the growing importance of cloud computing, describing systems in which data and software is located on central servers and accessed by users via the internet (Walnum & Andrae, 2016). This development towards centralized data storage and processing has two important effects for sustainability, as it allows for more efficient management of data in highly optimized data centres and reduces the need to provide all users with storage space and computing power they might not utilize (Walnum & Andrae, 2016). But, studies on the actual dematerialization potential differ widely in their sustainability assessment, particularly regarding systemic effects (Andrae & Edler, 2015; Global e-Sustainability Initiative, 2015; Walnum & Andrae, 2016).

It is important to note that dematerialization does not lead to complete physical dematerialization of the substituted good, even with full virtualization taking place, since digital artefacts are not self contained, relying on a technical ecosystem of ICTs to fulfil their purpose (Blanchette, 2011; Leonardi, 2010). Dematerialization via ICT can transform products or services into intangible or virtual goods, but remains dependent on the material basis of this digital world.

Following the presented research, Pérez’ vision for a dematerialized economy can be only partially achieved. All digital growth (that she seems to understand as potentially infinite) is ultimately having a material component, making it subject to the same limits as the rest of the economy. Substitution does further have limits in regards to functional equivalence (Hilty, 2008) and structural differences (Giampetro, 2002).

It is important to highlight that optimization in the form of increased material productivity and miniaturization might appear to reflect dematerialization, while actually causing increased energy demand in the production of ICT components and raw material mining (Ayres, Ayres & Warr, 2004). A recent study on raw materials consumption in the USA found no dematerialization to take place in the economy, concluding that technological efficiency does not by itself lead to dematerialization (Magee & Devezas, 2016). The authors link this finding to systemic effects of ICTs, highlighting the need for additional action beyond technical innovation necessary to reverse this finding in the future (Magee & Devezas, 2016).

Dematerialization processes enabled by ICT are thus described as semi-immaterialised or relatively decoupled economic sectors that are very energy efficient, but leave the system wide consumption of energy and resources largely unaffected (Kostakis et al., 2016). This is also described as the phenomenon that cleaner services add on to the dirtier parts of the economy, making growth achieved with clean technologies less green than it might seem (van den Bergh, 2017). This perspective is supported by a study that found clean technologies to be dependent on dirtier technologies for their existence (Acemoglu, Aghion, Bursztyn, & Hemous, 2012).

2.4 Systemic Effects of ICT Systemic effects are the aggregate effect of enabling effects (optimization and substitution). But they do also refer to transformational effects associated with the technology and its potential to create new social and economic structures through products and services unavailable ahead of the technological change. While dematerialization is an aggregate effect of optimization and substitution, systemic effects determine whether relative gains from optimization and substitution lead to absolute decoupling (absolute reduction of impact). Following the many references to systemic effects in the previous chapters, this chapter discusses rebound effects and ICTS role as critical infrastructures. The transformational effects of ICT will be touched upon later in chapter three.

2.4.1 Introduction to Rebound Effects On the system level, relative achievements in efficiency through optimization, substitution or improvements in the ICT life cycle can be subject to so called rebound effects, described as the full or partial neutralization of possible energy efficiency gains via increased energy consumption (Alcott, 2005; Hilty et al., 2006), a problem that is mostly connected to energy efficiency, but also possible for resource efficiency (Polimeni, Mayumi, Giampietro, & Alcott, 2008).

Economic rebound effects occur when the potential for increased energy efficiency through technological innovation is not fully achieved due to various economic responses that lead to increased consumption induced by the price reduction, that is originally caused by more efficient energy use (Walnum & Andrae, 2016). Initially, the debate over rebound effects has started more than 150 years ago (Jevons, 1865). Back then, the hypothesis of the efficiency paradox (also referred to as ‘Jevons Paradox’) did not gain popularity and was abandoned until the 1980s (Gossart, 2015). Initiated by a new wave of research on the question of efficiency rebounds, research has since broadened up and led to the emergence of detailed definitions and multiple advanced discussions (Alcott, 2005; Gossart, 2015; Reinhard Madlener & Turner, 2016; Polimeni et al., 2008; Ruzzenenti & Basosi, 2008; Santarius, Walnum, & Aall, 2016).

Rebound effects can range from a partial compensation (<100%) of possible efficiency gains (with 0% referring to a complete realization of the technically possible efficiency gains), all the way to full compensation (100%) or potentially result in increased absolute energy consumption, leading to a so-called ‘backfire’ effect (>100%) (Reinhard Madlener & Turner, 2016). Most research on rebound effects distinguishes between direct, indirect and economy wide rebound effects, despite the alternative to differentiate them along the economic levels on which they come about, resulting in micro-, meso- and macro-economic rebound effects (Santarius, 2016).

Most rebound research is focused on energy efficiency (Gossart, 2015) based on the idea that a associated reduction in price causes rebound effects via increasing demand. With the growing body of research, this focus has broadened up by identifying other factors such as structures (infrastructure, economic or political systems and mental mechanisms) as well as softer factors (lifestyle, attitudes, norms and habits) that can as well lead to rebound effects (Santarius et al., 2016, p. 15). This finding is supported by Galvin and Gubernat (2016), in their research on alternative reason for rebound beyond price effects, identifying further causes of rebound effects with reference to Theodore Schatzki’s social theory (2.4.2).

Direct rebound effects describe efficiency increases that lead to reduced cost for energy, thereby reducing the price of the respective good, this reduction in price is then leading to increased demand. Fuel-efficient cars can for example lead to direct rebound, when reduced costs per kilometre cause an increase in distance travelled (Madlener & Alcott, 2009).

Indirect rebound effects occur on the micro-economic and meso-economic level, where savings obtained from the cost reduction through increased energy efficiency are used for something else. An indirect rebound effect occurs if the insulation of an apartment is leading to reduced cost for heating and the respective savings are used for a holiday by plane (Gossart, 2015). (Direct or indirect rebound effects on the level of organizations are called meso-economic rebound effects (Santarius, 2016)).

Economy wide rebound effects occur on the macro-economic level. Increased energy efficiency reduces the cost of production leading to increased overall economic output, thereby creating additional demand for energy (Santarius et al., 2016, p. 6).

It is important to highlight that the different rebound effects can happen simultaneously, thereby increasing the potential for ‘backfire’ (Sorrell, 2009, p. 1457). A first attempt for the description of such feedback loops between different rebound effects is described in a conceptual framework proposed by Santarius (2016, p. 410). Relevant from a sustainability perspective is that deliberate energy efficiency technologies, such as insulation, are said to have a lower rebound potential due to their limited application area and function (Sorrell, 2009, p. 1467). Unfortunately, most energy efficiency improvements are side effects of other improvements (i.e. “Koomey’s Law”) while deliberate efficiency innovation is rare (Spreng, 2015).

While direct rebound effects in private households are argued to be below 30% in OECD countries (Sorrell, Dimitropoulos, & Sommerville, 2009), Santarius (2016) argues, that rebound risk is very high on the meso-economic level, where producers compete with one another for the lowest price and thereby highest productivity, leading to high pressure for businesses to allocate the resources freed by the efficiency induced price reduction (Santarius, 2016, p. 412). He found that “ . . . the higher the level of aggregation (from a single firm to a branch to a sector), the greater the scope for substituting factors of production with one another” (Santarius, 2016, p. 411), meaning that the potential for substitution is higher in production processes (where realized optimization potentials translate into competitive advantages), than in private consumption where other factors beyond competition affect decisions and gains from substitution are relatively lower.

The same observation is made by Galvin (2015) with reference to the work of Ruzzenenti and Basosi (2008), identifying businesses as prone to very high rebound, as competition on the market does push efficiency enabled savings to be allocated towards increased output or productivity. Rebound effects can also be described by the mechanisms that initiate them (understood as the reactions to a reduced price enabled by energy efficiency). Following Madlener and Turner (2016), the most extensive list on mechanisms has been provided by van den Bergh (2011a, pp. 47-48), describing 14 different mechanisms. Examples of these are changes in the necessary inputs (increased material complexity) or changes in one phase of the life cycle that affect a later phase (efficient ICT manufacture poses challenges to recycling).

