Slashdot Mirror
The Environmental Impact of Google Searches
paleshadows writes "The Times Online reports that researchers claim that each query submitted to Google has a quantifiable impact. Specifically, two queries performed through a desktop computer generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a cup of tea. From the article: 'While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 [whereas] boiling a kettle generates about 15g [...] Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its data centers. However, with more than 200m Internet searches estimated daily, the electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions caused by computers and the Internet is provoking concern. A recent report [argues that] the global IT industry generate[s] as much greenhouse gas as the world's airlines — about 2% of global CO2 emissions.'" Google makes an interesting focus for such claims, but similar extrapolations have been done before about, for instance, the energy costs of sending a short email.
I live in an area where a lot of hydropower is generated, and it has a very definite negative environmental impact. We locals pay for it in many ways.
I marvel at how many people seem to think that hydropower is "clean and renewable", with few environmental effects. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What about the recreational opportunities we lose, and the huge potential income from same, when a river is dammed?
What about the loss of existing environment? Including drowned farms and forests.
What about loss of wildlife habitat? Salmon and waterfowl are only the tip of the iceberg. Fewer farms means fewer deer and rodents grazing the fields. Less forest means loss of habitat for those as well as a great many other species. Which all in turn means fewer top-level predators such as osprey, eagles, bear, cougar.
Which are more valuable to our overall environment? A few less cubic feet of CO2, or a few more salmon, a couple of ducks, some crayfish and a sturgeon?
People, please do some research before making assumptions about different forms of power generation. Depending on where you are, YOU might not have to live with the consequences in the short term, but we all have to live with them in the long term.
And, by the way, PLEASE do some research about the CO2-based warming model, which has so many serious flaws that its predictive capacity is actually near zero. Try paying attention to the science rather than all the hype.
Of course, to gnaw on wood bark, we would probably kill a tree or two, so they still wouldn't be happy...
Xaotik Designs
Greenies won't be happy until we are back in caves gnawing on wood bark for food.
Of course, to gnaw on wood bark, we would probably kill a tree or two, so they still wouldn't be happy...
While people like you won't be happy till we totally over-populate this planet, strip its resources and then cry foul when our population is suffering centuries of mismanagement and environmental blunder.
You should consider yourself lucky to have us greenies about. If we yell enough, you might end up implementing something that inadvertently helps you out. Irony huh?
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
You missed the point. Leaders of the environmentalist movement want those nearly 7 billion humans to die in misery, so as not to damage their precious earth.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate