Issue 1

Issue 2

Issue 3

Issue 4

Issue 5

Issue 6

Issue 7

Issue 8

Issue 9

Reimagining the Browser for a Green Web

The web holds the promise of connecting people across distance and difference. A browser is a tool designed to make these connections possible by accessing and rendering websites. Yet, reimagining what browsers could or should be is difficult because we are so used to the familiar patterns of tabbed interfaces and ad-driven design that defines most browsers today. 

In this article, we ask afresh: What if the browser were more attuned to the natural world? What if it responded to the ebb and flow of natural systems and operated more thoughtfully with the limited planetary resources available? What could browsing the green web look like, and how could we even get there? 

For the last 15+ years, we’ve worked on topics related to the open web, including in collaboration with major browser makers. Responding to this issue’s theme, we wanted to survey the current browser landscape, its possibilities and constraints, and see what threads might be interesting to follow. Come along this exploration of what sustainable browsing could look like!

Browsers today

The major browsers of today are controlled by a handful of companies, each defending their financial strategic interests in the space. Browser engines, the underlying software implementations of the web itself, are very large and complex. The cost of making a new browser engine is therefore quite high – requiring millions of dollars in funding and a team of specialized engineers just to get started. 

For a long time, this combination of size, complexity, and cost made it very difficult to change web browsing. It also created a higher barrier to entry for newcomers, narrowing our imagination about what a web browser can be. While the web itself is still not easy to change, the maturity and stability of open source web engines has made a blossoming of new browsers possible, some with fresh propositions around security, privacy, or productivity. 

Some new browsers are designed to do very specific things well, such as Wavebox‘s focus on workplace productivity, or Polypane which is specifically aimed at web developers. Others want to be all-arounders, such as The Browser Company’s Arc and Dia products, Kagi’s Orion browsers, and a new Firefox-based browser named Zen which is growing in popularity for its customizability. In this landscape, Ladybird is unique: A non-profit group is attempting to build an entirely new web engine and browser from scratch, likely a decade-long project.

Meanwhile, we are seeing the energy sector become more like the web. Real-time data about the electricity grid, such as its carbon intensity, is becoming more accessible and actionable. That means you can connect information about the current electricity grid with your browsing experience, as the Green Web Foundation’s Grid-aware Websites project demonstrates. What’s more, there’s growing interest in routing internet traffic along the greenest pathways, optimizing packet flows for energy efficiency, and prioritizing websites that are running on 100% renewable energy or other verified green energy claims. 

These conversations are happening within a larger political context of massive investments for ‘AI gigafactories’ and similar megaprojects. The investments are often conducted under the guise of energy efficiency and future climate gains. However, we should assess these promises with a wary eye, especially since the rebound effect proves time and time again that gains in efficiency result in more usage of a technology, rather than less. 

The model of Consumption, Intensity, and Direction created by Chris Adams at the Green Web Foundation helps us pinpoint the kind of change we’re working towards. Is it about reducing how much is consumed? Is it reducing the harm that’s caused? Or is it changing the (structural) direction we’re headed in? The ideas in this article respond in varying degrees to these questions.

Consumption, Intensity, Direction Model
Overview of the The Consumption, Intensity, and Direction Model (CID) (Source: Chris Adams, Green Web Foundation).

1. Consumption

When thinking about how to green the web, the first instinct is often to focus on reducing consumption. This section explores how making consumption visible can serve as a lever for change, how browser functionality might be extended to support this awareness, and how adopting a ‘local-first’ approach could reduce the need for intensive computational resources.

Dimensions of observability on the web

To build a greener web, we must first be able see the web as it exists today. The web is not a single static entity but a dynamic ecosystem made up of browsers and web standards, publishing pipelines, content aggregators, advertising networks, backend databases, and the JavaScript libraries that ship with the pages and the servers that host them, the ‘series of tubes’ that carry it all, and so much more. 

Loading a web page is an incredibly complicated and multidimensional event, spanning the globe and often involving thousands of companies, a huge amount of data, and an incomprehensible maze of network connections – any of it may be a signal of direct or indirect energy use, energy policies and more.

When you enter a URL, the browser first queries the Domain Name System (DNS) to resolve it into an IP address, then sends a request to that address to retrieve the website’s content. That IP address is registered to an Internet Service Provider (ISP), whose corporate identity – name, headquarters, and public records – is publicly available. 

Domain names are registered in public databases which typically contain information about the business behind them. While this data can be obfuscated, the actual publisher’s business details are frequently disclosed, and increasingly required by law for many kinds of websites

We can analyze the path the request took, and see if any content delivery networks (CDNs) were used, and if any pages, scripts, images and videos were loaded from other websites (more companies!). We can also learn how the page itself was authored, and what services and tools were used – the content management system (CMS), JavaScript and CSS frameworks, any metrics or reliability services, and even ecommerce platforms like Shopify.

In 2024, Wired reported that some popular websites share data with over 1,500 partners. Not all of those are loaded directly into the website, but many often are.

Within that burst of network activity and the content it returns lies a wealth of other information about the business behind each piece: sustainability claims, published policies, political donations, news coverage, even controversial customers. A single lookup offers a revealing glimpse into the broader environmental, ethical, and social context behind any website.

Projects like Firefox Lightbeam, originally developed by Atul Varma at Mozilla, pull back the curtain on the thicket of third-party trackers following us invisibly throughout the web and how they collude with one another to share data about what we click on and where we go online. Tools like Are My Third Parties Green?, developed by Fershad Irani at the Green Web Foundation, help illustrate these dependencies and how changing vendors may result in an improvement in the energy consumption or carbon intensity of a website.

Showing that domain, IP address, business, policies, tools and more can be derived from one URL
The universe of information that can be derived from loading a URL in a browser (Source: Dietrich Ayala).

Extending today’s browsers

We’ve focused on the companies and industries behind websites, and the ways in which they make, serve, and distribute content. These are indirect costs to you – side effects of loading a particular website. But there are also direct costs. Inefficient web code runs on your device, which you keep charged. 

Could we build a browser extension that shares that information with you as you browse? Then you could make decisions about which websites to visit, based on how much energy they make you use. 

Browser extensions often fill the gap between what a user may need and what a browser maker probably won’t implement. These are small software programs that access browser internals to add features that may not be for everyone, but are still useful. Some explorations for using extensions to greening the web include: 

  • Themes: A theme modifies the colors and visual styles of the browser. What if a theme changes color based on the green web rating of the visible website? 
  • Filtering network requests: Ad blocking is the most common use case here. What if you could identify assets loading from known carbon-wasteful domains and block or replace them? Maybe the websites would not function as well, but you could have a “ok, use this wasteful website” button or other interaction to bring attention to it. (“Ad blocking is climate action!”)
  • CO2.js on every page: The Green Web Foundation’s CO2.js project is an open-source JavaScript library, which websites can include to understand their energy usage. You can also see the output in the Firefox Profiler. This is opt-in by websites… but browser extensions let you include scripts in pages. Can we make an extension that adds CO2.js to all the pages you browse? Also, the Firefox Profiler is not a user-friendly tool (it’s even confusing for developers!), so perhaps we could provide simplified decisions for end users to take action while we run it? 

Firefox itself does have energy consumption APIs internally but they’re not available to websites or browser extensions. Unfortunately, browsers have been steadily restricting the capabilities of extensions for years. In particular, Google unilaterally added controversial limitations to what extensions can do in its shift to ‘Manifest v3’ . 

Browser extensions are not considered part of the web, so those capabilities aren’t governed by the W3C (though there’s some coordination now, a good sign). Extensions are also not the default user experience, and therefore only a subset of web users will ever install them. While we can get pretty creative by extending the browser, they’re not an avenue for direct and structural long-term change.

Energy and data locality: CDNs, P2P, and AI

Movement is intrinsic to networks. The web moves across the internet. People request web pages. Servers respond. Each of these exchanges is an explicit instruction to move data, resulting in a continuous flow between many points.

Data movement has a cost – transmission networks use around 250 TWh each year according to the IEA. But, because of the distributed nature of the internet and how routing decisions are made today with BGP, we have limited control over which networks our packets use in transit.

Meanwhile, renewable energy is increasingly the cheapest power available, albeit a variable one. If you want to use greener network infrastructure, your packets should respond to the conditions on the grid. That means avoiding times and regions where electricity mostly comes from burning fossil fuels.

Does reducing ‘distance’ reduce overall energy use? Let’s look at some architectural approaches to the locality of data on the web.

CDNs

CDNs are companies that reduce the distance data needs to travel, resulting in a better user experience and lower costs for publishers. CDNs maintain points of presence (POPs) in different geographic areas, and publishers pay the CDNs to service regional requests for content from the closest POP, reducing the amount of content making the full trip from the publisher’s server.

Map showing Latin America and Africa that are connected through CDN
Source: Dietrich Ayala.

Do publishers not using CDNs consume more energy? What’s the energy usage of the data center a given POP runs in? What if the upstream publisher uses a data center primarily powered from hydroelectricity, while the POP data center is powered by local coal energy? Or vice versa?

CDNs can see patterns across large swaths of web traffic. Perhaps that’s an opportunity to shape traffic at scale on the internet. If CDN usage is generally more efficient, what if there were tax breaks for publishers who use CDNs or regulation incentivizing their usage?