Rebound effects are contested due to the challenges associated with their empirical observation. While different perspectives on rebound are mostly due to varying assumptions, particularly regarding system boundaries in the respective models, originating from different disciplinary backgrounds and theory, these questions are usually about the exact size of rebound effects (Madlener & Turner, 2016). What all studies on rebound have in common is the problem of empirically addressing questions of causality for rebound effects that are often easy to determine via simple correlations (Madlener & Alcott, 2009). While direct rebound effects are comparably easy to address with empirical research, economy wide rebounds are more difficult. While this thesis cannot resolve such empirical questions, even conservative estimates for rebound (4-24%)(Murray, 2013), as well as the mere potential of ‘backfire’ or high rebound effects does not allow to ignore them. Considering that rebound effects are largely unaddressed in present LCA research (Arushanyan et al., 2014) and policy (Santarius et al., 2016) there is a risk that unintended effects of efficiency are misconceived.

In practice, full mitigation of rebound effects is neither likely nor desirable. While the associated complexity necessarily creates uncertainty, rebound effects are an effect of efficiency increases that are as such positive. To mitigate rebound must therefore mean to reduce it to the lowest possible rate, in order to maximize the benefit of increased efficiency (Madlener & Turner, 2016). To do so, the role of increased efficiency and potential rebound effects has to be understood as an enabler of economic growth (Madlener & Alcott, 2009). To reduce rebound would potentially mean to curb economic growth, as efficiency gains would not lead to additional economic activity (rebound). This represents a tension between the objective of economic growth and the aim to maximize absolute reductions of resource consumption enabled by energy efficiency. A steady-state economy (where absolute economic growth is brought to a halt) has therefore been suggested as a way to address rebound effects (Nørgård, 2009).

2.4.2 Rebound Effects of ICT As can be seen above, ICTs and the associated dynamics described in this chapter can be linked to various potential rebound mechanisms. Albeit most research on ICT rebound being concerned with theoretical discussions of rebound effects (Walnum & Andrae, 2016), there is occasional research looking at ICT rebound empirically (Börjesson Rivera et al., 2014; Galvin, 2015; Hilty et al., 2006).

A good example is the so called ‘miniaturization paradox’ introduced by Hilty (2008, p. 95) to describe the reduction in weight per mobile phone by a factor of 4.4, that was followed by an increase in the number of telephones by a factor of eight in the same time span. Similar effects have been described for computers, where gains in computing power and efficiency have been associated with a doubling of computing capacity for personal computers every three years in the period from 1980 to 2008, virtually cancelling out the observed efficiency gains (Hilty et al., 2011, p. 23). An example from substitution through ICT is the use of telework and teleconferencing, aimed at reducing the need for physical transport (Coroama et al., 2015). Looking at the implications of telework and teleconferencing in the German context, Fuchs (2006) found no macroeconomic effects, but instead increased mobility across all different means of transport. Explanations for the rebound problem of telework suggest that people still consume energy if they work at home and are also encouraged to life further away from their workplace, making longer commutes necessary for the days they get to the office (Gossart, 2015).

New research has found socially mediated reasons for ICT rebound based on a modified application of Schatzki’s social theory which is popular in energy research (Galvin & Gubernat, 2016, p. 187). Aside from the earlier defined ‘arms race’, caused by market competition, increased efficiency of ICT is resulting in further effects, such as the practice of ‘more is never enough’ meaning the indefinite need for faster processing and higher resolution, exemplified in a case study on scientific modelling (Galvin & Gubernat, 2016). Other responses to efficiency gains in ICTs are their application in new fields, described as the intensified use of ICT to ‘keep in touch’ and do so with increasingly complex services, the intensified use of ICT for leisure activities and finally the quick adoption of new technical possibilities, making efficiency rebound in the sphere of ICT especially relevant (Galvin & Gubernat, 2016).

Regarding the macro-economic objective of ICTs to reduce absolute energy consumption, there are two major studies that model ICTs energy demand from 2015 to 2030 (Andrae & Edler, 2015; Global e-Sustainability Initiative, 2015).

Both studies take rebound effects of ICTs into account, but one does so only for direct rebound (Global e-Sustainability Initiative, 2015) finding energy consumption from ICTs to remain constant, while the other is also trying to model indirect and economy wide effects (Andrae & Edler, 2015), finding a significant increase in energy consumption. The optimistic study was published by an association from the ICT industry (Global e-Sustainability Initiative, 2015) and considers the possible rebound effects of ICTs as much lower than the enabling effects achieved via substitution and optimization. With reference to the scope of this assessment Walnum and Andrae (2016) criticized the narrow focus on direct rebound effects and the omission of life cycle related effects.

Beyond these difficulties on the macro-economic level, ICTs pose novel research challenges as they do not fit into the established categories of rebound research (Galvin, 2015). While direct and indirect rebound effects can be defined with ease for most consumer products (cars, air conditioning, lighting, etc.), ICTs are more complex (Galvin, 2015). Their functionality and the broad range of possible use cases aggravate efforts to develop realistic assumptions. Mobile phones and computers illustrate this, as they can be used among other things for education, communication, telework and the production of other goods (Galvin, 2015).

While Pérez’ potential interpretation of this seemingly infinite functionality could be unlimited economic growth, Galvin (2015) draws attention to the potential for unlimited rebound, as increases in energy efficiency or computing capacity will be allocated to existing or newly emerging functions, thereby reducing the potential for reduced absolute energy consumption. In addition to this growth potential, Galvin (2015) is concerned about the challenge of consumer demand that unlike with other products seems to be unlimited in the ICT field (Galvin & Gubernat, 2016; Sorrell et al., 2009; Woersdorfer, 2010).

Considering the evaluation that ICTs are a general-purpose technology (GPT i.e. technologies that change the social- and economic system, as for example steam engines, electricity, automobiles and lately computers and the internet (Lipsey, Carlaw, & Bekar, 2005)), they will likely create rebound effects alike other GPTs (Sorrell, 2009). This argument brought forward by Sorrell (2009) evaluating the hypothesis of ‘Jevons Paradox’ particularly for GPTs, finds the efficiency improvements of GPTs as especially prone to rebound and even ‘backfire’ due to their ability to affect the economy at large. This interpretation of GPTs is referring directly to their definition as productivity and efficiency enhancing technologies being the cause of their potentially high rebound effect, thus presenting a hypothesis opposing Pérez’ central argument of ICT enabled productivity increases leading to sustainability (Pérez, 2016b).

In summary, rebound effects (though being contested due to the challenges associated with empirical studies of indirect and macro-economic) can potentially undermine or even reverse efforts for increased energy efficiency. Nevertheless, ICTs potential to improve productivity (efficiency) throughout the economy has to be taken seriously to realize absolute reductions in energy consumption and potentially absolute decoupling. Following Gossart (2015, p. 445), rebound effects should thus be understood as “ . . . destructive contradictions in our socioeconomic systems.” that require thoughtful consideration in all actions addressing sustainability.

2.4.3 ICTs as a Critical Infrastructure On the system level, ICTs have further sustainability implications. ICT based systems in water, energy and other important infrastructures have given ICTs the role of a critical infrastructure, ultimately posing various challenges to the resilience of these systems (Star, 1999). Long-term threats to resilience (understood as the ability of the system to remain stable amidst external changes) are potential resource and energy scarcity, posing challenges to the maintenance of ICT infrastructures. Short-term threats arise for example from the vulnerability of ICT systems to hacking (i.e. making Smart Energy Grids a target for criminals). It is important to stress that if ICT based systems become ‘too big to fail’, by creating large scale technological lock-in, they might make it necessary to continue their production and replacement beyond sustainable levels. Albeit the resilience of digital systems is a very important topic, it is different from the main focus of this thesis. For further reading on this aspect, the emerging field of ‘Computing Within Limits’ (Nardi, 2013; Pargman & Raghavan, 2015) and research on the longevity of digital artefacts and the associated technological ecosystem (Bradley, 2007) can be recommended as an entry point.

