The digital weighs as much as an aeroplane<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIt is Am\u00e9lie Lachapelle who gets the ball rolling by tackling the first theme, and a pretty key one it is too: the environmental impact of the whole of the digital sector. You may have already come across this figure on kingkong<\/a>: according to the French Green Transition Agency (ADEME)<\/a>, globally, the digital domain accounts for 4% of greenhouse gas emissions. As much as the airline industry. And the evolution indicators for the coming years are not flashing green, point out several contributors to a recent RTBF article<\/a>, even though the digital sector can help us to monitor these emissions. And that is precisely why the digital must not be taken off the table as regards party policy platforms at the forthcoming elections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/kingkong-mag.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Big-Fav2-1-660x630.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nIn her talk, the Doctor of Law, UNamur assistant lecturer and researcher at the Namur Digital Institute (NADI) performs a backward zoom out over the European institutional landscape to when this problem first started being addressed seriously. The issue is as much environmental as geopolitical and social. Let us for example consider the extraction of the rare metals required for the manufacturing of our technological objects. \u2018On this point, a European directive of 2009 demands that products tied to energy, such as computers or servers, meet ecodesign standards,\u2019 states Am\u00e9lie Lachapelle. \u2018But this directive is restricted to the hardware layer of products.\u2019 Even if, last December, the European legislators came to an agreement<\/a> on a proposal to widen the ecodesign field of application to all products, it is kiss goodbye time to an ecodesign of services such as software. The focus is set on the environment, much less so on the social impact of digital technology, which is nevertheless also sizeable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\nThis is what explains the often criticised, and rightly so, disconnect between, on the one hand, environmental policies and, on the other, digital policies.<\/p>\nAm\u00e9lie Lachapelle, Doctor of Law, assistant lecturer at the UNamur<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nAs a legal expert, Am\u00e9lie Lachapelle does not miss the opportunity to impress on the audience that \u2018for decades, we wanted to believe that technological development was necessarily sustainable development, but that is pure technological fantasy. It must not be forgotten that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union<\/a> (EU) makes reference to the fact that the Union\u2019s policy in the domain of the environment is founded on the principles of precaution, prevention, the rectifying of damage to the environment, and the polluter pays. These are fine principles, but not legally binding regulations. A priori, these principles are thus not applied to domains other than the environment.\u00a0This is what explains the often criticised, and rightly so, disconnect between, on the one hand, environmental policies and, on the other, digital policies.\u2019 Well-founded criticisms in light of another principle, that of integration, with origins in the same Treaty, which, in short, states that the requirements in terms of the preservation of the environment must be included in the definition and the implementation of the EU\u2019s political actions, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development.<\/p>\n\n\n\nFrom the divide to collaboration, there is not but a single step<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nNext up on the microphone is Vincent Englebert, assistant lecturer at the UNamur, who in 55 punchy slides introduces inclusivity in view of the current digital divide. Access to an internet connection, the cost of equipment, a lack of skills or interest, etc. The causes of this divide are multiple, but several core demographics emerge from statistics concerning the most affected: unsurprisingly, the eldest (above 74 years), the least academically qualified and, surprisingly, also the young, of whom one out of two feels restricted by the cost of technologies. \u2018Wallonia especially is at the bottom of the class,\u2019 rails Vincent Englebert, facing the politicians seated amongst the gathering. \u201849% of Walloons between 16 and 74 are in digital vulnerability.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/kingkong-mag.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Lea-Rogliano-660x630.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nL\u00e9a Rogliano then takes the floor wearing her two hats as a researcher in digital ethics and as a coordinator of the citizens\u2019 panel at FARI<\/a>, a Brussels-based independent research institute exploring the governance of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to promote a sustainable AI and work towards the common good. The subject of her talk? Citizen participation in the digital context. A crucial issue, given the most recent figures published by the Research Center<\/a> which demonstrate that more and more (American) citizens are declaring that they do not understand what business companies are doing with their personal data. Some 67% of the people interviewed in 2023, against 59% in 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAs a means of enlisting people from every sector of society to the cause, the young institute, which has just barely celebrated its third birthday, encourages its research laboratories to work closely in tandem with Brussels public institutions and citizens. Amongst the range of initiatives it has already established, FARI can include its datawalks<\/a>. Urban 2.0 walks taken as a group in the capital\u2019s hypercentre. \u2018A number of data sensors are positioned almost everywhere in public spaces,\u2019 explains L\u00e9a Rogliano. \u2018ANPR cameras (Editor\u2019s note: smart cameras for automatic number plate recognition), connected dustbins, recharging points for electric cars, etc. During these walks, we try to understand with the walkers why our data is collected, by who and to what ends, in order to ask ourselves to what extent the development of smart cities can give rise to more efficient and more sustainable urban environments.