P2P

Are there different ways we can move data that may be more efficient or sustainable? Are there ways to radically reduce data movement?

Peer-to-peer (P2P) technologies are not new, but must be re-examined from a sustainability perspective. In P2P web approaches, the client and server lines blur – browsers can also be servers. Often, these networks are composed of users’ own computers rather than being operated by a single company running centralized servers. P2P can also refer to direct connections between individuals, such as Apple’s Airdrop, or to devices communicating over a local network, like in your home.

The experimental P2P browser Beaker would publish your website locally in the browser and make it available to other Beaker users over a P2P network. BitTorrent, the protocol infamous for file-sharing in the 2000s, also started developing a Chromium-based browser. Brave has been supporting IPFS (Interplanetary File System) for a few years already, the most recent major attempt at a P2P web browser. 

While none of these options is around today, each offered a way for users to publish and read together over local networks instead of having to go to a remote server. Further research is needed to understand the energy usage patterns of this approach.

A related pattern is ‘local first’ computing. Coined by Ink & Switch in 2019, local-first software is designed to work locally, without a server component as a requirement. If you want to collaborate with others, you can layer that on, but the core architecture doesn’t care if that component is HTTP, P2P, or carrier pigeon. While there are no browsers for the local-first web yet, Peter van Hardenberg of Ink & Switch made TrailRunner, which lets you load local data into traditional web applications.

P2P and local-first reimagine the traditional idea of ‘servers’, either removing them entirely or turning all users into hyperlocal servers. How do they stack up from a green web perspective?

Map showing two continents, one a group of dots all connected to each other by lines, and labeled "P2P", and the other with two smartphones connected by a line and a label that says "also P2P"
Source: Dietrich Ayala.

Some P2P networks move web content around in tiny pieces, each served redundantly from many nodes in the network. A simple request for an image in a page might be handled by hundreds or even thousands of computers. Does this use more or less energy than a single-company product running in a data center? The trade-off for resilience could be worth the higher carbon cost in critical situations, but without visibility into that cost, it’s not possible to evaluate. Modeling these costs could be an interesting avenue of research.

Additionally, the ability of a network to scale both up or down could be interesting from an energy consumption angle. Similarly to the CDN example, P2P networks can efficiently scale up to large numbers of readers when data can be served from the ‘closest’ nodes instead of crossing oceans. P2P networks can also scale down. If you’re only sharing data with the group of people in the same room, no data need to leave the physical premises.

AI

AI is a hot topic and can be very energy-intensive (see the joint statement we helped author on keeping AI within planetary boundaries). A big driver of this energy consumption is the training and usage (inference) of large language models such as ChatGPT. This form of generative AI is locking in reliance on fossil fuels, projected to require unprecedented amounts of energy, and delaying climate action. 

Rather than using highly centralized and resource-intensive AI, looking at it through a locality lens prompts (pun intended!) interesting questions.

We’ve discussed network traffic volume and how fewer requests may use less energy. If a remote LLM has already processed vast amounts of web data, does asking it a question – despite it running in a data center – result in a net decrease in energy use compared to individuals spending hours making redundant web requests, causing multiple servers to do more work for relatively little research output?

What about offline local models? If you can download a model once that can answer basic questions, would consumer AI traffic be meaningfully reduced? What about training models locally as you browse… perhaps that would create less network traffic for a model that’s less powerful but more personalized and also private?

If every consumer is running models locally, are we just spreading the load? Is that a new and even broader inefficiency? How does the energy cost of a billion micro-models compare to one mega-model servicing a billion users from a few data centers? What might the tradeoffs be, not just in terms of efficiency, but also in challenging market concentration among cloud providers and disrupting the imperative to adopt or die with AI?

Map showing two continents. The left one has a smartphone with an arrow pointing to itself and labeled "local AI". It also has a smartphone connected by a line to a dot on the right-hand side content, which is labeled "AI data center".
Source: Dietrich Ayala.

How is this playing out in the browser landscape? Today’s three main browser engines are going in very different directions with AI. Mozilla is putting AI in the browser but not the web. Google is bringing AI as close to the web as possible. And Apple is looking at integrating AI at the OS level.

We’re seeing new AI browsers and other AI web products and services pop up nearly every day now. It would be welcome to see more development that embraces sufficiency principles and prioritizes frugality and locality over brute force and overconsumption.

2. Intensity

In the CID model, examining changing intensity means asking whether it’s possible to reduce the harm being caused. For example, fossil fuels are known to produce significant harm. Their carbon intensity reflects the widespread, systemic, and often diffuse impact they have by contributing to climate change. 

But intensity can also be understood in more localized terms – referring to the damage done at the sites where fossil fuels are extracted, refined and burned. In this context, intensity describes the amount of harmful particles released per unit of energy produced.

Web standards

The world of web standards also provides some interesting threads to explore. These standards represent agreements among browser makers on what to implement, though enforcement is limited – largely relying on market dynamics and voluntary adoption. The major browser vendors dominate these standards bodies, and if the main browsers don’t support a standard, it rarely gains meaningful real-world traction. 

Notably, the W3C included sustainability in its Ethical Web Principles, which serves as a guiding framework for the web community. Since last year, the W3C has convened a Sustainable Web Interest Group, which includes invited experts from the Green Web Foundation, to develop and document best practices addressing sustainability in digital technology and its effects on people and the planet. Web sustainability in the W3C context is defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” and encompasses not only the protection of environmental ecosystems and people, but also grounding practices in equity. 

Complementary efforts are underway to verify (in webby ways) facts and news. How can a claim be made that an image is bonafide or a deep fake? Or that a news story is undoctored? The BBC made a splash when it produced a metadata-proven story that uses an emerging standard for verifiability in journalism on the web called C2PA to provide credentials for its content. Relatedly, the Authentic Web workshop series at the W3C seeks to shift the web to more trustworthy content without increasing censorship or social division.

These patterns of verifiability could be relevant when we think about green energy claims. For example, if a provider claims it runs on 100% renewable energy, how can this be backed up? It’s becoming increasingly possible to demonstrate how a given hour of usage in a data center is matched with 100% renewable energy that is generated locally and additive to the local grid. These claims help to make the case that fossil fuels were actually displaced, rather than burned and ‘offset’ in a broken scheme. As the demand for more rigorous evidence of green energy increases, there may be things to learn from how the web community is proposing to support verifiable claims around identity and authentication.

Attunement: the green web tools of tomorrow

Alongside changing browsers and web standards, what are other things that could be done to build the green web tools of tomorrow? 

Riffing on Branch’s theme of attunement for this issue, we might begin with rethinking web applications. Rather than loading a huge program, what if the right-sized computation was used for the task? 

A ‘web workbench’ is one way we might achieve this right-sized approach. Imagine breaking the browser into smaller parts so that, instead of running a complex, all-purpose program, you launch the exact tool needed for each task. For example, opening a URL that exists for just one visit. We could play with the temporality and ephemerality of a webpage. 

Weightless, junk-free websites that do one thing well, without the bloat of, say, purchasing a single book on Amazon, which artist Joana Moll so beautifully critiqued with its “1,307 different requests to all sort of scripts and documents, totaling 8,724 A4 pages worth of printed code, adding up to 87.33MB of information” and an estimated 30 wh of energy to load all the web interfaces. 

Tab hoarding is a common malady for many using the web today – an example of the largesse of the one-size-fits-all consumer experience. The browser business model is designed around ‘more’, so this is not considered as a problem to be solved. Task-aligned browsing or user-defined user agents are ways we could describe this kind of ‘right-sized’ browsing experience. Despite these seemingly intractable challenges, new browsers are emerging – a signal that the door may be finally opening for more innovation in the space.

3. Direction

In the third part of the CID model, we consider changing direction. This approach is not just about reducing the rapid consumption of the planet’s finite resources and minimizing the intensity of harm. It’s also about challenging the overinvestment in and unchecked expansion of digital infrastructure – especially when it reinforces extractive practices. Here, the focus is on how we might redirect investment and technical experimentation in more equitable and sustainable directions.

Actionability

In the observability section, we learned that there’s a lot of data in several different dimensions, each which tell different stories about sustainability and energy use.

With all this information comes another kind of challenge: helping people understand it and take action. There are patterns again we can learn from other web topics. In digital security, browsers established the closed padlock as a symbol that a webpage has a secure connection. What basic literacy might we expect people to have or learn to enable greener browsing experiences? What behaviors might be cultivated to shape browsing practices in more sustainable and empowered ways, while at the same time not placing responsibility for these structural harms on the shoulders of everyday web users?    

Relatedly, how might visualizations help us understand the complex supply chains behind loading a single website? Vladan Joler and Kate Crawford’s Anatomy of AI provides a super-exploded view of the human and ecological ties behind a single Amazon Echo. Perhaps similar explainers can show the full social and ecological cost of a web browsing session, and better still, guide us to understand where we can intervene in these systems, rather than feel like we have to become internet monks.  

New literacy can lead to new behaviors. A challenge will be to direct this beyond personal guilt or paralysis and towards effective structural change. 