3. Sustainability Implications of the ‘Green Global Golden Age’

As highlighted in this thesis and commented on in Pérez’ proposal (Pérez, 2016b, p. 11), ICTs did not contribute to sustainability in terms of absolute dematerialization so far but rather accelerated unsustainable economic patterns of mass consumption, planned obsolescence and wasteful patterns of material and energy consumption thereby leading to the transformative potential of ICT to be ineffective. Pérez’ proposal envisions ICT enabled technological innovation and a corresponding change in values to end this unsustainable dynamic and enter into a novel sustainable growth economy based on the following stipulations:

Ø No or very low consumption of finite resources enabled by a circular economy. While the circular economy is a promising alternative to the current wasteful economy, it has been shown that circularity is not possible for current ICT products (2.2.5). Innovations towards circular ICT would most probably be followed by a reduction in material productivity, energy efficiency and computing power, as current levels of material complexity do not allow for the necessary recovery rates with the needed requirements in purity, presenting a sustainability-productivity trade-off.

Ø The substitution of physical products with intangibles and services. Dematerialization was found to offer great potential for sustainability. But unlike the assumption of Pérez, substitution of physical goods and services with digital ones does not result in absolute decoupling (2.3.3). Economic growth thus remains connected to material consumption through the materiality of digital goods, the associated life cycle and potential rebound effects (2.4.2). Pérez understanding of sufficiency is thus found to be non-functional, as the dematerialized consumption that she envisions is still bound to the material consumption of the ICT products and their use. The imperative for growth seems to further incentivize objectives that contradict sustainability efforts. This is especially relevant with reference to market competition and the economic growth imperative that seem to be a major source of rebound effects and thereby counteracting sustainability efforts (Nørgård & Xue, 2016).

Ø Increased productivity throughout the economy enabled by ICTs. There is no doubt that ICTs can significantly foster productivity innovation via optimization and substitution, either within ICTs or enabled by ICT (van Ark, 2016). The previous sections have shown that productivity gains are achieved via increased use of technology and particularly ICTs. All these approaches can be summarized as efficiency innovations, making it necessary to discuss rebound risks as the major threat to the achievement of sustainability objectives.

In summary, ICTs have the potential to contribute to sustainability, but with Pérez’ focus on economic growth, positive effects are unlikely to materialize in the GGGA. The productivity gains described in Pérez’ proposal are plausible from the present innovation dynamics of ICT, but the associated dynamics of diffusion are unsustainable, particularly due to the many negative effects associated with the ICT lifecycle (2.2.3). The objective of economic growth is potentially going to create trade-offs with the sustainability objective formulated by Pérez, namely by creating tensions between increased productivity and circularity (2.2.5) as well as the high rebound potential for efficiency innovations that are subject to market competition (2.4.2). The GGGA vision has thus been significantly damaged by the provided literary review, putting the underlying assumption of ICT to simultaneously foster growth and sustainability into question. With the current technology and its unsatisfactory recycling potential a circular economy is not going to be achieved (2.2.5). The necessary change in technology towards better recyclability will most probably reduce material productivity and significantly increase the price of ICT (2.2.1), thereby rendering the potential of ubiquitous computing implausible. Under the assumption of cheap and abundant energy11, Pérez’ proposal could potentially become reality although the amount of energy necessary to power the material recovery processes would call the use of ICTs as an enabler of efficiency into question (2.2.5). With Pérez’ proposal, depending on the heavy use of renewable resources as inputs for energy, industrial production and finally food (Pérez, 2015), many trade-offs regarding environmental conservation, biodiversity and human rights come to mind that are best described in the critique of the ‘Bioeconomy’ (Leonardi, 2013; Unmüßig et al., 2012).

11 The chances that future energy production is actually characterized as cheap and abundant are very low, because an input/output ratio consistent with todays fossil fuel energy production is very unlikely, potentially leading to an increase in the amount of work necessary for energy production (Sorman & Giampietro, 2013). The importance of energy quality is also highlighted by Stern (2010) and Ayres et al. (2013). 27

4. Alternative Perspectives on the ‘Green Global Golden Age’

Following the appropriated research matrix described in section 1.2, relevant research has been presented and discussed in the previous chapters to organize the scientific understanding of the GGGA and its implications for sustainability. Some aspects of the guiding question12 of this thesis can already be answered from the summary in chapter three, but regarding the tensions presented above, it is necessary to further explore Pérez’ proposal to come to a satisfactory answer. Aiming to overcome the current tensions in the GGGA (between the conflicting objectives of sustainability and growth), the sustainability goals of Pérez’ proposal are discussed in the coming section (4.1). Alternative perspectives and strategies to achieve these goals are discussed in the subsequent sections (4.2 & 4.3). Chapter four is thus combining the critical exploration of Pérez’ proposal with a normative dimension.

4.1 The Overarching Sustainability Goal Faran (2010) suggests that approaches to sustainable development can be differentiated by their way of dealing with the inherent tension between economic growth and environmental concerns. Starting of by contrasting weak (Solow, 1993) and strong (Costanza et al., 1997) approaches to sustainability, Faran (2010) identifies both approaches to aim at human wellbeing as an objective of sustainable development. Pérez’ proposal is not detailed enough on this aspect to provide material for a discussion of her approach as weak or strong sustainability, but the information provided is suitable to identify the implicit objective of Pérez’ proposal to be human wellbeing.

Her statement that capitalism is only legitimate when it enables “. . . the successful ambitions of the few to benefit the many” (Pérez, 2016b, p. 215) is understood as an indicator for this interpretation. Further wellbeing-related aspects are described as the definition of the new ‘good life’ (The part of Pérez’ proposal that is describing the necessary change in values and informal structures of society). This aspirational lifestyle is characterized by a focus on durability, reuse of physical goods, sharing as a complement to the regular economy, experiential entertainment, organic, locally and fresh sourced food and highly individualized consumption instead of mass consumption (Pérez, 2016b, 2017). If it wasn’t for the explicit mentioning of increased consumption levels13, this proposal could also be part of a steady-state scenario (Daly, 2015).

12 The overarching question of this thesis is: Whether and how is the ‘Green Global Golden Age’ feasible with the proposed technological solutions based on the available Information about the sustainability implications of ICT? (See also 1.1) 13 Pérez describes many practices for the GGGA that could also work well in a post-capitalist transition process. Whether this option is intended has to remain open. 28

Having Pérez focus on growth in mind, the question is whether economic growth is necessary to achieve human wellbeing. In anticipation of critique to her focus on economic growth, Pérez highlights the dematerialized growth patterns that ICTs entail (Pérez, 2016b, p. 196). Growth critics in her view condemn technology as a source of environmental degradation, social ills and climate change (Pérez, 2016b, p. 191). Negative attitudes towards economic growth are often challenged with reference to the benefits for human wellbeing that have been achieved with its help (Koch, Buch-Hansen, & Fritz, 2017). Unfortunately, such a reductionist reading of the growth critique falls short of the major arguments that clearly distinguish development from growth and have questions of sufficiency and equity at their centre.