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nIn her talk, the Doctor of Law, UNamur assistant lecturer and researcher at the Namur Digital Institute (NADI) performs a backward zoom out over the European institutional landscape to when this problem first started being addressed seriously. The issue is as much environmental as geopolitical and social. Let us for example consider the extraction of the rare metals required for the manufacturing of our technological objects. \u2018On this point, a European directive of 2009 demands that products tied to energy, such as computers or servers, meet ecodesign standards,\u2019 states Am\u00e9lie Lachapelle. \u2018But this directive is restricted to the hardware layer of products.\u2019 Even if, last December, the European legislators came to an agreement<\/a> on a proposal to widen the ecodesign field of application to all products, it is kiss goodbye time to an ecodesign of services such as software. The focus is set on the environment, much less so on the social impact of digital technology, which is nevertheless also sizeable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is what explains the often criticised, and rightly so, disconnect between, on the one hand, environmental policies and, on the other, digital policies.<\/p>\nAm\u00e9lie Lachapelle, Doctor of Law, assistant lecturer at the UNamur<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n As a legal expert, Am\u00e9lie Lachapelle does not miss the opportunity to impress on the audience that \u2018for decades, we wanted to believe that technological development was necessarily sustainable development, but that is pure technological fantasy. It must not be forgotten that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union<\/a> (EU) makes reference to the fact that the Union\u2019s policy in the domain of the environment is founded on the principles of precaution, prevention, the rectifying of damage to the environment, and the polluter pays. These are fine principles, but not legally binding regulations. A priori, these principles are thus not applied to domains other than the environment.\u00a0This is what explains the often criticised, and rightly so, disconnect between, on the one hand, environmental policies and, on the other, digital policies.\u2019 Well-founded criticisms in light of another principle, that of integration, with origins in the same Treaty, which, in short, states that the requirements in terms of the preservation of the environment must be included in the definition and the implementation of the EU\u2019s political actions, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Next up on the microphone is Vincent Englebert, assistant lecturer at the UNamur, who in 55 punchy slides introduces inclusivity in view of the current digital divide. Access to an internet connection, the cost of equipment, a lack of skills or interest, etc. The causes of this divide are multiple, but several core demographics emerge from statistics concerning the most affected: unsurprisingly, the eldest (above 74 years), the least academically qualified and, surprisingly, also the young, of whom one out of two feels restricted by the cost of technologies. \u2018Wallonia especially is at the bottom of the class,\u2019 rails Vincent Englebert, facing the politicians seated amongst the gathering. \u201849% of Walloons between 16 and 74 are in digital vulnerability.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n L\u00e9a Rogliano then takes the floor wearing her two hats as a researcher in digital ethics and as a coordinator of the citizens\u2019 panel at FARI<\/a>, a Brussels-based independent research institute exploring the governance of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to promote a sustainable AI and work towards the common good. The subject of her talk? Citizen participation in the digital context. A crucial issue, given the most recent figures published by the Research Center<\/a> which demonstrate that more and more (American) citizens are declaring that they do not understand what business companies are doing with their personal data. Some 67% of the people interviewed in 2023, against 59% in 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a means of enlisting people from every sector of society to the cause, the young institute, which has just barely celebrated its third birthday, encourages its research laboratories to work closely in tandem with Brussels public institutions and citizens. Amongst the range of initiatives it has already established, FARI can include its datawalks<\/a>. Urban 2.0 walks taken as a group in the capital\u2019s hypercentre. \u2018A number of data sensors are positioned almost everywhere in public spaces,\u2019 explains L\u00e9a Rogliano. \u2018ANPR cameras (Editor\u2019s note: smart cameras for automatic number plate recognition), connected dustbins, recharging points for electric cars, etc. During these walks, we try to understand with the walkers why our data is collected, by who and to what ends, in order to ask ourselves to what extent the development of smart cities can give rise to more efficient and more sustainable urban environments.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
From the divide to collaboration, there is not but a single step<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/kingkong-mag.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/6D9A3104-660x630.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n