Glimpses of a greener web

The web is shaped by daily use, corporate interests, principled interventions, and collective imagination. It’s a negotiation between how people interact with it, how technology companies profit from it, how standards bodies and NGOs work to uphold public values, and how we envision what being online means. 

The web of today must operate within planetary limits. Some paths forward are becoming clear: phasing out fossil fuels in data centers, reducing absolute emissions across the web’s entire supply chain, and ensuring that people have a meaningful role in shaping the digital futures they want. 

Many of the ideas in this article don’t address the structural changes needed to build more equitable and regenerative digital systems. (For recommendations along those lines, check out the Green Screen Coalition and its inspiring network of digital rights and climate justice organizations). Some of the suggestions here may not be particularly effective, profitable, or even feasible. These are systems of endless and compound complexity, and there are no simple solutions – but there are promising threads worth following.

We’re looking forward to the explorations and experiments ahead – be they browsers, standards, or entirely new approaches – that help create the just and sustainable web of the future.


Dietrich Ayala has been working on browsers and the web at organizations like Mozilla and Protocol Labs for nearly 20 years. He is currently exploring what the web can be when the browser is left behind.

Michelle Thorne is the Director of Strategy at the Green Web Foundation, co-initiator of the Green Screen Coalition for digital rights and climate justice, and editor of Branch magazine. She’s curious about reconnecting with the radical roots of openness and caring for the commons.

Letter from the editors

A heavily blurred red flower with hazy clouds and some electricity pylons in the background.
Image by Tom Jarrett (CC BY-NC 4.0).

We are at a critical threshold in our computational future. Rapid expansion of data centers, semiconductor manufacturing, and fossil fuel usage are all booming in response to unprecedented private and public investment in digital infrastructure. In 2024, the 1.5°C global warming limit was surpassed across the entire year, and the boundaries of several life-supporting planetary systems have been exceeded. More intense heat waves, storms, fires, and floods remind us of how human activity impacts all life on this planet.

Much of the internet today is part of larger, extractive systems that are exhausting critical resources like water, land, and raw materials – intensifying environmental harm across the technology supply chain and increasing greenhouse gas emissions, which heat up the planet and concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. 

Is a different way possible? 

What if we rebuild the internet to respond better to the constraints of the energy grid? How could we adapt the browsing experience to use fewer resources when fossil fuels are being burned and support awareness of how the physical realities of the planet affect our experience on the web? 

What if we reimagine digital infrastructures attuned to life systems? Digital futures that are built by default to operate within planetary constraints? What if we could prioritize community ownership of the internet, joy, and just the right amount of technology to meet collective needs? 

This issue of Branch sets out to play with these possibilities through the lens of Grid-aware Websites. Together we’ll explore what’s possible right now and where we can take things through the collective imaginings of future pathways. We’ll also touch on ideas such as tiny infrastructures, regenerativity, and other alternative approaches to bring our browsing experiences more in touch with the natural world and the more-than-human lives all around us.

Editors Q&A: What’s in this issue #9?

Read more from our editors about the articles in this issue and why we’re excited for readers to dig in and become attuned. 

Michelle Thorne:

Fershad, you edited a couple of sections of this issue of Branch. Can you tell us about the articles that are featured in it?

Fershad Irani:

Sure! I edited the sections on Attuning the Web and Building a Grid-Aware Web. A lot of the articles in this section build on the Grid-aware Websites project we’ve been working on over the last year, where we’ve been developing a toolkit for developers and designers to create dynamic web experiences that respond to the carbon intensity of the energy grid. 

As part of that project, we brought together a wonderful advisory group, made up of community members from CMS projects and independent specialists. Several of them have written articles for this issue. One strong message that came from the group was the importance of making the business case for sustainable design – how to speak about these ideas in a way that resonates with decision-makers. 

We begin the issue with Nick Lewis and Lucy Sloss, both members of the advisory group, who offer a forward-looking perspective to a future where the physical world and the internet are truly attuned. It’s a thoughtful introduction to the larger themes of this issue.

From there, we dive into the grid-aware web. Tom Jarrett shares the story of how we redesigned the Branch site itself to better reflect real-time energy data. Then Michael Oghia, together with Andy Eva-Dale and James Hobbs, offers practical guidance on how to communicate the value of grid-aware websites to organizations – an important resource for advocates inside institutions. 

Grace Everts presents fascinating user research from Harvey Mudd College, where she studied how people react to the environmental impact of browsing once they’re made aware of it. Hopefully, it prompts others to continue with similar research projects. Grace’s findings set the stage for Raj Banerjee and Shraddha Pawar, who offer a design pattern that gives users the ability to pause features when the grid is dirty. It’s a small but powerful form of agency and a nicely nuanced take on the idea of grid-aware websites.

Tia Nguyen then contributes a thoughtful piece on how digital sustainability can be brought into the everyday workflow of developers through a Visual Studio Code extension.

Michelle:

There’s also Nora Ferreirós and Nauhai Badiola who have been working on some examples in WordPress. Could you share more about what’s going on in the world of WordPress and grid-awareness?

Fershad:

Yes, absolutely! A very large portion of the web runs on WordPress, and Nora and Nahuai have been thinking about how the Grid-aware Websites project can be built to work with those sites. WordPress has a really nice plugin ecosystem which allows any user to add specific bits of functionality to their site (forms, image optimization, etc.) with just a few clicks. 

So Nora and Nahuai haven’t just written an article for Branch (in both English and Spanish!), they have started work on a Grid-aware Websites plugin for WordPress as well. Their article looks at some of the features the plugin aims to introduce to the WordPress editor, and how WordPress authors can control the changes the plugin makes to their website. It’s great to see an idea like this come to fruition, and I know there are members of the WordPress community who are excited about it as well!

Michelle:

That’s fantastic – yes, the Branch site itself runs on WordPress, and as part of this issue, we’ve done a lot of updating to the code. There’s going to be a new and improved way of seeing grid intensity information on Branch

Fershad, you’ve been working closely with designer Tom Jarrett on how to make the energy grid more visible through design. Can you tell us a bit about that?

Fershad:

Definitely. When we started the Grid-aware Websites project, we saw Branch as a really good opportunity to “dogfood” our toolkit and explore grid-aware patterns in a live setting. Tom, who designed the original Branch site in 2020, returned to collaborate with us on this new iteration. 

We focused on how to surface grid intensity data to users – not just passively, but in a way that gives people control. This led to the development of a new web component specifically for grid-aware interfaces, which now appears at the top of the redesigned site. Tom’s article also talks about this and unpacks the design choices we made.

Michelle:

Amazing! We’re looking forward to people checking out this section of Branch focusing on the grid-aware web. Now, I’ll hand the mic over to you, Fershad.

Fershad:

Thanks! So, Michelle and Fieke – you co-edited the Regenerativity section. What does attunement mean to you in that context ?

Michelle:

To me, attunement means bringing things into harmony, and making systems more aware or responsive to life. It felt like a fitting theme for this issue.  

Together with the amazing Dr. Fieke Jansen from the critical infrastructure lab, we wanted to showcase a shift – not just toward more sustainable digital infrastructure, but toward more regenerative ways of thinking. That means moving past simply reducing harm to imagining systems that replenish and support life over the long term. Fieke’s brilliant article lays that out really clearly, with a helpful diagram showing the spectrum of action from sustainability to regenerativity. 

We also tried to keep things playful, by asking: What would regenerative computation look like? How can responsiveness be built into systems?

Fieke Jansen:

Exactly. This section grew out of conversations that Michelle, Lori Regattieri, and I have been hosting, including a dialogue and debate series in late 2024 exploring how we can reimagine digital infrastructures to be smaller, more equitable, and rooted in community. 

The event was an invitation for artists, thinkers, and public interest engineers to imagine what responsive and regenerative infrastructures look like that center people and the planet over the accumulation of capital and power through extractive logics. To co-produce knowledge on how we can build sustainable and equitable futures requires an open process, where we imagine and think out loud together. To overcome what Mark Fisher described as capitalist realism, where it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. 

The dialogue and debates series did just this: It brought together people from across the globe to get inspired and discuss alternative pathways forward. Some contributors to that series are featured in this issue.

Fershad:

Michelle, do you want to talk us through the other articles in this section?

Michelle:

Absolutely. We open with a piece that Dietrich Ayala and I wrote together, which explores the role of browsers today and offers provocations for how we might green them and make them more sustainable. Next is David Mahoney’s thoughtful essay on grounding us in the physical realities of data centers and (by drawing inspiration from the Arts and Crafts movement in the UK) proposing a place-conscious approach to the cloud. 

Ola Bonati and Judith Veenkamp contributed a wonderful piece on permacomputing, featuring a zine that explores provocative, low-tech prototypes. Their work, and that of the artists they feature in the article, help us reimagine computing through the lens of ecology.

Fieke:

The great thing about Ola and Judith’s piece is that they highlight several artists, designers, and researchers who – through their creative practices – challenge our understanding of computational progress. For example, Lukas Engelhardt questions the idea that we need bigger, faster, and better computing – with a tiny computing project. He designed a small server which runs on only 12 volts. The article also looks across these projects to identify what is needed to imagine alternative pathways: becoming a kind of scientist, taking time to explore, finding community, and allowing for complexity.   