The question whether increased levels of consumption are necessary for human wellbeing is studied by Wilkinson and Picket (2009), showing that both yes and no can be sufficient answers. From a certain level of income onwards (which is understood as a proxy for consumption), happiness and wellbeing level off, describing diminishing returns on happiness and wellbeing from increased income (Jackson, 2009). Instead of income per capita, the level of income equality, education and job-security as well as other factors are found to play a bigger role in peoples wellbeing (Wilkinson & Pickett 2009). In regards to sustainability Wilkinson, Pickett and De Vogli (2010) conclude that developed countries should step away from a focus on growth and move towards a focus on equality and wellbeing, while poorer countries should be supported in reaching the levels of income per capita that support equal opportunities for wellbeing with the same focus on equality. Koch et al. (2017) have a similar focus, but highlight the potential of short-term losses in wellbeing if people have to downgrade their lifestyle and reduce the consumption of positional goods to a level that allows for a global fulfilment of universal human needs. This growth critique is also linked to rebound effects that are closely connected to productivity increases and economic growth (2.4.1).

Considering the changes necessary to reduce the human impact on the environment and maintain a safe operating space for humanity, Pérez optimism associated with economic growth is problematic, particularly if growth is ultimately seen as a way to bring about wellbeing. Whether the precise type of dematerialized growth envisioned by Pérez could bring wellbeing and reduce inequality has further been challenged by Xue et al. (2017), arguing that it might as well lead to increased cost for physical goods (food, shelter, etc.) disproportionately affecting people with lower income. Spreng (2015) refers to this as a general problem of value creation based on the substitution of material goods with immaterial goods, creating an economy of ‘starving philosophers’.

With wellbeing as the goal of Pérez’ proposal, it is necessary to discuss the meaning of this objective for the GGGA. In mainstream economics, wellbeing is defined as the number of goods and services an individual enjoys, a definition that might as well work for Pérez. But, with her focus on additional values, this mainstream definition could potentially be replaced by a different operationalization of human wellbeing based on the work of Amartya Sen. In his book ‘Development as Freedom’, Sen (1999) operationalizes Human Development as progress in human freedom (understood as positive freedom, hence the ability to do something), measured in the expansion of human capabilities. These capabilities are for example reflected in life expectancy, health levels, educational levels, participation in the community, gender equality and the amount of disposable income (Sen, 2009). In his work, wellbeing is thus defined differently: as a measure of how well an individual can exercise its capabilities (Sen, 2009). This perspective on wellbeing describes an alternative approach to sustainable development, providing another way to reconcile environmental and social objectives (Faran, 2010).

Unlike sustainability concepts with a primary focus on the environment, Human Development brings social sustainability to the centre. This does not imply that environmental sustainability is left aside, but from a capabilities perspective, the social aspect is necessarily at the centre, while economic- and environmental sustainability follow from it. Economic growth is thus only legitimate if it increases the capabilities of future generations (Sen, 1999). Such a perspective on growth allows for a very different discussion when economic concerns are ranked against environmental concerns, as the freedom of future generations to enjoy the same quality environment14 is ranked higher than the potential level of economic activity in the future (Sen, 2004).

Making human wellbeing the objective of economic activity opens up a different set of possibilities that could help to balance wellbeing with environmental impact since human freedoms are to be sustained in the present and future. The normative extension of Pérez’ proposal is thus the redefinition of her objective to be human wellbeing in the sense of Human Development (Sen, 1999).

14 The value of natural environments is by no means easy to determine, as Krieger (1973) discussed so well, highlighting that such value is socially constructed and subject to change. For the suggested process of Social Choice, changing values attached to the environment have thus to be considered. 30

4.2 An Alternative Strategy to Achieve Sustainability Taking Sen’s Human Development approach as the objective for sustainable development, an open question is how to decide which capabilities shall be preferred. Sen suggests Social Choice as a third way distinct from Economic Choice (markets) or Political Choice (one-man-one-vote democracy). Social Choice is concerned with the evaluation of objective capabilities understood as freedoms that can work as universally accepted values, for example the objective to secure the basic needs of all members of society, gender equality, universal health and education, as well as the entitlement to some productive asset (Sen, 2009). Sen highlights the importance of public reasoning for justice as the mechanism of Social Choice, understood as “government by discussion” (Sen, 2009, p.3), arguing for justice to be understood as a process15 that is never perfect but has to be continuously developed towards that aim. This new perspective on sustainability in the sense of Sen thus implies a Procedural definition of sustainability.

In search of an economic paradigm that is in harmony with human wellbeing and environmental sustainability, Kate Raworth (2012) provided her doughnut shaped vision of an economy (Figure 5). With human development parameters as its inner ring (Social Foundation) and planetary thresholds as the outer ring (Environmental Ceiling), Raworth envisions the space in between as the ‘safe and just space for humanity' (2012). While both boundaries of the doughnut are ultimately normative, Raworth (2012) starts the Figure 5. This figure is showing a simplified conversation with reference to planetary boundaries version of the doughnut economy by (Raworth, 2012) describing a new economic (Rockström et al., 2009) and human rights. But, different paradigm around the objective to ensure a metrics for the social foundation could also be informed by social foundation (basic health, education, etc.) while respecting the environmental the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015). ceiling (Planetary Boundaries).

A central aspect of this proposal is a reorientation of the economy away from economic growth as the preferred metric for development or wellbeing (Raworth, 2012). Her vision is agnostic to growth and links well to the proposal for ‘agrowth’ by van den Bergh (2017).

15 To achieve the objectivity of public decision making procedures, Jürgen Habermas ‘Theory of Communicative Action’ could be utilised to ensure that the unforced force of the better argument is successful in the process of defining and ranking objective capabilities (Habermas, 1982). In his book, Sen shortly discusses Habermas thinking on public reasoning (Amartya Sen, 2009, p. 325), which I take as an entry point for my proposal to look at Habermas research to study the practical implications of ‘government by discussion’. 31

Based on his criticism of ‘Green Growth’ and GDP degrowth scenarios, he has since long been promoting ‘indifference to economic growth’ (van den Bergh, 2011b; van den Bergh & Kallis, 2012). By contrasting growth and degrowth scenarios with respect to their policy implications, van den Bergh (2017) describes a third way, in which economic growth in either direction is not restricting economic decision-making. In his view, the abandonment of growth as a point of orientation increases the number of possible strategies for wellbeing, as an ex-ante alignment with growth or degrowth is no requirement in the policy process (van den Bergh, 2017).

Translated into the thinking of Amartya Sen, Raworth proposes a new way to describe a space for just development that respects current and future human freedoms via a redefinition of the economic objective. The doughnut could therefore be a suitable paradigm for the wellbeing-centred reorientation of the GGGA providing a playing field for Social Choice processes to define both, the environmental ceiling and its social foundation.

4.3 Perspectives on Technology in a Sustainable Future The previous sections have provided an alternative perspective to resolve the tension between sustainability and wellbeing, proposing an alternative economic paradigm. In this last section, Pérez’ proposed technological solution is discussed.

In this discussion, technology is understood as posing moral questions that change over time in relation to the degree to which technology is able to enhance or undermine human living conditions (Latour & Venn, 2002). Noting that: “Nothing, not even the human, is for itself or by itself, but always by other things and for other things.” (Latour & Venn, 2002, p. 256), the moral question is not whether there should be technology, but what degree16 of technology is beneficial to sustainability (human freedoms today and in the future).

One perspective on technology is the Cornucopian perspective, characterized by a belief in the combined ability of human ingenuity and technology to tackle sustainability challenges (Kerschner & Ehlers, 2016). Pérez’ proposal represents a Cornucopian approach to technology that also dominates the mainstream sustainability debate (Benessia & Funtowicz, 2015; Pollex & Lenschow, 2016). In the Cornucopian understanding, technological development has only one direction.

