The Citizens’ Convention on Climate – Episode #5. The French debate about 5G and its relation to one of the proposed actions from the French Citizens’ Climate Convention: keeping pace with the evolution of digital technology to reduce its environmental impact

This article won’t be the exact translation of the French version I wrote a month ago. Because if you read this in English, you’re definitely not French and will need some context first.

As in most countries across the world, the 5G network technology is on its way to be implemented in France. The last steps for its implementation are making the frequency bands available, building of the infrastructure (antennas and small cells) and the spread of compatible smartphones.

The frequency bands topic is already almost closed: four wave ranges  (4 times 50 MHz on the 3.5 MHz frequency band) have been already attributed to the four French telephone operators. In addition, it has been a month that there is an auction for eleven frequency bands of 10MHz, also within the radio frequency spectrum (between 3.4 and 3.8 GHz). 

The antenna infrastructure is being adapted, though small cells are not in place yet, since they will be transmitting another spectrum of frequencies (e.g. millimeter frequencies, in the 26 GHz spectrum). This range of wavelength should be made available in 2023 and is necessary for new technologies such as autonomous cars to function.

As for smartphones, of course companies have already developed the technology and nearly every new phone is now compatible with the 5G network. 

It seems that everything is on track to happen. So what’s the big deal? 

Well. A democratic exercise, the Citizens Convention on Climate , initiated by President Macron himself after the yellow vest movement, has asked to think twice about 5G deployment in France. Back in July 2020, President Macron implicitly accepted that proposition since it was not on his veto list (check out this episode for more background). However, during an event at the end of the summer gathering of La French Tech , he started a controversy proclaiming that France will implement 5G because he did not believe in the “amish system”. 

Obviously this punch line was a great way to start a calm, non-emotional and well argumented debate.

Environmental concerns around 5G

Several environmental issues are highlighted in the French debate about 5G. I’m going to present three that come up regularly, which I think are actually not specific to 5G but are nevertheless urgent to consider.

The issue of energy savings

On the one hand, it is announced that 5G technology would reduce energy consumption, not only because the waves disperse less but also because the network would be smarter: the antennas should be activated only when necessary. In fact, 4G antennas work continuously at high power to transmit in all directions. Also, it would seem that 5G is more efficient, i.e. for the same data transfer, it needs less energy. Finally, it is argued that objects connected through 5G could allow more eco-responsible operation of the technology, and also support the development of new technologies to foster the energy transition.

On the other hand, it has been stated that a 5G backbone network would consume 2 to 3 times more energy than a 4G backbone network (according to the think tank The Shift Project, but also the CEO of Bouygues Telecom (one of France’s phone operators), who speaks of a “significant increase” in energy consumption…). Moreover, and I won’t hide the fact that I agree with this argument, the rebound effect is regularly put forward. That is to say that the more efficient a product or service is, the more intensively it will be used, and therefore cancels the announced savings (should they be financial or energetic). For example, the successive changes from 2G to 3G to 4G have definitely changed the way we use our phones: previously, we used to write very abbreviated and short sms to fit into the 160 characters, and you had to pay for each message sent! Now we are often sending messages for no reason to a group of 8-10 people, but fortunately with the correct spelling again (or almost). Thanks to 4G we can even punctuate these messages with selfies, GIF and emojis. This example is also valid for e-mails whose number and size have drastically increased, the streaming of videos with better quality so you binge watch a huge number of series (I plead guilty). To this progress in technology there are direct consequences: our data consumption has been increasing by 40% every year for the last few years, increasing in turn the energy bill related to it (and, as you may know, our global energy production is definitely not clean yet).

With or without 5G, the growth of data consumption (i.e. our internet usage) is real and problematic. Indeed, the power consumption of the infrastructure necessary for the internet (servers, networks and terminals) would represent 4% of the world’s electricity consumption. And just for the use phase alone (i.e. without taking into account the manufacture of the telephone, computer or tablet), the digital industry has a carbon footprint equivalent to that of Germany. So yes, 5G could increase the energy and environmental impact of digital technology, but above all it’s our individual and societal uses of new technologies that need to be questioned. If we were aware of the over-consumption of digital and online products that we have, we might effectively reduce our use of the internet. This, supported by a 5G technology that is theoretically more efficient… then why not! 

The renewal of the smartphones fleet

Indeed, to be able to use 5G, if you don’t already have a compatible phone, you will need a new one. However, most of the environmental impact of a phone can be attributed to its manufacture, and the recycling of electronic components is (to say the least) not yet fully developed. This is without counting on the rare earths needed for construction, which will be very quickly exhausted (we are talking about certain metals needed for new technologies that might fall short by 2030).

But once again with or without 5G, the lifespan of phones is problematic, because they are replaced far too often. Their design is not made to last: we change them regularly, whereas we could repair them. Or else, we need a more powerful phone, since applications are increasingly heavy and required for daily actions: buying train tickets, apps for health insurance, banking, emails. So even if you only use “necessary” apps and not even especially heavy ones such as social media or games, in the end you will have to buy a new phone. This problem is not inherent to 5G, and it’s  urgent to solve it, for example by encouraging (or forcing?) manufacturers to offer models that last, and developers to offer “lighter” apps.