Another one of these artists is Sunjoo Lee, who wrote about her Gardening Electricity Handbook in this issue, a practical guide to mud-powered circuits. It’s not that this project generates a lot of electricity, but it helps ask the question of what it takes to power digital systems and to demonstrate that not every mud sample is the same. Some mud samples contain different compositions of life, and different organisms have different properties. There’s an attunement to place when we consider where these different mud samples have come from. So her project is quite beautiful.

Michelle:

We also have Alexis Oh, who shares a sonic project called Sounds of the Grid. It invites us to listen – not just see – the changes in grid intensity, as we browse the web. 

Lori Regattieri’s article then reflects on the geopolitics of AI and climate change, especially how the Majority World is often treated as raw material for US tech companies, further concentrating private wealth. She offers some really beautiful provocations around how to redefine what innovation means if we rebalance the geopolitical relationship away from an extractive to a more equitable one.

Rounding out the section is Esther Mwema’s article Cosmology of the Internet, which presents three artworks that trace the colonial legacies, sacrifice zones, and future visions tied to today’s internet. 

It’s an incredibly rich issue. Thanks for sharing your reflections, Fieke and Fershad – and to everyone who contributed. We hope readers feel invited to explore, experiment, and imagine more attuned digital futures.

Acknowledgements

This issue of Branch would not have been possible without countless hours of effort behind the scenes over the past few months. 

To all the authors who have turned their thoughts and ideas into the wonderful collection of articles that make up this issue, thank you. 

Those articles were masterfully copy-edited by Oliver Lindberg, who worked with all the authors and editors to refine the stories that are told in this issue in ways we hope will resonate with you. 

Branch wouldn’t be what it is today without the work of Tom Jarrett, who has been a close collaborator since the beginning. For this issue, he came up with a fresh new design for the Branch site and also created illustrations for some of the articles. Also thank you to Tessa Curran, who created the cover illustration for this issue.

Finally, absolutely none of this would have been possible without the tireless coordination and planning efforts of Katrin Fritsch and Hannah Smith, who juggled all the moving pieces required to put this issue together with aplomb.


Fershad Irani is a web sustainability consultant living in Taipei, Taiwan. He works with the Green Web Foundation across a range of areas, particularly turning sustainable web ideas into working prototypes and code libraries. He specializes in carbon emissions calculations, and is the lead maintainer of the CO2.js library as well as the Grid-aware Websites project.

Fieke Jansen is a co-principal investigator of the critical infrastructure lab and a postdoc researcher at the University of Amsterdam. Her research interests are to understand power and conflict around the environmental impact of expanding infrastructures. She is also the co-lead of the Green Screen Climate Justice and Digital Rights coalition.

Michelle Thorne is the Director of Strategy at the Green Web Foundation, co-initiator of the Green Screen Coalition for digital rights and climate justice, and editor of Branch magazine. She’s curious about reconnecting with the radical roots of openness and caring for the commons.

Gentle Dismantlings: Letter from the Editors

Gentle Dismantlings Letter from the Editors

A collaborative Branch X DING special issue on the next generation of posthuman feminisms

Calling All the Wild Ones

“We do not live in a simulation—a streamlined world of products, results, experiences, reviews—but rather on a giant rock whose other life-forms operate according to an ancient, oozing, almost chthonic logic. 

Snaking through the mist of the banal everyday is a deep weirdness, a world of flowerings, decompositions, and seepages, of a million crawling things, of spores and lacy fungal filaments, of minerals reacting and things being eaten away—all just on the other side of the chain-link fence.” 

Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy, 2019

If there is one word we could use to describe the current task of facing ecological destruction in ways that enable the survival of our species along with the six million others who dwell alongside us, perhaps that word should be redefinition

For in defining ourselves as separate from (and superior to) our more-than-human neighbours—animal and vegetal, machine and algorithmic—as subjects in a world of objects, we drink from the well of “deep, unnamed sadness” that the Native American botanist Prof. Dr. Robin Wall Kimmerer speaks of when describing species loneliness—a sensation felt deep in the bones, which emerges from the loss of earthly relationship after centuries of ecological domination. 

But what if there is a different way forward? How can we foster a just, equitable and joyful transition through alternative means of kinship and worlding? How can we redefine business-as-usual, not only with regards to how we view ourselves but also the intricate webs of more-than-human connection which make us, us? 

Most importantly of all, how can we gently dismantle the structural forces that prevent us from interacting with each other—and all other life on earth—with care and celebration?

To bring this special issue into being, we invited more-than-human feminisms around the globe, from India to the Bahamas, to join us in uplifting emergent interspecies worlds within this world. We combined forces for the first time—across a magazine for the internet and things1, a magazine for a sustainable internet2, and a critical design studio3—conversing across platforms, cars and cockpits in between the spätis of Berlin and the misty shores of Vancouver.

Behind the scenes of making the zine

Exhausted by the daily inundation of media and hot takes on the inevitability of climate change, we decided to experiment in moving beyond a damage-centered approach to one that was desire-based4.  

In an open call for contributors, we sought far and wide for the wildish happenings that were actively engaged in fostering decolonial, feral, queer, intersectional and ancestral technologies (long evoked by communities on the margins). We invited future activisms rooted in pleasure and joy, and social imaginations that would energise. We received an enthusiastic response from projects, happenings and dream-spaces around the world—abundant evidence that the next generation of posthuman feminisms are already hard at work, reframing ecological, structural and technological forces in ways that make change. 

We are pleased to share the most notable tales in this (very special!) special issue, many of which are still in active emergence. By exchanging notes across alternative ways of being and dwelling alongside, they express the many ways that global injustices (from species extinction to technological accumulation) can be ever-so-gently, yet powerfully, transformed. 

The diverse nourishments of these seven featured pieces are designed to be absorbed like vitamins: metabolized slowly and in your own time, fostering wisdom and inspiration:

We have also included a Gentle Dismantlings zine (below) which expresses how the writings above, while separate entities, can also be combined to build a galaxy of possibilities. The zine can be printed out at home, folded, shared with others, and then unfolded into a poster.

With these assorted tales—wild, nascent, messy, joyful, still being born—we start to make a thousand small cuts into unjust systems—the kind that make good trouble. We honor all those who ‘made a fuss’ before us, and all the fuss yet to be made by those still logging on.

Through them (and through you, dear readers) we invite new worldings to emerge, a mosaic elegantly bound with the care-full weavings of interspecies fellowship and regeneration.

Love, 

Kit, Julia & Michelle

A zine to print & fold at home

Zine for printing

From the magazine’s illustrator Leofrine Nøv:

These illustrations are rooted in accepting ancient anger and the chaos it brings forward. They call to the spirits of the earth, within the dirt, the rocks and the trees, in the hope of shaking your own spirit out of its shackles. These characters move in kindness through each other, not to please one another, but to serve in truth, to weave community, to complete our histories and salvage our futures. That’s real magic to me. The ostracism of ostracisation.

While reading these articles, I felt their ideas were tied together in an attempt of grasping profound notions of freedom and community we have only been able to imagine. The words of Maya Angelou kept echoing in my body, “You are only free when you realize you belong no place, you belong every place – no place at all. The price is high. The reward is great.”

When I was asked to add the sentence “What does the trouble look like when it comes?” I thought of bright pink and butterflies. The wilderness of a water drop that dismantles the concrete wall. Gentle things that prevail by embracing the dark.

How to fold the zine

Acknowledgements

This special issue was a real labour of love for all involved, involving many untold hours of imagining and building. We would like to thank the authors for their patience and care, Laura Guzman for masterful copy-editing, and Leofrine Nøv for the beautiful illustrations.

About the Editors

Kit Braybrooke aka Dr KitKat is a transmedia designer – researcher who explores how systems make worlds, and in particular those that invite more-than-human networks to walk together across new terrains. They direct the critical design studio We&Us, which since 2020 has explored co-creation for systems change in Europe, China & Canada.

Julia Kloiber is the Co-Founder of Superrr Lab, a feminist tech think tank. In her work she investigates emerging technologies and future narratives. She is researching how technologies and policies have to be shaped to create just and fair digital futures for all.

Michelle Thorne is working towards a fossil-free internet. She is the Director of Strategy and Partnerships at the Green Web Foundation and co-founder of the Green Screen Coalition for digital rights and climate justice. She served 12 years at the Mozilla Foundation, most recently as Mozilla’s Sustainable Internet Lead. She publishes Branch Magazine.

  1.  Ding is a magazine series exploring feminist futures through poems, essays, articles and illustrations. It’s published by Superrr Lab, a Berlin based non-profit. Contributors include adrienne maree brown, Audrey Tang, Xiaowei Wang, Luiza Prado, Jac sm Kee and many others. ↩︎
  2. Branch Magazine is written by and for people who dream of a sustainable and just internet for all. Contributors include Taeyoon Choi, Ifeoma Ozoma, Superflux, Tega Brain, and Joana Moll. It’s published by the Green Web Foundation and received the Ars Electronica Award for Digital Humanity. ↩︎
  3. Studio We&Us is a critical design studio run which has explored co-creation for systems change since 2020 alongside public organisations such as V&A Museum, British Council and Counterpoints Arts. ↩︎
  4. From Unangax̂ scholar Eve Tuck: “Desire is […] neither/both/and reproduction and resistance. This is important because it more closely matches the experiences of people who, at different points in a single day, reproduce, resist, are complicit in, rage against, celebrate, throw up hands/ fists/towels, and withdraw and participate in uneven social structures — that is, everybody. Desire fleshes out that which has been hidden or what happens behind our backs. Desire, because it is an assemblage of experiences, ideas, and ideologies, both subversive and dominant, necessarily complicates our understanding of human agency…” (p.420, 2009). ↩︎

Letter from the Editors

Open climate is the meeting of the movements for climate justice and the knowledge commons.  

