Try a little humility: Tech With a Green Governance Conscience

The Jevons Paradox, named after W. Stanley Jevons, states that improving efficiency of resource production also increases resource consumption – a rather inconvenient truth for the burgeoning “green” energy sector. One need only consider energy-saving and efficient LED light bulbs that now contribute to light pollution, or green technologies in cruise ships which increase, instead of decrease, adverse environmental impacts as they have increased efficiencies by reducing per passenger costs and prices, whilst increasing the overall demand for cruises and ratcheting up CO2 emissions (MacNeill, 2023). With that said, might Jevons Paradox be applied to our unwavering faith in the application of emerging AI technology and environmental governance? What is needed are technologies of humility—in other words, a recognition of the limits of scientific knowledge. Technologies of humility encourage us to reframe environmental problems so that their ethical dimensions are brought to the forefront, directing us to address people’s vulnerability to emerging technology and their risks and benefits (Jasanoff, 2007).

Digital Life Institute’s own Dr. Delon Alain Omrow has recently co-authored a perspective article in FACETS, the official journal of the Royal Society of Canada’s Academy of Science as an offshoot of a symposium held at Ontario Tech University, along with the other attendees. The article adopts an interdisciplinary and intersectional approach to understanding the role of artificial intelligence in environmental governance, while eliminating the detrimental social impacts associated with these advanced technologies via algorithmic bias, misunderstanding, and unaccountability. Exploring the tech–society–ecology interface, the authors ruminate on the implications of a new world order driven by AI – namely, the authoritarian intensification of digitalized environmental governance and “technocracy.” We observe, moreover, that while emerging technologies are being deployed to address grand environmental challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion, the use of these AI technologies in the name of progressive environmental policy development and enforcement requires, in fact, co-productivist approaches to constructive technology assessments, embracing the concept of technologies of humility (Kemp et al. 2001). If we consider the increasing use of digital information and communication technologies (ICTs) and artificial intelligence (AI) in environmental monitoring, regulation, and governance, for a moment, we observe that such technological measures may paradoxically result in increased damage through rebound effects. As such, co-productivist and constructive technology assessment (CTA) approaches (Rip et al. 1995) to environmental governance must be addressed with humility and the inclusion of a large diversity of stakeholders in technological design and implementation processes (Kemp et al. 2001).

Constructive technology assessment must include sociotechnical critiques in the design, development, and implementation phase so that policy informs the dynamics between emerging and advanced technologies and governance structures (Jaffe et al., 2003). Focusing on examples of green governance, the articleexamines the social and political shaping of a range of technologies and takes into account the coproduction of these technologies and its effects on society. Emerging technology, we contend, is truly a Janus-faced creature (Jones, 2012) insofar as it can support strategic cross-sector environmental enforcement efforts and also open doors for the potential misuse of these technologies. Caution must be exercised because such AI innovations do not always lead to equitable outcomes for Indigenous and global Southern Communities; if we consider electronic tagging and habitat surveillance, for instance, we begin to identify how AI can be used in the digitalisation and commodification of nature, leading to new forms of what Upchurch (2020) refers to as “extractive capitalism”—that is, a new dimension of colonial extractivism under the ideology of neoliberalism.

Technologies of humility serve as a reflexive approach to technological policy-making and practice is contrasted against the traditional technologies of hubris that view technology as a tool for controlling nature and the world with greater certainty. But challenges lay before us: environmental governance is rooted in entrenched governmental structures and unresponsive politics. For example, artificial intelligence may take on the role of data mining, analysis, and ultimately, decision-making to help us prioritize conservation efforts, but the power of this approach is limited by the type of data already available. We conclude by asking: who will decide technological governance protocols and practices and is there a justifiable need for sacrificing democratic legitimacy/participation in cases where environmental destruction has become (or is threatening to become) catastrophic?

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Ontario Tech University’s Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Dean Peter Stoett, and the Digital Life Institute’s Sustainability, Equity, and Digital Culture research cluster who hosted a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)-funded symposium entitled Tech With a Green Governance Conscience: Exploring the Technology–Environmental Policy Nexus in 2023. I would also like to acknowledge all contributing authors on the publication Compliance and enforcement in a brave new (green) world: best practices and technologies for green governance: Michelle Anagnostou, Phillip Cassey, Steven J. Cooke, Sheldon Jordan, Andrea E. Kirkwood, Timothy MacNeill, Tanner Mirrlees, Isabel Pedersen, Peter Stoett, and Michael F. Tlusty. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) for a Connections Grant (P.I.s Peter Stoett and Delon Alain Omrow) for this symposium.

References

Jaffe A.B., Newell R.G., Stavins R.N. (2003). Technological change and the environment. In Handbook of Environmental Economics. Edited by MälerK.G., Vincent J.R. Elsevier. pp. 461–516.

Jasanoff S. (2007). Technologies of humility. Nature, 450(1): 1–10.

Jones R. (2012). Criminals and terrorists in a borderless, technological arms race. Forbes.

Kemp R., Rip A., Schot J. (2001). Constructing transition paths through the management of niches. In Path Dependence and Creation. Edited by Garud R., Karnoe P. Psychology Press. pp. 269–299.

MacNeill T. (2023). Cruises: environmental impacts and policy. In Routledge Handbook of Global Trends and Issues in Tourism. Edited by Morrison A.M., Buhalis D. Routledge. Pp. 45-57.

Omrow, D., Anagnostou, M., Cassey, P., Cooke, S.,Jordan, S., Kirkwood, A.,MacNeill, T., Mirrlees, T., Pedersen, I., Stoett, P., Tlusty, M. (2024). Compliance and enforcement in a brave new (green) world: best practices and technologies for green governance. FACETS. 9, 1-8.

Rip A., Misa T., Schot, J. (1995). Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive technology assessment. Pinter.

Upchurch M. 2020. Is there a new extractive capitalism? International Socialism, 168, 1–18.