Great thread, and great project more broadly by @NovelloAmanda and @gregorytcarlock.
Inspired by below, a mini-thread on how to use this approach to expand our thinking about what constitutes 'green' jobs in the context of arts/culture and tech:
1/n
Inspired by below, a mini-thread on how to use this approach to expand our thinking about what constitutes 'green' jobs in the context of arts/culture and tech:
1/n
Presently, the majority of mass-scale cultural artifacts (music, television, cinema) are produced via large conglomerates who provide upfront funding for individual creators and plug them into their distribution networks in exchange for a share of profits and/or IP rights.
Similarly, in tech, a lot of the investment spending is done through companies whose business model is dependent upon privatizing/enclosing some aspect of the process. Historically this would have been the hard/software itself, although in recent years more have gone open source.
But parallel to this industrial embrace of F/OSS has been the increased enclosure of data and platforms, so it's a mistake to think that the business models have necessarily become more open.
The effect in both industries is that projects which may have very low material costs
The effect in both industries is that projects which may have very low material costs
end up having a huge carbon footprint b/c of the additional infrastructure needed to capture and retain profits. One really basic example of this is the additional energy/computing power that goes into incorporating data surveillance/analytics on top of consumer web services.
How much energy is needed to maintain a cloud data server? A chat or media server/client? The answer is: far far less than is used by companies who provide such services only in order to further their data-mining and advertising businesses.
Similarly, how much energy does it
Similarly, how much energy does it
take to produce new code/text/music/video and release them to the world through p2p sharing infrastructure? Far less than is currently used by Hollywood/the music industry when the goal is to maintain control over your content first and foremost.
And thats before we get to the
And thats before we get to the
hardware itself - the planned obsolescence, the non-interoperable ports/cables/firmware, the effort that goes into DRM-maintenance and piracy-prevention, the silo'd nature of service provisioning, etc.
All of which is to say: remix culture, creative commons, free/open source
All of which is to say: remix culture, creative commons, free/open source
software and hardware, net neutrality/open spectrum, decentralized/p2p network models etc. are inherently more 'green' than their commercial counterparts and that should be a serious consideration when determining which future business models are consistent w a Green New Deal.
My view is some combination of direct public employment of artists (think the Federal Arts Project etc of the original Green New Deal) and technologists (ie the European Commission's @decodeproject) plus some decentralized investment (ie @DeanBaker13's artistic freedom vouchers)
would work as carrots, along with some 'sticks' (ie regulations prohibiting govt contracts to companies that dont release things open-source, new data regulations, changing laws on copyright limits etc) would go a long way in building a greener future for tech/culture.
Bottom line: it's really important to connect the digital enclosure movement in both tech and culture to the climate crisis, not only because its smart politics, but because there's a real, significant difference in the ecological footprint of diff production models.