The co-editors of this issue of Branch Magazine met on a caravan. Inspired by the routes and exchanges of the old trading caravans, we have been traveling at our own time and pace, sometimes alongside each other, sometimes meeting again to rest and reorient. We’ve thought of these moments as our caravanserai

These spaces have been essential for our own personal and professional journeys—to take time to pause and reflect critically, explore nascent ideas and well-thought out ones, to immerse deeply into new contexts and to meet fellow travelers. 

The caravan 

During the pandemic, our caravan moved online. Throughout lockdowns, personal loss, isolated winters and hot summers, we gathered around the glow of our Zoom room and warmed our souls with stories from the road and our hopes and fears of the journey ahead. 

Babitha George, director of the design research studio Quicksand, dialed in from Bangalore and told stories of craft technology and community-centered design. She created Decentralizing Digital, a beautiful design research project done in collaboration with community partners, small-scale farmers in India and local artists. 

Shannon Dosemagen, director of the Open Environmental Data Project, called in from New Orleans and shared her interest in socially situated data. Building on these ideas, she co-authored the article Open Climate Now inviting the open movement to take climate action. 

Michelle Thorne, senior adviser to the Green Web Foundation and editor of Branch, was often facemuted on the calls from her home in Berlin, sometimes pushing a stroller or watching her kid play on a snowy, deserted playground. She was interested in how to build and maintain the knowledge commons in a way that isn’t extractive nor harmful in its emissions and environmental degradation.  

From our conversations, we knew we wanted to hear from others who were also dreaming about sustainable and just futures. We wanted to know: how is sustainable technology tied to community governance, to the knowledge commons and digital sovereignty? What does an internet look like that takes a craft approach—honoring local knowledge, local materials, and sustainable practices. And along this caravan, where are the places that foster an ongoing dialogue about climate justice and the open movement? 

From our rest stop conversations, we realized there is much to unlearn, to reimagine, to regenerate, to build and debate together. So we decided to publish a special issue of Branch magazine to celebrate these topics. 

Open Climate  

The fourth issue of Branch Magazine is dedicated to the theme Open Climate. 

While we are faced with urgent crises, we wanted to acknowledge that solutions may be slow. We wanted to divest from the narratives of disruption and solutionism and make space for embracing slowness and hope. We sought a future that is anchored in a respect for different kinds of knowledge. The stakes are high, and we need stories and narratives that bring us together and include us all. This is the power of openness. 

As we opened a call for proposals for this issue, we invited fellow dreamers and doers to respond to a social imagination that inspires climate action and to share what actions they are taking towards a more just and sustainable internet. 

We wanted to turn away from the daily inundation of hot takes that often privilege doom and despair. We wanted to prioritize initiatives that are community-centered, place-based and contribute to the commons, as we felt strongly that this was imperative for a more just future. We wanted to consider together how we could harness the tools of the open movement and apply them to climate justice and more rapid climate action, while also stewarding the knowledge commons and accounting for its environmental impact.

Proposals arrived in a broad array of formats—video, audio, writing, visual art, physical objects and code—even sensory experiences of climate change. We hosted an online ideas jam with all the contributors and invited them to make a new work for this issue or, in the spirit of free culture, to remix and repurpose existing pieces. We are very grateful to all the contributors for their kindness and passion in this process. 

In this issue you will find explorations of hi-craft rather than hi-tech. You will read about the hope of seed libraries and repair shops. You will learn about the leading open projects on measuring the internet’s carbon emissions and mitigating environmental damage from manufacturing hardware. You will be invited to walk along the rivers of India and to consider a handmade computer. You will be delighted in the alternative computing environments that have always been here: in rural places, among sovereign communities and with people prioritizing sustainability over reckless speed. 

Open Climate is a living, breathing practice. You will find some of its shapes and practitioners here. We hope it sparks connections for your work and that we might join each other on a caravan towards more just and sustainable futures.

Enough

When I think of the word enough, I hear the razor blade of my sister’s voice when the dogs keep barking. A command. An admonishment. Enough.

I feel the sliver of nervous anticipation before a new friend comes over and I take stock of the bowls of potato chips on the table and the six-pack of Heineken in the fridge. An accounting ledger. A social tissue. An expression of care. Is there enough?

I remember the taste of bile in my throat as the last day of production approached with 4 scenes left to shoot and a budget too small to keep going beyond that day (and I suppose before that: growing up with standardized tests and essay deadlines and exams closing in on me). A possession. A lack thereof. Not enough, never enough time.

What about enough change, enough progress, enough time? As climate crises continue, exacerbate, intersect in increasingly destructive ways, I ask myself, and climate work more generally: what is enough? Becoming vegetarian and driving EVs and recycling shampoo bottles cannot outpace the rates of extraction and burning of fossil fuels. Moreover, if we were to stop drilling altogether, it might reduce harm in the present moment, but would not be enough to stop destruction from happening. So what is enough?

I grapple with enough because the tensions within this single word are often easier to distill than the bigger questions that arise in the context of the climate crisis. In turn, these distillations offer a seedbed to engage those bigger questions without being overwhelmed by them.

The astonishment of language is that it can inhabit multiple meanings simultaneously, but the crisis of language is its ability to both inhabit and evade a singular definition. Enough can mean a limit being reached, or a fulfillment of sorts, or it can be placed alongside its negative to indicate lack. For me, this word has always produced some level of anxiety: a doubt around the type of productivity I’m dedicating to a day or an essay; or a self-help mantra reflected back on my social media feeds: you are enough. When I finally looked it up, I was surprised to learn that its definition has to do with being satisfied or satiable. It isn’t actually about restriction or limitation at all. The dog has barked to completion; the chips are sufficient. 

To reflect on the origin of this anxiety, it’s helpful for me to articulate the origin of this essay, which started with a metaphor: words are seeds. Each word holds within it a future life and the capacity to imagine something new. If a word is a seed, then everything else becomes soil: the sentence it is placed within, the person who speaks it aloud, the socio-political and cultural landscape wherein they reside. The question ‘what is enough?’ looms for anyone thinking critically about what it means to live within the confining structures of a neoliberal capitalist society. I have heard friends pose this question to themselves in calculating the tradeoff between feeling depleted throughout a work day—throughout every work day for the next five to ten years—so that they can have financial stability for themselves and their family and their dreams later. I’ve been in conversations where this is posed as a hypothetical for the CEOs of Exxon (Darren Woods) or Amazon (Jeff Bezos) or Chase Bank (Jamie Dimon) as it becomes more confusing how someone could possibly justify a new oil rig or gross profit margins when it comes at the expense of our ability to breathe clean air. The answer always feels like a sigh, a disappointment: neoliberal capitalism does not seek to satisfy and is not satiable. It seeks to grow. It seeks to extract. It seeks to sustain itself, no matter the cost.

This scarcity mindset colors the mis/understanding of how we define this word, but more importantly, it obscures the fact that there is more than enough: there is plenty; there is abundance. Being able to construct new narratives requires new language, but it also requires owning the meanings of language we’ve inherited. Words in combination, rooting into each other, have the power to articulate a different future altogether. When we place words alongside each other in surprising patterns, we create new meaning. I suppose this is another way of describing metaphor: metaphor is our bridge to making language more material and owning the language we’ve inherited.

I wanted to learn how to animate this idea of language as a seed—metaphorically, but also literally. Visuals offer meaning when words fall too sharp and also too flat, when even metaphors feel like an exaggeration and an inadequacy. It’s a comfort to be able to turn away from language, even as I write and think about it. As I sit in front of Photoshop, trying to turn words into seeds,  I click on an icon: a series of circles following one another. I haven’t yet learned the software and so am still moving on instinct and curiosity, and so this is how I learn about tweening. Short for in-betweening, it’s a way of speeding up the notoriously slow animation process by taking two frames and overlaying them. The combination of frames makes motion more fluid, more like motion. 

I expand the speech bubble, forcing it to stretch into a shape that looks more like a speech bubble and then shrink it unnaturally to mold it into the shape of a seed. In this process, I start thinking about linguistic tweening. There’s a yearning for new words. Can we use it to build or visualize definitions that feel more true to a word’s actual meaning? “Climate change” becomes “climate crisis” – to mobilize people, to express the urgency of now. Global South becomes Global Majority – to create inclusion where it did not exist before. These progressions in language are significant. 