The growth of connected objects

5G will allow the deployment of a large number of connected objects. This is another topic that pits those who believe that new technologies can be used for the ecological transition against those who think that these objects will be useless and harmful to the ecological transition. 

This issue is related to the two listed above: the increase in energy consumption of these objects, as well as their design, manufacture and lifespan.

Here again, with or without 5G, connected objects have their own environmental issues. While the autonomous car, whose operation will be made possible by the deployment of 5G, might have a smaller ecological footprint than a conventional car, it will not be as ecologically efficient as maintaining and developing reliable, clean, and safe public transportation. And your robot vacuum cleaner, it’s handy and you anyway already have it… but do you really need to know if it’s stuck under the couch when you’re at work, if you’re not home to release it anyway? And what’s its lifespan? Is it repairable? Does it have a warranty? And your roller shutters that can also be controlled from your smartphone, is it really more efficient than lowering or raising them yourself? 

Although it is somewhat related to the deployment of 5G, the internet of things’ environmental (and social) impacts should be questioned: what kind of connected society we want to live in, while being aware of the hidden environmental impact it can have?

So what did the Citizens Convention on Climate ask exactly for and why is it related?

Interestingly, the 150 Citizens picked at random to participate in the Citizens’ Climate Convention have been called anti-5G, which is wrong. In reality, their final report proposes to evaluate the pros and cons of 5G compared to optic fiber prior, and not after, granting licenses for 5G development, and to advise for the technology that will have the least impact on the environment.  It is proposed to wait for the results of this study before deploying the use of 5G. Pending the results of this study, the Citizens Convention on Climate advocates for a moratorium on the deployment of the 5G network. 

This request has to be put into context as well. It is not standing on its own, but is part of goal PT12 of the Convention’s final report: keeping pace with the evolution of digital technology to reduce its environmental impact. [check out this, admittedly not very sexy, excel sheet I made listing all the proposed action of the French Citizens’ Convention on Climate in English] 

Part of this goal would include, among other things, the eco-design of products, software, services and the fostering of the industry for re-used devices. This is in the spirit of ecodesign that a thoughtful evaluation of the environmental and health impacts of the 5G technology is carried out.

So the idea is not to rush headfirst into a new technology, but to think twice about it in the hope of avoiding environmental pitfalls and supporting a virtuous use of the technology. Besides, it’s not only for ecological reasons that it might be worth thinking about it: while the potential economic benefits of 5G are often highlighted, very little is said about the economic difficulties of many rural French companies that are lacking behind because of poor internet connection in regions where neither 4G nor optic fiber has arrived. Thinking about what would be the best economic and environmental solution for these regions would be worthwhile, wouldn’t it?

As for health impacts, while the wireless technologies used so far have been widely studied and there are no scientific studies today that prove an adverse effect on health regarding the frequency bands currently used for 5G (3.4-3.8 GHz), there are no conclusive results yet regarding very high frequency waves (26 GHz, expected in 2023) because of lack of data available. More studies in that regard would not hurt, at least to learn more about it. 

But back to the proposal of the Citizen’s Convention for the Climate in its entirety, that is, keeping pace with the evolution of new digital technologies to reduce their environmental impact. This does not only concern the deployment of 5G, but also the various environmental issues raised by the development of new technologies. Therefore, the following actions have been proposed:

• Foster the eco-design of products, software and services. This would involve, among others:
  • reducing the energy and data requirements of digital products; 
  • designing apps and software that are “more sober and work without loss of quality, with constant  hardware”; 
  • extending the warranty on digital equipment to five years and allowing easy replacement of spare parts such as the display and battery; 
  • developing the re-use industry (i.e. “favouring the acquisition of a repaired device with a one or two-year warranty rather than the purchase of a new device”); 
  • eco-designing services (which includes the proposal for a moratorium on 5G until such time as the environmental and health advantages and disadvantages of 5G compared to optic fibre have been assessed);
  • eco-designing data centers, which are multiplying and are very energy-intensive. 
• foster the systematization of eco-labels on all digital equipment
• promote information and education on digital sobriety practices
• make carbon neutrality commitments of digital players accessible

Once again, I am amazed about how the 150 Citizens have thought of a problem from so many angles and recognized that it has to be tackled by different means, simultaneously.

Conclusion

In my opinion, as you might have noticed, 5G is primarily a question about new technology development and what we want to do with it as a society, rather than a debate on the technology itself, which responds to new needs… Which leads to another bunch of questions: are these needs useful and legitimate in a context of climate crisis and limited resources? Who will really benefit from 5G: us, or the objects? And the pollution linked to our new digital practices, can we stop and think about it for even two seconds? Can we seriously consider the proposals of the Citizens’ Climate Convention, which tries to respond to these problems while taking into account the technical progress available today? 

Resources: Sorry but not sorry, I used mainly French resources for this article, all of them are listed in the French version of this article there