16 The difficulties associated with the process of determining a degree of technology has been discussed by Heikkurinen (2016), highlighting that technologies develop in a cumulative form, thereby making it difficult to determine degrees as such. He further highlights the uncertainty associated with rebound effects on different spatial and temporal scales (Heikkurinen, 2016). 32

Technological problems are addressed with technology, leading to continuous increases in complexity and interdependence (Benessia & Funtowicz, 2015). Hereby, decision-making is informed by scientific evidence, following the idea that science can provide value-free information and allow for predictions about the future (based on experimental evidence or modelling) (Benessia & Funtowicz, 2015). Benessia et al. (2012) stress that science does neither deliver value-free information nor exact predictions of the future, leading to a legitimacy gap17 in the Cornucopian mode of technology decision-making. The moral question stated by technology is thus answered as solvable only by an ever-higher degree of technology in the Cornucopian perspective, creating increased complexity and interdependency throughout the socio-technical system. The Cornucopian perspective could thus be understood as a reflection of power structures that utilize science and technology18 to legitimize and sustain existing power relations (Fuchs, 2016).

Alternatively, the degree of technology could be defined in a procedural form, ultimately aimed at sustaining and enhancing human freedoms. Such a mode of technology governance would be different from the Cornucopian perspective, allowing both higher and lower degrees of technology. While an in depth discussion of such an alternative perspective on technology and its practical implications is exceeding the scope of this thesis, it is necessary to highlight the broad objective of such an attempt. When discussing the role of technology for sustainability, it is important to acknowledge that technology and most recently ICT have brought not only technical progress, but with it social progress (Nardi, 2013)19. From a development perspective, these processes have the potential to increase human capabilities on the global level (Andersson, Grönlund, & Wicander, 2012). The objective of technology should therefore be to sustain and potentially expand the capabilities20 that current technology has made possible. Technological innovation (irrespective of the chosen degree) is one way to achieve this objective, but Strand et al. (2016) highlight that cultural and institutional change is equally legitimate to do so, while Spreng (2015) accentuates that sufficiency is ultimately a cultural achievement.

17 Interestingly, the Cornucopian answer to this legitimacy gap is to advocate techno-scientific solutions based on arguments of urgency and risk (originally raised by the environmental movement (Benessia et al., 2012)) to justify action irrespective of uncertainty and unintended negative effects (Benessia & Funtowicz, 2015). 18 In his essay “Science and Technology as Ideology”, Habermas explains with great detail how the described growing complexity of science and technology is used to manifest existing power relations (Jürgen Habermas, 1968). 19 The level of social complexity is to some extent connected to the mount of energy and resources available, but the things for which theses resources are used matters. However, it is highlighted by Sorman and Giampietro (2013) and Strand et al. (2016) that societies which don’t manage energy and resources well tend to collapse (see also Tainter (1990)) 20 Interesting proposals for such an alternative perspective on technology can be found in Johri and Pal (2012) and Samerski (2016) who look at technology from a conviviality perspective (Illich, 1973). Other approaches are discussed in the Computing Within Limits research (Pargman & Raghavan, 2015) or in the concept of technology appropriation (Likavčan & Scholz-Wäckerle, 2017). 33

5. Summary and Conclusions

Motivated by the potential of Pérez’ proposal to be a paradigm shift towards a more sustainable future, the exploration of the feasibility of this deep leverage point for sustainability has been a major concern in this thesis. Acknowledging that: “Sustainability science is a solution-oriented research field, with the normative goal of aiding humanity in its transition towards sustainability. To do so, sustainability science needs to engage with the deep, or ultimate, causes of unsustainability and consider interventions that address the emergent intent and design of systems of interest, rather than only the adjustment of feedbacks and parameters.“ (Abson et al., 2016, p. 37). Aiming to address these deep or ultimate causes of unsustainability, this thesis focused on two major aspects of Pérez’ proposal, her focus on technological solutions and the role of economic growth.

In the literary review, a broad range of empirical and theoretical arguments has been provided that lead to the conclusion that the assumed capacity of ICTs to reconcile the tension between economic growth and environmental concerns may not be possible. Tensions between the circular economy objective and productivity requirements, limited substitutability and negative systemic effects were argued to hamper Pérez’ optimistic stipulations (3). Pérez’ proposal has instead been identified first of all as a way to ensure continued economic growth. Consequently, this focus on growth was argued to possibly counteract Pérez’ good intentions.

The present thesis discussed a potential reinterpretation of Pérez’ underlying objectives, leading into the normative suggestion for both, an alternative economic paradigm and a reformed perspective on technology as a possible solution. By understanding her proposal as a vision that aims to unite environmental concerns with human wellbeing, this thesis has provided a constructive critique of Pérez’ work while keeping its core motivations in place. The suggestion of a growth agnostic economic paradigm built around ecological limits and objective social standards are presented as a powerful alternative to the present growth centred economy, and reduce rebound effects.

Technology has been understood as posing moral questions based on its ability to enhance or harm human living conditions. Based on the discussion of Pérez’ Cornucopian understanding of technology, the importance of the context specific redefinition of the appropriate technological degree has been highlighted. Although technology is mostly described in terms of the problems associated with its unsustainable use, it has to be maintained that technology is very important for humanity, representing a way to provide humans with greater autonomy and the means to establish complex societies that can secure human freedoms. The argued role of technology is thus to be the means that sustain these freedoms, while being reflexive about its limitations.

Reflecting on the way in which this thesis has engaged with Pérez proposal, it is important to highlight that the aim is to discuss the feasibility of her proposal from a Sustainability Science perspective. While there are many different possible perspectives within Sustainability Science, the implications of Pérez’ argument were discussed from a limits perspective and a particular definition of sustainable development inspired by Amartya Sen. This perspective made it further necessary to introduce the Procedural definition of sustainability as a way to acknowledge for the normative nature of both the social boundary and the planetary ceiling.

The decision to go for a conceptual and theoretical thesis was necessary to answer the broad question about the feasibility of Pérez’ proposal. Based on this research, many different directions could be taken to further develop the provided arguments or engage with Pérez proposal in a different way. Here, two main directions for future research shall be highlighted: One of them is the suggested process of Social Choice that has been introduced for decision making in the doughnut economy. Being presented as a possible way to make the necessary normative decisions about sustainability, further in depth theorizing on the practical implications of such an approach is necessary. Another possible direction of research could be concerned with empirical work on the question raised in chapter 4.3. If technology was guided by the objective of Human Development, how would technology decision making look like and which concepts and sources of knowledge could inform this process. In this context, transdisciplinary research designs could be developed, potentially leading to progress in the development of transdisciplinary research and decision-making processes in the context of technology.

References

Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., . . . Jager, N. W. (2016). Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformation. Ambio, 46(1), 30–39. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y

Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., & Hemous, D. (2012). The Environment and Directed Technical Change. The American economic review, 102(1), 131–166. doi:https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.1.131

Alcott, B. (2005). Jevons' paradox. Ecological Economics, 54(1), 9–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.020

Andersson, A., Grönlund, Å., & Wicander, G. (2012). Development as freedom – how the Capability Approach can be used in ICT4D research and practice. Information Technology for Development, 18(1), 1–4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2011.632076

Andrae, A. S., & Edler, T. (2015). On global electricity usage of communication technology: trends to 2030. Challenges, 6(1), 117–157. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/challe6010117

Arushanyan, Y., Ekener-Petersen, E., & Finnveden, G. (2014). Lessons learned–Review of LCAs for ICT products and services. Computers in Industry, 65(2), 211–234. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2013.10.003

Ayres, R. U., Ayres, L. W., & Warr, B. (2004). Is the U.S. economy dematerializing? Main indicators and drivers. In J. C. J. M. van den Bergh & M. Janssen (Eds.), Economics of Industrial Ecology: Materials, Structural Change, and Spatial Scales (pp. 57-93). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Ayres, R. U., van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., Lindenberger, D., & Warr, B. (2013). The underestimated contribution of energy to economic growth. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 79–88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.07.004

Bardi, U. (2010). Extracting Minerals from Seawater: An Energy Analysis. Sustainability, 2(4), 980– 992. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su2040980

Benessia, A., & Funtowicz, S. (2015). Sustainability and techno-science: What do we want to sustain and for whom? International Journal of Sustainable Development, 18(4), 329–348. doi:https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsd.2015.072666

