Doing more with less – Is it possible?
By Leo Smit, founder of SmartTrackers
With version 4.0, the CO₂ Performance Ladder introduces the concept of ‘avoided emissions’. Since then, I’ve been testing this concept in practice to discover how our clients can take an extra step forward in their sustainability programs.
During my visit to the National Conference on Sustainable Digitalisation, this topic also came into play. It was an inspiring event about how ICT can both contribute to sustainability and, at the same time, hinder it through the enormous increase in data center energy use. I couldn’t help but notice that the tendency to solve problems by simply using more resources often outweighs the willingness to make conscious choices for limitation and to strive for doing more with less.
This “more” approach does lead to economic growth — a sacred cow — but at the same time increases our dependence on countries like China, which makes us vulnerable. The current path results in high investments, a strong demand for raw materials, and products manufactured elsewhere. This comes at the expense of our autonomy and leads to a dead end. Even if we manage to increase our prosperity, it will ultimately be at the cost of our well-being.
Energy experts refer to this as the rebound effect: as soon as we achieve savings through innovation, we end up spending those savings again. A clear example is the development of the car. Engines became increasingly efficient, eventually leading to electrically driven motors. Yet cars also became larger, heavier, and higher, largely negating the benefit — or worse, if you consider raw material consumption.
We cannot disconnect ourselves from the global economy, but to remain future-proof, we must learn to think from what is necessary and available, rather than from what is possible. If we don’t do this voluntarily, we will be forced to, and that will cause a major shockwave with serious consequences.
To see that this process is already underway, you only need to follow the news. There’s no time to lose.
Pessimism is unnecessary in a country with such immense prosperity. I’d therefore like to emphasize how much is possible to tackle today’s challenges. What can we think of? The essence lies in using what we already have more efficiently, with a stronger focus on limitation. Precisely by doing so, you stimulate innovation and create tomorrow’s economy.
Here’s a small thought experiment:
- What if we decided that Dutch citizens would only get 500 liters of fuel per year instead of 1,000? People would travel together more often (the current average car occupancy is only 1.2 people per trip), buy smaller and truly efficient cars, switch to electric vehicles, and drive slower (energy use rises exponentially with speed: the difference between 100 and 120 km/h is about 40% — for an average of just 5 minutes of time saved!).
- What if we said you could only buy a new bicycle every fifteen years? You’d repair it more often and take better care of it.
- What if I said you could only ask your AI bot fifty questions per week? You’d think more critically beforehand about what’s really worth asking. Or you might choose a more energy-efficient bot that allows you to ask hundreds of questions instead.
- What if we said you couldn’t stream videos in unnecessarily high resolution during peak electricity hours to relieve pressure on the grid? How bad would that really be?
Of course, such limitations can’t be applied in a simple black-and-white manner. But by pricing environmental impact seriously, you can come quite close to the distinctions made above. Let’s see how this would play out in the case of electricity grid congestion.
How do we ensure there’s enough electricity for everyone — including homes that still need to be built? Over the course of a day, there’s plenty of capacity, but it’s poorly utilized (only about 30% of available transport capacity is used). The problem is therefore comparable to traffic jams — too much demand at peak moments.
Clear agreements on generation, use, and storage are obviously much faster, easier, cheaper, and more sustainable than continually laying new cables (the earlier mentioned “more” approach). How bad would it be to compromise a little, so that a new home can be connected to the grid much sooner somewhere else?
Leo Dijkstra (IBM) gave a great example in his presentation: if we were to invest ten billion euros in neighborhood-scale battery packs, we could avoid around one hundred billion euros in infrastructure investments. Combined with a smarter distribution of scarce capacity, we could solve problems at lightning speed. This solution still leans toward “more,” but it’s already much smarter than endlessly expanding the grid. By combining storage with peak reduction, you can reach the desired result faster and cheaper — for everyone — resulting in a stable network for all (potential) users.
What is often forgotten is that the billions invested in the electricity grid could also be used for energy efficiency and for creating a new market model of supply and demand, so that we either need less energy or need to expand and adapt the grid far less. A fun fact: despite the rise of electric vehicles and heat pumps, total electricity consumption has remained just below 125 billion kWh since 2010. So we mostly have a peak problem to solve.
In fact, this applies to all major challenges of our time: we can only solve them by being willing to compromise a little more. It might be asking a lot in this era of individualism and polarization, but if people can live together in a large, crowded city without constant conflict, then surely our civilization is advanced enough to distribute scarce resources more fairly.
Laws and regulations can help make better choices, but they are never the ultimate solution. You often see that at the first sign of headwind — such as with the CSRD — objectives are weakened. Yet by setting high standards in Europe, including for imported products, we can maintain control over how we wish to preserve our prosperity. After all, you wouldn’t want global tech companies deciding what happens to our data or what content we get to see, would you?
Legislation and standards help, but they also have limitations. Sometimes they make us lose sight of the bigger picture. My final plea, therefore, is this: don’t wait until someone imposes rules on you — think about how you can tackle your challenges more intelligently yourself, guided by the motto: doing more with less.
If you truly want to spark innovative thinking, try a mental exercise: attempt to solve a specific problem with only half of your available resources — and then watch the creativity emerge.
I dare say: success guaranteed!