And also, I have put the letters e and n and o and u and g and h alongside each other so often in the process of writing this essay that the word itself loses its meaning sometimes. Language itself becomes meaningless often, whether in the face of repetition or in moments where words are inadequate. Your house can become engulfed in flames that engulf the only lands you’ve ever called home; your neighbor could die because she cannot afford air conditioning. Language cannot touch the materiality of a wall of fire crashing into your windows or the body’s instinct is to sleep when it is too hot to do anything else. In this light, the language feels like a data point at best, or, at worst, a weapon and violence. The unbearably big questions resurface: Who gets to live? Who gets to live their lives? Who gets to live their lives on their tongues?

Meaning-making happens through language and lived experience alike, but the tension between the two exposes an urge to identify one as more meaningful, in the same way that asking the question what is enough? exposes an impulse to answer it. The impulse towards definition reflects a bigger climate wish: if we answer what enough is, then maybe we have the information that will lead to decisions that can be part of a chain reaction of events that reverse global climate change. But even this kind of thinking misses the mark—widely, embarrassingly so. To answer this question requires a level of knowability we cannot have, an ability to project ourselves into a future where we’ll know exactly what we want and need from one moment to the next, and where it is possible to calibrate it exactly to the wants and needs around us. In other words, it requires the neoliberal capitalist logic that everything is finite and therefore we can make carefully laid out, rational decisions without any variability (except for competition).

In the process of writing and animating this piece, I find myself repeatedly trying to hone in on definitions, experiment with mediums that might better encompass what I’m trying to say, settle on something that will make the push and pull of these questions rest. But more honestly: thinking about language and climate is messy, my metaphors get bungled all the time, there is no such thing as enough and there is no such thing as not enough. Tweening has offered a way out of thinking only in terms of definitions by emphasizing the movement in-between. Applying tweening to movement building, it provides a framework to lay out steps between now and “the future”. What does now look like? What does an ideal future look like? And what are the 10 frames in between those two points in time? Whether you define those frames as “policies” or “steps” or generally “things that need to happen”, how can the incremental steps create motion and movement? By shifting our attention from the yearning for definition to the movement itself, we resist the impulse to control— ourselves and others.

But tweening also offers a reminder of how easy it is to see the 10th frame as the final one. Sometimes I pause my animation, play it, and replay it. Sometimes I do this with an eye toward improving it—how do I make the speech bubble expand as if someone is breathing into it?—but if I’m honest, I’m also excited by the movement, the translation of this idea to fruition, creating a moment of motion where there had been nothing before. And given how much time I spend with each frame—two hours yields a 14-second clip—I want to replay the full video to see each frame as part of the whole. As I do this, I’m reminded of how often, historically, we’ve rested on the sufficiency of forwarding momentum. Identify a step, take it (and sometimes we don’t get that far), and name it progress – all without making a big enough impact to actually create a just world, without acknowledging that what we envision for a just world requires respect for changing what that world looks like with new information. It’s a humbling experience to realize you’re stuck, whether in a frame or a political movement.

And this offers encouragement to grow beyond the places of being stuck. Thinking through a word does not offer the material support that mutual aid does; that being part of a community does; that an environmentally just policy does. But in thinking through the word enough, it’s possible for me to put a name to the ways I’m entangled in certain types of thinking—a neoliberal, capitalist, patriarchal, white supremacist—to identify ways I can keep untangling, keep extracting myself from the types of thinking that created a world I am so afraid of, so ashamed of, that has hurt so many people I love and has hurt so many more I don’t know. How can we use this to inform some of the ways we approach the imaginative work required to create solutions that step outside of linear paths? How do we let movement inform how we can move differently? Some of the analogues between the animation process and climate work feel hopeful to me: in slowing down, we speed up; by hovering in the tweening, the motion, rather than the definition of a single frame, we can tween towards the futures we want.


About the Author

Michelle Cheripka (she/her) is an interdisciplinary media maker focusing on personal experiences of systemic issues. She is currently based in Los Angeles.

Open Climate Then and Now

“We are living in a climate crisis,” announced UN Secretary-General António Guterres as he called for governments to immediately cut emissions to avert a climate catastrophe.

The last year has been a dramatic reminder of how real climate change is: fires, floods, droughts, and food crises haunt populations worldwide. This has also been a year of important advances in fighting the climate crisis: rise of the youth movement, IPCC reports, COP26 meeting, and other political manifestations such as the recognition of a Right to a Healthy Environment. We are approaching more concentrated action on the crises. However, there is still so much more work to do. Now is the time for every part of society to take climate action.

The open movement needs to act as well. In 2021 we, a group of practitioners and researchers in open science, hardware, knowledge, and infrastructure researchers, came together to explore how the open movement could step up to the climate challenge. A year after our first piece for Branch (Open Climate Now!), we are excited that this whole issue is dedicated to the theme.

Since our first community call, we hosted many conversations with people thinking about how open practices can strengthen with climate action. Over the course of 12 community calls, with 20 speakers and 175 participants from across the globe, we identified issues where the open movement could be key actors in a sustainable future. We are happy to share those insights here.

1. Our information environment is polluted by companies and governments who deny or delay climate action. We need to reclaim a robust knowledge commons.

The climate crisis is also an information crisis. The knowledge commons can be an important tool to fight back.

Companies use various tactics to stop or delay climate action, such as: climate denial (arguing that climate change isn’t happening), predatory delay (holding back climate action to continue profiting from the status quo), and the pollution of the information environment (with mis- and dis-information campaigns and corrupted experts). 

The open movement can help clean up the information environment by:

Foregrounding the viewpoints of frontline communities. This can be done by creating open climate data narratives to fight misinformation and help environmental policymaking (Call #4 with Myanna Lahsen and Silvio Carlos).

Distributing information in formats that communities need and understand. These can then be shared with other decision-makers to make progress on demanding climate action. Accessible, reusable, and persistent open data is crucial (Call #7 with Matt Rotta).

Improving the quality of the information, not just the quantity. There is a need to interrogate who benefits from the scientific status quo in the natural sciences and those who do not. Open practices in knowledge curation can help how people accept and engage with science communication (Call #3 with Emma Baker and Lisa McNamara).

2. Digital technologies both help and harm in the fight for climate action. Openness can help address the environmental impact of digital infrastructures.

The Internet and our digital technologies have rapidly expanded energy needs. But these digital technologies can also help us do things such as track deforestation or understand the performance of renewable energy. 

The open movement can reduce the environmental impact of technology by:

Leveraging openness as a tool for replicability, transparency, and impact. Good documentation and access to data are necessary to build sustainable solutions (Call #1 with Tjark Doering and Tobias Augspurger).

Aiming open source at the target of achieving a fossil-fuel-free Internet by 2030. Open data and practice can enable more transparency on the real impact of the Internet and what can be done to make it more energy efficient while breaking up tech monopolies’ control of a green web (Call #5 with Chris Adams).

Foreground the perspective of indigenous communities because sustainability depends on social arrangements. The data analysis of threats has to be combined with digital care for the communities impacted (Call #12 with Narrira Lemos, Luciana Ferreira, Márcia Nóbrega and Bruno Rigonato).

3. Downscale climate science to local levels and work for the “smallest possible policy-maker.”

Going from highly centralized science or policymaking to communities that can act requires attention to the needs at the most localized possible level, whether by using local languages or training local communities.

The open movement can empower the smallest possible policy-maker by:

Integrating local information and knowledge with climate risk and forecasting. Emphasize local adaptations and mitigation practices that can make the best use of expert models. This is particularly urgent for addressing intersectional inequalities with the inclusion of indigenous and local knowledge systems to build trust in relationships, thus integrating resources in multiple languages through “Climate 101” information packages intended for broader dissemination in local settings (Call #3 with Emma Baker and Lisa McNamara).

Supporting shifts in individual choices and personal knowledge. Organizations and environmental scientists might focus on solutions at a bigger scale than on individual behaviors in the environmental and climate space; the larger system shifts occur through individual choices and personal knowledge, which means that they are the sum of the actions of even small stakeholders (Call #2 with Ana Grijalva).

Recognizing the importance of “openness” beyond licensing and open technology. This can support active community participation where the main actors are not necessarily trained scientists, technical experts, or the usual technology enthusiasts, but rather school children and their parents (Call #11 with Ana Tuduri).

4. Free access to climate information by growing the socio-technical capacity of community spaces.

Openness helps with community-making practices around environmental research and activism. It also needs to address questions of scale. For instance, open hardware initiatives have proven to be one of the means we have to collaborate on implementing sustainable technologies that can be sourced and locally produced for carbon footprint reduction.

The open movement can help free access to climate info by:

Encouraging the rise of scientific pre-prints. There is strategic importance in publishing first and reviewing later with the rise of pre-prints to support an environmental knowledge commons. Targeting publishers for open access to climate information will not create long-term equitable solutions, because the problem of article processing charges (APCs) being owed will not be addressed (Call #8 with Iryna Kuchma). 

Including community-based insights, using everyday language to communicate relevant climate research, and creating multilingual content, especially in local languages. This helps regular citizens provide feedback on research are steps that can be facilitated by existing open initiatives and communities (Call #9 with Ruby Damenshie-Brown and Call #10 with Jean-Noé Landry, amongst others).

5. The open movement is a cultural movement in principle, and it can offer value to other movements by operating intersectionally

Open values alone are not sufficient. We need to make sure that open practices meet the needs of local communities. Nevertheless, it can bring a powerful perspective to other movements.