Benessia, A., Funtowicz, S., Bradshaw, G., Ferri, F., Ráez-Luna, E. F., & Medina, C. P. (2012). Hybridizing sustainability: towards a new praxis for the present human predicament. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 75–89. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0150-4

Berkhout, F., & Hertin, J. (2001). Impacts of information and communication technologies on environmental sustainability: Speculations and evidence. Retrieved from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/1897156.pdf

Berkhout, F., & Hertin, J. (2004). De-materialising and re-materialising: digital technologies and the environment. Futures, 36(8), 903–920. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2004.01.003

Binnemans, K., Jones, P. T., Blanpain, B., Van Gerven, T., Yang, Y., Walton, A., & Buchert, M. (2013). Recycling of rare earths: a critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 1–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.037

Blanchette, J. F. (2011). A material history of bits. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(6), 1042–1057. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21542

Bonvoisin, J., Lelah, A., Mathieux, F., & Brissaud, D. (2014). An integrated method for environmental assessment and ecodesign of ICT-based optimization services. Journal of Cleaner Production, 68, 144–154. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.003

Börjesson Rivera, M., Håkansson, C., Svenfelt, Å., & Finnveden, G. (2014). Including second order effects in environmental assessments of ICT. Environmental Modelling & Software, 56, 105– 115. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.02.005

Bradley, K. (2007). Defining digital sustainability. Library Trends, 56(1), 148–163. doi:https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2007.0044

Braungart, M., McDonough, W., & Bollinger, A. (2007). Cradle-to-cradle design: creating healthy emissions – a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(13–14), 1337–1348. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.08.003

Brophy, E., & de Peuter, G. (2014). Labours of mobility: Communicative capitalism and the Smartphone cybertaria. In J. Hadlaw, A. Herman, & T. Swiss (Eds.), Theories of the mobile Internet: Materialities and imaginaries (pp. 60-86). New York: Routledge.

Bull, J. G., & Kozak, R. A. (2014). Comparative life cycle assessments: The case of paper and digital media. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 45, 10–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.10.001

Charitsis, V. (2016). Prosuming (the) self. Ephemera, 16(3), 37–59. http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contribution/16-3charitsis.pdf

Chen, S. (2016). The Materialist Circuits and the Quest for Environmental Justice in ICT’s Global Expansion. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 14(1), 121–131. Retrieved from http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/download/695/780

Chertow, M. R. (2000). The IPAT Equation and Its Variants. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 4(4), 13–29. doi:https://doi.org/10.1162/10881980052541927

Cooper, T., & Evans, S. (2000). Products to Services. Retrieved from https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/products_services.pdf 37

Coroama, V. C., Moberg, Å., & Hilty, L. M. (2015). Dematerialization Through Electronic Media? In L. M. Hilty & B. Aebischer (Eds.), ICT Innovations for Sustainability (pp. 405-421). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Costanza, R., Cumberland, J. H., Daly, H., Goodland, R., & Norgaard, R. B. (1997). An introduction to ecological economics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415(6867), 23–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/415023a

Daly, H. E. (2015). Economics for a Full World. Retrieved from http://www.greattransition.org/images/Daly-Economics-for-a-Full-World.pdf

Davidson, D. J., Andrews, J., & Pauly, D. (2014). The effort factor: Evaluating the increasing marginal impact of resource extraction over time. Global Environmental Change, 25, 63–68. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.001

Dijkstra, E. W. (1996). The next fifty years. Retrieved from https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD12xx/EWD1243a.html

DiSalvo, C., Sengers, P., & Brynjarsdóttir, H. (2010). Mapping the Landscape of sustainable HCI. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753625

Ehrlich, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of population growth. Science, 171(3977), 1212–1217. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3977.1212

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2015). Growth within: A Circular Economy vision for a competitive Europe. Retrieved from https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/growth- within-a-circular-economy-vision-for-a-competitive-europe

Erdmann, L., & Hilty, L. M. (2010). Scenario Analysis: Exploring the Macroeconomic Impacts of Information and Communication Technologies on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(5), 826–843. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00277.x

European Commission. (2010). Critical raw materials for the EU: Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools- databases/eip-raw-materials/en/system/files/ged/79%20report-b_en.pdf

Faran, T. (2010). Synthesis of the discourses on development and sustainable development. Retrieved from http://lucsus.lu.se.webbhotell.ldc.lu.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/D4_Sustainable- Development_A-Typology-of-Perspectives.pdf

Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M., von Weizsäcker, E. U., Ren, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Crane, W., . . . Sewerin, S. (2011). Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/decoupling/files/pdf/decoupling_report_english.pdf

Forge, S. (2007). Powering down: remedies for unsustainable ICT. Foresight, 9(4), 3–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680710773795

Fuchs, C. (2006). The implications of new information and communication technologies for sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10(3), 291–309. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9065-0

Fuchs, C. (2016). Henryk Grossmann 2.0: A Critique of Paul Mason’s Book “PostCapitalism: A Guide to Our Future”. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique., 14(1), 232–243. doi:http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/757

Galvin, R. (2015). The ICT/electronics question: Structural change and the rebound effect. Ecological Economics, 120, 23–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.08.020

Galvin, R., & Gubernat, A. (2016). The rebound effect and Schatzki’s social theory: Reassessing the socio-materiality of energy consumption via a German case study. Energy Research & Social Science, 22, 183–193. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.024

Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1975). Energy and Economic Myths. Southern Economic Journal, 41(3), 347– 381. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1056148

Giampetro, M. (2002). Complexity and scales: the challenge for integrated assessment. Integrated Assessment, 3(2-3), 247–265. doi:https://doi.org/10.1076/iaij.3.2.247.13568

Global e-Sustainability Initiative. (2015). #SMARTer2030 ICT Solutions for 21st Century Challenges. Retrieved from http://smarter2030.gesi.org/

Gossart, C. (2015). Rebound effects and ICT: a review of the literature. In L. M. Hilty & B. Aebischer (Eds.), ICT Innovations for Sustainability (pp. 435-448). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Grunwald, A. (2016). Diverging pathways to overcoming the environmental crisis: A critique of eco- modernism from a technology assessment perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.212

Habermas, J. (1968). Technology and Science as "Ideology". Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz8cVS8LoO7OUUxJQ0hyUWRaMGc/edit

Habermas, J. (1982). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. 1. Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung (2 ed.). Frankfurt Am Main: Suhrkamp. 39

Hanks, K., Odom, W., Roedl, D., & Blevis, E. (2008). Sustainable millennials: attitudes towards sustainability and the material effects of interactive technologies. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Heikkurinen, P. (2016). Degrowth by means of technology? A treatise for an ethos of releasement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.070

Hilty, L. (2008). Information Technology and Sustainability. Essays on the Relationship between ICT and Sustainable Development. Norderstedt: Books on Demand.

Hilty, L., & Aebischer, B. (2015). ICT innovations for sustainability (Vol. 310). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Hilty, L., Köhler, A., Von Schéele, F., Zah, R., & Ruddy, T. (2006). Rebound effects of progress in information technology. Poiesis & Praxis, 4(1), 19–38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-005-0011-2

Hilty, L., Lohmann, W., & Huang, E. (2011). Sustainability and ICT—an overview of the field. Notizie di Politeia, 27(104), 13–28. https://files.ifi.uzh.ch/hilty/p/intro/english/2011_Hilty_Lohmann_Huang_Sustainability_and _ICT.pdf

Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. New York: Harper & Row.

IPCC. (2014). Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf

Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. London: Earthscan.

Jacobs, M., & Mazzucato, M. (2016). Rethinking Capitalism: Economics and Policy for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

Jerneck, A., Olsson, L., Ness, B., Anderberg, S., Baier, M., Clark, E., . . . Persson, J. (2011). Structuring sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 6(1), 69–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x

Jevons, W. S. (1865). The coal question: can Britain survive? In A. W. Flux (Ed.), The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal- mines (Vol. 1). New York: Augustus M. Kelley.

