Login
5G networks could be responsible for an extra 3 – 7 billion tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere, according to a report published last month by France’s High Council on Climate.
According to Politico, the report stated:
“The carbon impact of 5G deployment could amount to between 2.7 and 6.7 million tons of CO2-equivalent in 2030. That’s a significant increase compared to the tech sector’s environmental impact (about 15 million tons of CO2-equivalent in 2020).”
The council, an independent governmental body created by President Emmanual Macron, is tasked with making recommendations on how to reduce greenhouse gases.
In its report, the council recommended government officials clarify climate issues before deploying the new technology, impose carbon footprint limits on 5G phone operators and educate the public about the ecological toll of digital technology.
France’s planned 5G rollout was controversial even before the council’s report. As The Defender reported last month, amid growing resistance, more than 70 mayors and elected officials from France called for a moratorium on 5G technology.
The mayors’ main concern, they said, is that “the health risks for living organisms have not been evaluated.”
In September, employees at Orange S.A. France’s largest phone company and the tenth largest mobile network operator in the world, wrote a letter calling for a moratorium on 5G. Bloomberg reported late last year that Orange called repeatedly for management to scrap the rollout of 5G services, in memos circulated to colleagues on the Plaza social media platform.
The employees’ memos, issued in October 2019 and in May 2020, said the technology will be unprofitable and will damage the environment, according to three people familiar with their content, Bloomberg reported.
In January 2019, the French Court of Cergy-Pontoise officially ruled that Electromagnetic Hyper Sensitivity “is an occupational disease that can be developed also from exposure to levels of radiation which are considered to be safe by the government (if they can be injurious as the court ruled then they are clearly unsafe),” according to Martine Vriens, director of international legal affairs for We Are The Evidence.
