Environmental impact of Google searches

An interesting article in the Times on the environmental impact of simply using the internet and our computers.

No question I need to spend less time in front of my screen, including hanging out on Wetpixel.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle5489134.ece

Well there is a good side to being online. While I'm pretty sure that most servers are not on green grid power (solar,nuclear,hydro) the savings in emissions from not having newspapers/magazines/books are savings in CO2 emissions as well. I can't remember the math, but less CO2 emissions come from reading the news from the internet vs from a newspaper. Same for magazines etc.

Offsetting the emissions by installing solar panels which are grid active help as well.

what a completely rediculous article. the more i read about climate "mass hysteria" change, the more i want to

string every scientist up alongside your average commercial fisherman.

the last time i saw a convincing, balanced scientific argument that placed it's own findings in the context of

other fields of evidence, was, i think, when i read janet and john's version of "the water cycle"....oh hang on

no maybe it was one of those in depth findings that they featured on bbc's oceans series

what really might be a good comparison against this article is how much heavy industry has been replaced by

e-commerce, or even how much co2 i might produce by jumping in my car and driving 5 miles to the nearest newsagent,

then buying it, driving back again, making a cup of coffee whilst i read that same paper, and oh maybe even

how much co2 i produce if i choose to read the paper on the bog...

save the planet, shoot a scientist, preferably whilst he's stood in front of a politician, who is also stood in front of

a newspaper editor.

.... I can't remember the math, but less CO2 emissions come from reading the news from the internet vs from a newspaper...

And more people are reading the news online than ever read hard-copy (me included). So that means more total news-generated emissions since the internet I guess.

In a similar vain....

Q. Will I drive 1000km in a fuel efficient car, or take the plane?

A. My personal trip-generated emissions will be less if I drive, but the plane will fly (and emit) with or without me, so the car trip would be an additional source of emissions.

Moral of the stories is ... everyone has to get off their butts and go renewable as soon as possible!

what really might be a good comparison against this article is how much heavy industry has been replaced by

e-commerce, or even how much co2 i might produce by jumping in my car and driving 5 miles to the nearest newsagent,

then buying it, driving back again, making a cup of coffee whilst i read that same paper, and oh maybe even

how much co2 i produce if i choose to read the paper on the bog...

Less coffee in the morning?

To be fair to Wissner-Gross, he is just giving us an idea of how much energy consumption it takes for each item of things in our daily lives we normally take for granted. I'd rather have that knowledge. If we ever manage to lower our CO2 emissions in the developed economies, places like China and India will have a exponentially emerging middle class that will take over. So actually getting down to really minimizing our carbon footprint isn't such a bad thing, especially when it seems we really need to do that to make a dent in our carbon emissions planetwide, well that's IF you believe that CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming etc.

In a similar vain....

Q. Will I drive 1000km in a fuel efficient car, or take the plane?

A. My personal trip-generated emissions will be less if I drive, but the plane will fly (and emit) with or without me, so the car trip would be an additional source of emissions.

Partially true. For every extra person with bags, the plane uses more fuel to take off and fly. The additional say 130kg (my bags and I) may be a miniscule amount in terms of emissions increase but still there is an increase. Furthermore, jet fuel emission is more than cars because cars have catalytic converters and emissions standards (and I'm not just talking about CO2 but other chemicals)... planes do not.(Mr. Segal corrects me to say that there are standards for jet fuel and avgas, but since TEL (lead) is still used in Avgas, I don't consider those real standards )

Boat are doubly bad, since it's air and water polluting, so we should all do shore dives only!

save the planet, shoot a scientist, preferably whilst he's stood in front of a politician, who is also stood in front of

a newspaper editor.

Thanks for generalization. you're speaking about 0.1% of the scientists.

Most of us are "in war" with politician, because they don't trust in us and don't give money, so we have to spend 1/3 to 1/2 of our time trying to find some to continue working.

This is really deplorable.

If you are diving, if you are using a camera, a computer, a fridge, if you have electricity, it's because of science.

Ok, science can bring a lot of negative things, but our community is as well working by contradiction of each other, the science never stop, all what we know is evolving.

So please, be carefull with what you say, or maybe it's how you say it what about "save the planet, kill all the divers they destroy coral." it will be way more true than what you said (and publications really prove that diving activity, even without direct destroying, make the coral way less productive.)

remember, there is not only black or white !

Most of us are "in war" with politician, because they don't trust in us and don't give money, so we have to spend 1/3 to 1/2 of our time trying to find some to continue working.

This is really deplorable.