Johri, A., & Pal, J. (2012). Capable and convivial design (CCD): a framework for designing information and communication technologies for human development. Information Technology for Development, 18(1), 61–75. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2011.643202

Kerschner, C., & Ehlers, M.-H. (2016). A framework of attitudes towards technology in theory and practice. Ecological Economics, 126, 139–151. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.010

Koch, M., Buch-Hansen, H., & Fritz, M. (2017). Shifting Priorities in Degrowth Research: An Argument for the Centrality of Human Needs. Ecological Economics, 138, 74–81. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.035

Koomey, J., Berard, S., Sanchez, M., & Wong, H. (2011). Implications of historical trends in the electrical efficiency of computing. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 33(3), 46–54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/mahc.2010.28

Koomey, J. G., Scott Matthews, H., & Williams, E. (2013). Smart everything: Will intelligent systems reduce resource use? Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 38, 311–343. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-021512-110549

Kostakis, V., Latoufis, K., Liarokapis, M., & Bauwens, M. (2016). The convergence of digital commons with local manufacturing from a degrowth perspective: Two illustrative cases. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.077

Krieger, M. H. (1973). What's Wrong with Plastic Trees? Science, 179(4072), 446–455. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.179.4072.446

Latour, B., & Venn, C. (2002). Morality and Technology. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5-6), 247–260. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/026327602761899246

LeBel, S. (2015). Fast machines, slow violence: ICTs, planned obsolescence, and e-waste. Globalizations, 13(3), 300–309. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2015.1056492

Leonardi, E. (2013). Green Economy and Bio-based Economics: Assessment and Critique of Their Philosophical Assumptions. Paper presented at the 2013 Second Congress, June 6-7, 2013, Parma, Italy. Retrieved from: http://purl.umn.edu/149908

Leonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday, 15(6), 1–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i6.3036

Likavčan, L., & Scholz-Wäckerle, M. (2017). Technology appropriation in a de-growing economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1–10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.134

Lipsey, R. G., Carlaw, K. I., & Bekar, C. T. (2005). Economic transformations: general purpose technologies and long-term economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Madlener, R., & Alcott, B. (2009). Energy rebound and economic growth: A review of the main issues and research needs. Energy, 34(3), 370–376. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.10.011

Madlener, R., & Turner, K. (2016). After 35 Years of Rebound Research in Economics: Where Do We Stand? In T. Santarius, H. J. Walnum, & C. Aall (Eds.), Rethinking Climate and Energy Policies (pp. 17-36). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Magee, C. L., & Devezas, T. C. (2016). A simple extension of dematerialization theory: Incorporation of technical progress and the rebound effect. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117, 196–205. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.001

Manhart, A., Blepp, M., Fischer, C., Graulich, K., Prakash, S., Priess, R., . . . Tür, M. (2016). Resource efficiency in the ICT sector. Retrieved from https://www.oeko.de/fileadmin/oekodoc/Resource_Efficiency_ICT_LV.pdf

Massari, S., & Ruberti, M. (2013). Rare earth elements as critical raw materials: Focus on international markets and future strategies. Resources Policy, 38(1), 36–43. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.07.001

Maxwell, R., & Miller, T. (2012). Greening the media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meadows, D. H. (1997). Places to Intervene in a System. Whole Earth, 91(1), 78–84. Retrieved from: http://www.wholeearth.com/issue/2091/article/27/places.to.intervene.in.a.system

Miller, T. R. (2013). Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustainability Science, 8(2), 279–293. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012- 0180-6

Mirabella, N., Rigamonti, L., & Scalbi, S. (2013). Life cycle assessment of Information and Communication Technology application: a case study of dematerialization in the Italian Public Administration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 44, 115–122. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.051

Mobbs, P. (2012). A practical guide to sustainable IT. Retrieved from http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/practical-guide-sustainable-it

Moore, G. E. (1998). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(1), 82–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/jproc.1998.658762

Murray, C. K. (2013). What if consumers decided to all ‘go green’? Environmental rebound effects from consumption decisions. Energy Policy, 54, 240–256. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.025

Nardi, B. (2013). The role of human computation in sustainability, or, social progress is made of fossil fuels. In P. Michelucci (Ed.), Handbook of Human Computation (pp. 1011-1020). New York: Springer Science+Business Media

Nørgård, J., & Xue, J. (2016). Between green growth and degrowth: Decoupling, rebound effects and the politics for long-term sustainability. In T. Santarius, H. J. Walnum, & C. Aall (Eds.), Rethinking Climate and Energy Policies (pp. 267-284). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Nørgård, J. S. (2009). Avoiding Rebound through a Steady-State Economy. In H. Herring & S. Sorrell (Eds.), Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Consumption: The Rebound Effect (pp. 204-223). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

OECD. (2010). Greener and Smarter: ICTs, the Environment and Climate Change. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/it_outlook-2010-7-en

Pargman, D., & Raghavan, B. (2015). Introduction to LIMITS '15: First workshop on computing within limits. First Monday, 20(8). doi:https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i8.6118

Penzenstadler, B., Raturi, A., Richardson, D., & Tomlinson, B. (2014). Safety, security, now sustainability: The nonfunctional requirement for the 21st century. IEEE software, 31(3), 40– 47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/ms.2014.22

Pérez, C. (2013). Unleashing a golden age after the financial collapse: Drawing lessons from history. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 6, 9–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2012.12.004

Pérez, C. (2015). The new context for industrializing around natural resources: an opportunity for Latin America (and other resource rich countries)? (62). Retrieved from Tallinn: http://carlotaperez.org/pubs?s=dev&l=en&a=newcontextforindustrialisingnaturalresourceso pportunityforlatinamerica

Pérez, C. (2016a). Beyond the Technological Revolution. Retrieved from http://beyondthetechrevolution.com/

Pérez, C. (2016b). Capitalism, Technology and a Green Global Golden Age: The Role of History in Helping to Shape the Future. In M. Jacobs & M. Mazzucato (Eds.), Rethinking Capitalism: Economics and Policy for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth (Vol. 1, pp. 191-217). (n.p.): John Wiley & Sons.

Pérez, C. (Producer). (2017, 15.03.2017). Carlota Perez - Lecture - 350th Anniversary of Lund University, Sweden. [Youtube] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B22PbeMEeM4&feature=youtu.be

Polimeni, J. M., Mayumi, K., Giampietro, M., & Alcott, B. (2008). The myth of resource efficiency: the jevons paradox. London: Earthscan.

Pollex, J., & Lenschow, A. (2016). Surrendering to growth? The European Union's goals for research and technology in the Horizon 2020 framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.195 43

Ragnarsdottir, K. V. (2008). Rare metals getting rarer. Nature Geosci, 1(11), 720–721. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo302

Rammelt, C. F., & Crisp, P. (2014). A systems and thermodynamics perspective on technology in the circular economy. real-world economics review(68), 25–40. doi:http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue68/RammeltCrisp68.pdf

Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? Retrieved from www.oxfam.org: https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/safe-and-just-space-humanity

Remy, C., & Huang, E. M. (2015). Addressing the Obsolescence of End-User Devices: Approaches from the Field of Sustainable HCI. In L. M. Hilty & B. Aebischer (Eds.), ICT Innovations for Sustainability (pp. 257-267). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., . . . Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475. doi:https://doi.org/10.5751/es-03180-140232

Røpke, I. (2012). The unsustainable directionality of innovation – The example of the broadband transition. Research Policy, 41(9), 1631–1642. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.002

Ruzzenenti, F., & Basosi, R. (2008). The rebound effect: An evolutionary perspective. Ecological Economics, 67(4), 526–537. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.001

Sachs, W., Santarius, T., & Camiller, P. (2007). Fair future: resource conflicts, security and global justice : a report of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy (9781842777282). Retrieved from https://www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/fair-future/

Samerski, S. (2016). Tools for degrowth? Ivan Illich's critique of technology revisited. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1–10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.039

Santarius, T. (2016). Investigating meso-economic rebound effects: production-side effects and feedback loops between the micro and macro level. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, Part A, 406–413. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.055

Santarius, T., Walnum, H. J., & Aall, C. (2016). Rethinking Climate and Energy Policies: New Perspectives on the Rebound Phenomenon (Vol. 1). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Schuckmann, L. (2015). The Warring Gods of Capitalism: Approaches to Sustainability within Capitalism. (Master of Science), Lund University, Lund. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/5473862/file/5473863.pdf

Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles (Vol. 1). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 44

Sen, A. (2004). Why We Should Preserve the Spotted Owl. London Review of Books, 26 (February). Retrived from https://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n03/amartya-sen/why-we-should-preserve-the- spotted-owl.

Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Solow, R. (1993). An almost practical step toward sustainability. Resources Policy, 19(3), 162–172. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4207(93)90001-4

Soneji, H. (2009). Connected Consequences: Resource Depletion and North-South Inequities of the Global Material Intensity of the Internet and Mobile Telephony. (Master of Science), Lund University, Lund. Retrieved from http://www.lumes.lu.se/sites/lumes.lu.se/files/soneji_hitesh.pdf

Sorman, A. H., & Giampietro, M. (2013). The energetic metabolism of societies and the degrowth paradigm: analyzing biophysical constraints and realities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 38, 80–93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.059

Sorrell, S. (2009). Jevons’ Paradox revisited: The evidence for backfire from improved energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 37(4), 1456–1469. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.003

Sorrell, S., Dimitropoulos, J., & Sommerville, M. (2009). Empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect: A review. Energy Policy, 37(4), 1356–1371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.11.026

Spreng, D. (2015). The interdependency of energy, information, and growth. In L. M. Hilty & B. Aebischer (Eds.), ICT Innovations for Sustainability (pp. 425-434). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American behavioral scientist, 43(3), 377–391. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., . . . Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

Stern, D. (2010). The Role of Energy in Economic Growth. Retrieved from http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:een:ccepwp:0310

Strand, R., Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M., Rommetveit, K., & Funtowicz, S. (2016). New narratives for innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1–5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.194

Stuermer, M., Abu-Tayeh, G., & Myrach, T. (2017). Digital sustainability: basic conditions for sustainable digital artifacts and their ecosystems. Sustainability Science, 247–262. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0412-2 45

Tainter, J. (1990). The collapse of complex societies: Cambridge University Press.

Teehan, P., & Kandlikar, M. (2012). Sources of Variation in Life Cycle Assessments of Desktop Computers. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16, S182–S194. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00431.x

UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement (FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1). Retrieved from Paris: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

United Nations. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (A/RES/42/187). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E:

Unmüßig, B., Sachs, W., & Fatheur, T. (2012). Critique of the Green Economy: toward social and environmental equity. Retrieved from Berlin: https://www.boell.de/en/content/critique- green-economy-toward-social-and-environmental-equity

Valenzuela, F., & Böhm, S. (2017). Against wasted politics: A critique of the circular economy. Ephemera, 17(1), 23–60. Retrieved from http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contribution/17- 1valenzuelabohm.pdf van Ark, B. (2016). The Productivity Paradox of the New Digital Economy. International Productivity Monitor, 31, 3–18. Retrieved from http://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csls.ca%2Fipm%2F31 %2Fvanark.pdf;h=repec:sls:ipmsls:v:31:y:2016:1 van den Bergh, J. (2011a). Energy Conservation More Effective With Rebound Policy. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(1), 43–58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9396-z van den Bergh, J. (2011b). Environment versus growth — A criticism of “degrowth” and a plea for “a- growth”. Ecological Economics, 70(5), 881–890. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.035 van den Bergh, J. (2017). A third option for climate policy within potential limits to growth. Nature Clim. Change, 7(2), 107–112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3113 van den Bergh, J., & Kallis, G. (2012). Growth, A-Growth or Degrowth to Stay within Planetary Boundaries? Journal of Economic Issues, 46(4), 909–920. doi:https://doi.org/10.2753/jei0021-3624460404

Walnum, H. J., & Andrae, A. S. (2016). The Internet: Explaining ICT Service Demand in Light of Cloud Computing Technologies. In T. Santarius, H. J. Walnum, & C. Aall (Eds.), Rethinking Climate and Energy Policies (pp. 227-241). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 46

Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Wilkinson, R. G., Pickett, K. E., & De Vogli, R. (2010). Equality, sustainability, and quality of life. Bmj, 341, 1138–1140. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5816

Williams, E. (2011). Environmental effects of information and communications technologies. Nature, 479(7373), 354–358. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10682

Wirth, N. (1995). A Plea for Lean Software. Computer, 28(2), 64–68. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/2.348001

Woersdorfer, J. S. (2010). Consumer needs and their satiation properties as drivers of the rebound effect. Papers on Economics & Evolution, (1016). Jena.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Xue, J., Walnum, H., Aall, C., & Næss, P. (2017). Two Contrasting Scenarios for a Zero-Emission Future in a High-Consumption Society. Sustainability, 9(1), 1–25. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010020

York, R. (2006). Ecological paradoxes: William Stanley Jevons and the paperless office. Human Ecology Review, 13(2), 143–147. Retrieved from http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her132/york.pdf

Zapico, J. L. (2012). ICT and environmental sustainability, friend or Foe? Information Technologies & International Development, 8(3), 99–101. doi:http://itidjournal.org/index.php/itid/article/view/917/388

Zapico, J. L., Brandt, N., & Turpeinen, M. (2010). Environmental Metrics. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(5), 703–706. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00272.x

Glossary

Conviviality Conviviality is a concept introduced by Ivan Illich (1973) that argues for tools that individuals can actively master, without being obliged to the use of certain tools and by making sure that tools are means instead of ends.

Creative Creative Destruction is a term used by Schumpeterian economists to describe the Destruction process of technological innovation, where old Industries are replaced by new industries through competitive advantages that are derived from technological innovation.

Dot-com Bubble The dot-com bubble was a financial bubble that took place from around 1997 to 2001 and was initiated by investments in novel businesses based on ICT.

Energy debt In this thesis, energy debt refers to the amount of energy that is going into a product throughout the lifecycle. Depending on the duration of a life cycle, this debt can be relatively high or become lower the longer a product is used. With ICTs, most energy is often consumed in the production process, thus making long use a way to decrease the relative energy debt.

Information and The use of ICT as a term in this thesis is referring to Information and Communication Communication Technologies and electronics as understood by Galvin (2015). In Technology his use of the term, ICT refers to electrical components (valves & transistors) and devices that are containing such components (Galvin, 2015).

Long-Wave Long Wave theory is a concept in economics that differentiates different Theory economic cycles that follow similar patterns. While there are short economic cycles that last only a few years, Long-Wave Theory identifies very long periods for economic cycles. In the case of Pérez, these long waves correspond with her techno-economic paradigm shifts.

Microprocessor A microprocessor is the central processing unit (CPU) of a computer, also referred to as microchip. It is a central component of all ICT products.

Semiconductor Semiconductors are devices that are built from materials that have very specific properties (passing electric currents in certain ways, being sensitive to light and heat). The can be used for amplification, switching or energy conversion. Semiconductor materials are a central element of electronics devices and are for example used in microprocessors.

Transistors A Transistor is a semiconductor device that is used to amplify or switch electronic signals. Transistors are a central component of microprocessors.

Ubiquitous The term ubiquitous computing refers to a concept from computer science, Computing describing the idea that computing is available anywhere and at any time.

Valves A valve is an electronic component (vacuum tube) that is also used to amplify or switch electronic signals. Historically, valves were important components in computing, but got replaced by the more powerful transistor technology. In some places valves are still used, such as classic computer monitors and televisions that are based on cathode-ray tube technology.