Last week, I went to another sustainability conference.

Look, I should know better by now. These things tend to frustrate the hell out of me, although each has its own special personality and experience.

This one's personality was capitalism.

It had it all. Allow me to pull out my Snoopy notebook and check my notes:

• An expo that included a company exhibiting its "sustainable" recycled fabrics for (*checks notes*) the upholstery in your private jet
• Sessions talking about how Big Companies and their data centers are actually GOOD for the environment
• AI, AI, and of course, AI
• An endless shell game of carbon credit trading

But how does that make you feel?

It also had something that's not common: climate career coaches. These were sessions that you could schedule to talk about your burnout, or how to transition to a climate career, or your climate anxieties. There was an open slot between two sessions on my second day, and I was already frustrated by the wheeling and dealing. Why not give it a shot?

I sat down with my coach and talked about how this conference seemed to be very capitalism-driven with the jet upholstery and the sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) booths. I talked about how the theme seemed to be heavily into carbon credits and net-zero accounting, but not really focused on reducing anything in the aggregate. I talked about how the data center sessions talked about how they planted some wildflowers around the new datacenters ("rewilding the property"), but not about the energy consumption or water use. And how I was still reeling from the company that's pivoting from drone delivery of medications in sub-Saharan Africa to "low carbon" burrito delivery. Because everything is in the name of profitability and convenience. It's an endless supply of solutions that could be very profitable if they just find the right problems.

The coach listened quietly, nodding at all the right places, brow furrowed. And then, they spoke.

"It sounds like you're focusing on the negative. I recommend that you spend the next week keeping a gratitude journal."

Cue my stunned silence.

Look, I'm aware that there are things to be grateful for. That particular day was a beautiful one, albeit unseasonably warm. (What is seasonable anymore anyway?) I'm grateful for the food on my table, the fact that I can afford to attend conferences, the miracle of wifi, the joy of wandering around the area with my camera, and the evening I spent with my longtime friends. None of this changes the fact that even within sustainability, profit still outweighs people and planet.

And where does that leave us?

All of this leaves me in a weird place as an advocate for reducing consumption and emissions. On the content side of things, nobody wants to talk about reducing carbon footprints, because that would require an analysis of their increased integration of AI and the impacts thereof. On the sustainable business side, nobody wants to talk about reduction because that doesn't align with the program of profitability at all costs.

But the book is still valuable.

​None of this makes the principles of Sustainable Content any less valuable. It's arguably more important than ever to hold to our principles and focus on what we know matters. But for me, I'll be holding off on reupholstering the interior of my jet.

Bonus story: I decided to take the train up the coast as a low-emissions means of transportation to this conference. 14 hours door to door on an Amtrak is a commitment, y'all. But if you ever need a reminder of the beauty of the world, a train overlooking the Pacific Ocean really isn't a bad way to go. Write that in your gratitude journal.

​Morgan Stanley says that companies see sustainability as a driver of long-term profitability. Yeah, that tracks. But honestly, there are really legitimate ways that sustainability can contribute to the bottom line. It doesn't just have to be a shell game.

I like to see mainstream news coverage of AI and its energy impacts. This one talks about energy consumption in the Phoenix, Arizona area. As someone who spent a few years living in that area, I thought often about what overloaded power grids and blackouts could do. If you lose power in most parts of the country, it's an uncomfortable inconvenience. If the power goes out in Phoenix in the summer, 800,000 people will need to be treated for heatstroke. People will die.

I'm a little annoyed by this email from MIT Technology Review about how individuals shouldn't worry about their AI carbon footprint. While I get their point about how climate responsibility shouldn't be shifted to the individual in general, I disagree on their specifics. There are a lot of places in our lives where we can't make climate-positive changes. Not every workplace is served by a reliable public transit network, so a car is required for employment. Not every home is able to add solar panels for renewable electricity. Not every geographical location can use fans instead of relying on air conditioning (see previous reference to Phoenix). But AI? That's a choice. And unless you're forecasting hurricane landfalls or modeling the long-term durability of an artificial hip, it's probably work that you can do with your individual brain and a laptop.

🗒️

Consulting

​Reduce your Scope 3 emissions​

Alisa Bonsignore

Founder, Strategist, and Author