The open movement can help other movements by:

Emphasizing that openness is based on a human-centered perspective where justice is the starting point. This can be a motivator for collaborators in the movement. It is the values around justice, which ultimately drive how we create and share organizational practices, and in turn create the space to work with other movements, like those calling for climate justice (Call #10 with Jean-Noé Landry)

The value of openness is in the ability to explore global narratives, fight disinformation, and rally around important issues with the broad public. The open communities that center local language and local context can enable participation and representation through campaigns on a global scale (Call #9 with Ruby Damenshie-Brown).

Where from here

For the past two decades, the open movement has worked to shift unequal power dynamics in science, technology, and society. From the rise of free and open technologies as infrastructure for peer-production platforms such as Wikipedia, the definition of open data standards and practices, and the application of collaborative values through community science projects, we have created a common wealth of social, environmental, and technical knowledge. Despite our collective achievements, however, we still lack a shared ecological vision in the open community to respond to the climate crisis.

One of the key things we learned is to deal with the tension between the urgency of socio-environmental action and the slow tempo of trust relations that are fundamental for opening spaces for solidarity-building. Against an unjustified, imposed pressure to publish research as fast as possible, there is a real urgency to address climate issues rapidly so that we can prevent some of the most catastrophic trends. One of the brilliant aspects of the open movement has been its ability to collaborate, move collective ideas further, and develop them into collective solutions, but, as the saying goes, if you “want to go far, you cannot walk alone.”

Open Climate is an open invitation for you to join us in this effort in community-building.

We came together in 2020 because we felt the need to connect our work in the open movement with the climate crisis. Was there even a connection, or were our desires forcing a connection? Through our community calls, we have seen multiple ways in which the open movement could help take climate action: from research to policy, from digital infrastructures to community organizing, from public campaigning to knowledge creation and sharing, and from academic training. 

Open Climate has become a catalyst of various initiatives. It changed the perspective of each of us on the organizing team. Shannon and Scann now better understand how the knowledge commons can help with climate justice and how environmental justice is connected with the space of digital rights. Alex has brought lessons from the community calls to craft his message with the Wikimedia movement in addressing climate issues on Wikipedia. Michelle has been active at work with the Green Web Foundation to open up data on how the internet is powered and how to transition to a fossil-free internet by 2030. Emilio has continued expanding Appropedia and teaching about appropriate technologies alongside organizations such as the UNDP. Luis Felipe has been dedicated in the past year to integrating FAIR and CARE principles in collaboration with the HDF Group for an NSF project dedicated to the study of the impact of climate change in Alaska. In the next several years, Shannon and Luis Felipe, alongside other collaborators, are conducting a new project to create a commons for socio-environmental data with support from the National Science Foundation.

Going forward we plan to continue sharing what we have learned with others and give opportunity and space for continued open climate interactions.

During the second half of 2022, the Open Climate collective will begin a fellowship program to support activists, researchers, and other people interested in working at the intersection of open and the climate crisis.

As we move forward, we want collaborate more with the digital rights space and other organizations working on harnessing the power of open and bringing it into climate action. Interested? Learn more on our wiki.

Climate Action and Net-Zero Ambition: Best Practices for Small and Medium Enterprises?

SMEs and Climate Action

This is a joint publication by Cathleen Berger (Climatiq), Chris Hartgerink (Liberate Science), Indré Blauzdžiūnaitė (Trafi), and Vineeta Greenwood (Wholegrain Digital). It is cross-posted from the Climatiq blog.

We all know that climate action is urgent. We also know that the private sector is responsible for the lion’s share of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is why we feel the need to do our part: assume responsibility, reduce and mitigate our impact, and accelerate global climate action.

Yet, we find ourselves at a conundrum. Though part of the private sector, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are neither required nor necessarily supported in their sustainability journeys.

Achieving Net Zero: Challenges for SMEs

There are three primary challenges faced by SMEs:

  • Lack of scope 3 guidance. Understanding an organisation’s environmental impact generally requires a solid assessment of the amount and the activities that generate emissions. There are direct and indirect emissions (scope 1 and 2) as well as emissions that are accumulated across an organisation’s supply chain (scope 3). Scope 1 and 2 are comparatively straightforward to calculate. However, between 80-99% of overall organisational emissions tend to fall within scope 3. As of now, SMEs are not required to account for their scope 3 emissions — which unfortunately translates into a lack of guidance for how to do so, even voluntarily.
  • Lack of clarity and methodologies for digital products. There is significant growth and investments to boost digitisation of products and services, both public and private. To little surprise, the emissions related to the tech and startup sector are noticeably rising. The biggest share of tech-related emissions come from data storage and operations as well as the use of those digital products by end users. Scope 3 Standard of the GHG protocol, the main guideline for scope 3 calculations, does not specify methodologies for digital activities. The situation gets even more complex when it comes to data collection – today, 60% of cloud-based operations are managed by three leading service providers and none of them are openly sharing emissions from networking, memory, compute, data storage, or the lifecycle emissions of servers. 
  • Lack of net-zero targets applicable to SMEs. Science Based Targets (SBTs), the initiative helping companies to set the goals for carbon reduction, launched a simplified guideline for SMEs in 2020. Ironically enough, the simplification merely cuts away the main “polluter”  — scope 3 emissions. In other words, 90% of the footprint of digital SMEs don’t have to be reduced, thus there’s no way for the majority of startups to become net-zero. 

One thing should be clear: To meet global targets of staying within the 1.5°C global warming threshold, we need everyone. Including small and medium enterprises.

Best Practices for SME: 4 Examples for Climate Action

As we are continuing to explore the space of scope 3 calculations and reduction, we are stepping up and assuming responsibility as stewards in SMEs. We got together to share best practices, learn from each other, and collaborate to drive change. Practical steps may differ but the direction is very much the same. With this, we hope to pave a way for other SMEs as well.

To illustrate this is how we tackle these challenges in our respective organisations:

  • Climatiq: Est: 2021 | Employees: 10 | Headquarter: Berlin, Germany
    Climatiq has applied to become a certified B Corporation. In doing so, we are committed to report on all 3 scopes of our emissions publicly and continuously (building on our own science-based backend solution for carbon intelligence). While as an SME we may not get net-zero certified, we will continuously monitor and apply best practices for reduction. 
  • Liberate Science: Est. 2019 | Employees: 2 | Headquarter: Berlin, GermanyDespite only a handful of people in our organization, we estimated our emissions for our first operating year within a matter of hours, with the help of a climate impact expert. The knowhow and thinking about sustainability is business-efficient, once it is available. We need to do more to make that knowledge available to SMEs.
  • Trafi:  Est: 2014 | Employees: 100 | Headquarter: Vilnius, Lithuania
    Besides calculating our digital footprint and removing the emissions that cannot be reduced, Trafi scales the transparency and detail on companies’ scope 3 emissions, with the focus on commuting. We help organisations to view, track and report the impact of their employees’ travel and, most importantly, incentivize sustainable commuting. 
  • Wholegrain Digital: Est: 2007 | Employees: 20 | Location: London, UK
    Wholegrain Digital is a certified B Corp, 1% for the planet member, has a Green Handshake policy and aims to be one of the UK’s most sustainable businesses. We estimate our scope 3 emissions and reduce them through innovative initiatives and we offset our CO2 emissions as well. We share our impact and ethics reports. Beyond Scope 3, we also estimate, reduce and offset our client’s digital emissions through championing the creation of low carbon web products. Our Website Carbon calculator project is a part of our knowledge sharing practice that helps others to also measure and reduce their own digital carbon footprint.

Join us and spread the word

The EU Taxonomy will only start applying to SMEs by 2025, though mandatory corporate sustainability reporting currently remains the sole responsibility of larger companies. We want to encourage more SMEs and digital companies to start embarking on this journey now and to hear from those who already did. By 2025, the climate clock will only have four years left. Time’s ticking.

Are you a small or medium sized company committed to climate action? We’d love to hear from you! We welcome additional signatories and invite you to share your experiences with us through this form.

We will follow up with all of you and plan to convene a few best practice sharing sessions in the coming months.

Letter from the Editors

The internet—essential to modern life and also the world’s largest coal-powered machine. 

Like the shipping industry, packets zigzag across the globe and connect billions of people through a colossal distributed infrastructure we rarely see until it chokes, like a container ship stuck in the Suez Canal or Facebook going down. 

Ships run on bunker fuel, some of the dirtiest sludge on the planet. Much of the internet burns on coal, the historically the cheapest, most convenient fuel available. And while the IPCC is calling “a code red for humanity,” the tech sector and shipping each emit 1-3% of the world’s carbon a year with projections rising. 

The internet is becoming a brittle and polluting monoculture. Seven Big Tech companies predominantly control the internet and its infrastructure, and they are among the wealthiest in the world. 

As the climate crisis intensifies, with more frequent and severe weather events, and more wealth is consolidated in the tech sector even during a pandemic, we’re seeing how this destructive default doesn’t serve humanity or the planet.

What’s more, when we do see chances to change the rules for a fairer, more sustainable, more just set of defaults, to steer us away from the cliff, we see these same firms lobbying to kill this progress in the name of short-term profits.