 

So please, be carefull with what you say, or maybe it's how you say it what about "save the planet, kill all the divers they destroy coral." it will be way more true than what you said (and publications really prove that diving activity, even without direct destroying, make the coral way less productive.)

 

remember, there is not only black or white !

ok i'm sorry, if you're one of the scientists that is at war with politicians, you must be one of the good honest ones that doesn't jump into bed with them to get your funding.

i know there is no black and white, but, there are agendas

yes probably the way i say things doesn't come across too well, but please know that all that i say is said with a smile on my face and my tongue lodged firmly in my cheek, with a little twinkle

in my eye.

Partially true. For every extra person with bags, the plane uses more fuel to take off and fly. The additional say 130kg (my bags and I) may be a miniscule amount in terms of emissions increase but still there is an increase.

still less than driving... only way is to get everyone out of the plane and into the electric cars or buses or trains powered by renewables. then the airlines would need less departures. But then we'd need more roads...

Furthermore, jet fuel emission is more than cars because cars have catalytic converters and emissions standards (and I'm not just talking about CO2 but other chemicals)... planes do not.(Mr. Segal corrects me to say that there are standards for jet fuel and avgas, but since TEL (lead) is still used in Avgas, I don't consider those real standards )

Emissions at altitude can't be good either.. and then there's the contrails....

Boat are doubly bad, since it's air and water polluting, so we should all do shore dives only!

I think there are some new generation boats coming out with wind catching devices... i think they call them sails or something like that.

darren

what a completely rediculous article. the more i read about climate "mass hysteria" change, the more i want to

string every scientist up alongside your average commercial fisherman.

+1....Here! Here! My plan - to leave as big a carbon footprint as I can while I'm on this planet. I'm going to fly airplanes, drive fast cars, use every means of conveyance to get me to dive sites no matter how extravagant and wasteful, leave a light on at night and I really don't give a damn about what some grant-seeking scientist postulates that I'm doing to the environment. And I'm going to be yelling "WAHOOOOOO" all the way. The answer is not to shrink and huddle in our caves using the least possible consumables, it's to get up, go out and find and develop new resources. Plentiful resources. And they're just as there as electricity was a hundred years ago when, then, few realized it's potential. It's so pukingly politically correct to say at the cocktail party how you're trying to "reduce your carbon footprint". Try to spend that energy finding a way to advance the world instead. Find new ways to allow us as humans to do more, not less because more is...ew....bad. You know - a big part of the answer just might be in the sea we dive in. I think I'm going to jump in my big-assed car, drive to the airport with my gear, hop in a big-assed airplane and fly to some remote place where I'll get on a big-assed boat and find a good place to jump in the water and explore - streaming carbon all the way. I'll bet I'm closer to a better answer to our problems there than the efite, Perrier-swirling sheep bemoaning their carbon output at a party or from clueless writers in magazine articles or from so many scientists in tax-supported, meaningless studies who are making a living chasing low-carbon windmills. And I'll leave that undersea world better than I found it. That is my contribution. Carbon is good - use more - intelligently.

save the planet, shoot a scientist, preferably whilst he's stood in front of a politician, who is also stood in front of

a newspaper editor.

As a scientist I say- save the planet-remove the humans......

Or failing that..........ban international long haul travel for underwater photographers........

;-)

Try to spend that energy finding a way to advance the world instead. Find new ways to allow us as humans to do more, not less because more is...ew....bad. You know - a big part of the answer just might be in the sea we dive in. I think I'm going to jump in my big-assed car, drive to the airport with my gear, hop in a big-assed airplane and fly to some remote place where I'll get on a big-assed boat and find a good place to jump in the water and explore - streaming carbon all the way.

As per my last post......as we scientists say.....QED

(with a twinkle in the eye....;-))

I think there are some new generation boats coming out with wind catching devices... i think they call them sails or something like that.

Sails...how "green"! We should all use them for transport. On land, too! But...wouldn't sails take energy out of the air thereby effecting the natural circulation which would then have an effect on weather patterns which, along with the carbon spewers, result in the end of the world as we know it??? Oh, what to do! I think I'll apply for a grant to study this. In the mean time, while I'm waiting for public funding, I'm going back in my cave and eat some cold, raw root vegetables. But, then, if I dig up some roots won't I be effecting the balance of flora that other plants and insects depend on? I just don't know how I can live on this earth without having an influence. What would Al Gore do....? Maybe I'll just sit here and wait for that asteroid that's coming that's going to wipe us all out. It'll be quicker than what we're doing now....hmmm....maybe there's still some time to get a few dives in....