A Dissonance 

Like many tech workers who grew up loving the possibilities of the internet to connect and empower people, learning about its destructive power causes us to experience a dissonance. How can this tool, with so much potential, speed up fire and floods and human suffering? What are we going to do about it? 

Tech is built and maintained by people. What tech workers do each day can either accelerate the climate crisis or slow it down. As tech ownership and profits become concentrated to the hands of a few, how can workers advocate for their rights and more equitable futures? More than transitioning energy, we must shift power. 

Divest from Big Tech

Today, we’re seeing tech workers unite across geography and pay grade to link arms with climate activists to demand better. 

Big Tech sells itself as a solution to the crisis. But it’s part of the problem, too. The tech sector is rife with lucrative contracts with fossil fuel companies. Brilliant software engineering—optimizing this, improving a model for that—ends up accelerating the extraction of oil and gas, which when burned, pollutes the air, heats the planet and cuts short the lives of millions of plants, animals and people.

Big Tech must end its business with fossil fuels companies. And we, the people who dream of a sustainable, just and diverse internet, need to divest from Big Tech.  

A Fossil Free Internet by 2030

That why we want to focus our efforts on achieving a fossil-free internet. And we want to make that happen by 2030. 

The urgency and scale of the climate crisis demands action. With a big push, the internet could be decarbonized in a few years. And in that transition, we could reform the internet and turn it into a positive force for climate justice. 

To get there, we need new narratives that shift what is desirable and possible. We need to transform our practices and make strategic partnerships with allied causes. And we need open infrastructure—data, code, poetry and repeatable pilots—to model how we can build bridges across social movements and achieve a fossil-free internet by 2030.

This issue of Branch uplifts the people and projects who are making that vision a reality. We want to situate these issues in larger movements for sustainable and just societies. We want to think at a network-level and in open partnership to gain momentum. We want to challenge colonial solutions on how to get to a fossil-free internet through further extraction of the Global South. 

The next few years will be critical for the future of the planet and the internet. We need to expand the coalition of people working towards this shift. We hope you find some inspiration for action here. 

Climate Justice as a Core Competency among Internet Practitioners

Designs from Kimono Pattern Books (ca. 1902) via The Public Domain Review

A few months ago, we at the Green Web Foundation set out to understand: How do we advance climate justice as a core competency among internet practitioners? 

To learn more and practice these findings, we created a fellowship programme to bring on board five fellows with a range of perspectives and experiences. This article summarises the findings and co-learnings through the fellowship so far.

How It’s Going

The Green Web Foundation’s fellowship set out to explore three goals. Firstly, to explore the narratives of responsible internet practices. Secondly, to understand the key characteristics of climate justice in the context of a sustainable internet. Lastly, ways to teach these practices forward among internet practitioners. 

The Narratives

The Green Web Fellowship sought to explore compelling narratives that link responsible Internet practice with climate justice. This first phase focused on testing and learning from what is working in narrative storytelling. Validation and feedback in various communities were drawn upon, from open source web developers to digital security trainers, from sustainable development experts and climate activists.

The emerging themes are:

“A fossil-free internet by 2030.” Through conversations with our fellows and in our convenings, we realized setting a target would help galvanize and focus on climate action. We’re currently commissioning supporting research on a path to fully transition the internet away from fossil fuels by 2030. This has been an exciting development to emerge from this research.  

“Divest from Big Tech.” Even if the internet moved to 100% renewables, while it would definitely be an improvement, we wouldn’t have achieved a sustainable and just internet. We would also need to be prepared to talk about power as well as energy—being prepared to divest from Big Tech and its control over our internet infrastructure, software and economics is one way to address an existing imbalance of power. We can point to multiple examples of divestment as a strategy to press issues that would otherwise be ignored by large, powerful players, from the social justice point of view, but increasingly a climate justice point of view as well.

“Climate justice as a core competency.” Many efforts to green the internet do not centre on climate justice. While our program has a long way to go to better understand what it means to address this idea meaningfully, we are finding that it is very enriching to do so and supports a larger vision of social justice and equity. 

Climate justice in the context of a sustainable internet

Building on the fellows’ experience and learning arcs, as well as in conversation with communities and one other, the programme sought to understand the skills and characteristics that might describe climate justice as a core competency with internet practitioners. 

The key to this was understanding how fellows could be community organisers and peer learners as they answer this question for themselves. We host weekly conversations about how to connect their individual interests and experiences to the goals of the larger fellowship program. So far, this has been a rewarding space for peer learning and new takes on the program’s theme have emerged from it, including: 

  • Where you stand depends on where you sit: position, visibility & defusing privilege
  • Reform, Resistance, Reform after Resistance
  • Appropriate technology and a sustainable internet
  • How much do tech workers currently talk about `climate justice` and other keywords? Data scraping and analysis. 
  • Framing sustainability with and without justice.
  • Openness as a tool to shift power.
  • Abolitionist tech stack.

Salient questions our fellows are surfacing as part of the research:

  • What resources are powering our projects and how do we manage those resources? 
  • Are we willing to approach our work with a set of values that centers several generations after us? And how do we do that?
  • What protections do we need to fight for in the workplace to hold companies accountable around climate justice goals?
  • How do we measure our impact on the climate crisis?
  • Are we willing to sundown projects if mitigating their negative impact on the environment is impossible or creates little impact?

We created an open library of recommended reading and other resources we come across or write. This is hosted on Zotero, an open-source tool that makes it easy for others to contribute and export these readings. 

Teaching It Forward

It’s not just about understanding what climate justice looks like—internet practitioners will have to commitment to transform practices and behaviours with the aspiration to connect with others and teach it forward. 

In support of that, we hosted the Gathering for a Sustainable Internet with 25 digital rights, climate justice, and open/green technology practitioners thinking at a “network level” about these challenges. We sought to work with people interested in building bridges, working in a coalition with each other, and collaborating at scale. 

Together with the human rights and digital security trainer Beatrice Martini, we hosted a Capacity Building workshop in November for the fellows on designing learning experiences for adults and how to design syllabi. This workshop builds on a course taught at Harvard School of Education and the agenda and activities will be published in the open. 

The next phase of the fellowship will focus on how to best serve the communities and beneficiaries from the fellows are working with, and how their engagement can refine and improve these advocacy narratives, learning materials and ultimately find pathways to incorporate climate justice in the careers of internet practitioners.

ABOUT THE PROGRAM

The program is only halfway done and will run for several more months. If you want to read more about how internet practitioners can advance climate justice in their own work, read more about what the fellows are learning and trying out on the Green Web Foundation blog

A Beginner’s Guide to Climate Justice in Tech

A volunteer learning group at Work on Climate set out to better understand the intersections of justice, climate, and technology.

They wanted to make a beginner-friendly guide to climate justice, tailored to the tech communities they worked in. Throughout the process, the group acknowledged they were not scholars nor frontline experts, nor that there was a unified opinion on what climate justice is or collective well-being looks like.

Here is a peek into their Climate Justice 101 Guide and a workshop they ran in collaboration with the Climate Action Tech community earlier in 2021.

CAT Salon: Exploring Climate Justice in Tech (with Alisha YiXin Pegan & Richard Kim)

Over the course of about five months, about ten of us from Work on Climate researched and wrote an introductory guide to climate justice.

Our Climate Justice Learning Group (part of the Work on Climate community) wanted to create something that we ourselves had been looking for—a clear and accessible introduction to climate justice. None of us were climate justice experts; we sought to gather and amplify the existing work of experts and activists.

The first iteration of the Climate Justice 101 Guide launched in March 2021.

After our launch, CAT hosted some of us to talk about climate justice and the Guide. The video above is from my and Alisha Pegan’s talk at CAT Salon West on June 8, 2021, “Exploring Climate Justice in Tech.”

Our talk comes out of the work that we did as writers and editors for the Guide. We define climate justice, introduce the Guide, and present a framework for analyzing injustices in climate work.

I hope you watch it and find it useful!

In the months since this talk, I’ve only seen climate justice become a larger and larger part of climate change conversations. A brief and wildly diverse set of examples:

  • At COP26 in Glasgow, activists including Greta Thunberg held major demonstrations on climate justice.
  • U.S. President Joe Biden has proposed millions of dollars in climate justice and environmental justice spending, some of which has become law, some of which is being considered at the time of this writing.
  • Project Drawdown published “Climate Solutions at Work,” in which it advocates that emissions-reduction strategies must “Embed Climate Justice.”
  • Climate Week in New York City had an Environmental Justice track.
  • UK-based Carbon Brief published a week-long series highlighting climate justice.

To continue your climate justice journey, I encourage you to explore the Guide and learn more climate justice, especially through the dozens of resources we link to.

And we may be revising the Guide in the coming year—feel free to post in #learning-group-climate-justice in the Work on Climate Slack if you’d like to get involved!

Finally, since this Salon, a number of us from CAT and Work on Climate (among them Marwa Eltaib, Yang Hong, Melissa Hsuing, Sandra Pallier, and I) have been teaming up to present outgoing events on climate justice.

Our goals are to explore and integrate climate justice in our communities. We’ve hosted three events together so far in 2021: a workshop on applying climate justice, a talk with climate justice expert Joycelyn Longdon, and a climate justice community discussion.

Look for more events in 2022!