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.
Were there not a Google (or internet equivalent), I wouldn't sit back in my rocking chair, exclaim "Oh, well," and have a cup or two of tea. Instead, I'd get in my car and drive to the library to look whatever it was up in a reference book, or search the catalog for a book I could borrow on the topic.
In that way, Google (or equivalent) saves energy.
Now that said, I expect Google to do their best to minimize energy consumption. Given that their electricity costs directly hit their cost of doing business, I suspect they agree with this goal.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I find it somewhat hard to believe that this study will change anything; the number of searches are not going to decrease, and people are probably not going to stop drinking tea. So even if each search released fifteen times more CO2, would that change anything?
A recent report [argues that] the global IT industry generate[s] as much greenhouse gas as the world's airlines â" about 2% of global CO2 emissions.
Oh, that's not bad. Considering how huge a positive impact the IT industry has, that honestly seems like a relatively acceptable amount. And I'd rather have two googles than a cup of tea any day.
Let's just shut down every piece of modern technology and revert to a hunter-gatherer civilization. Will that make the enviornmentalists finally shut up? Why not stop people from breathing too, since that produces C02.
That doesn't sound right to me. Must be at least ten times that.
I expect our shiny new government is going to start taxing us on carbon soon. They are throwing money at failing businesses by the billions, while the tax base is collapsing. They are going to need to try to replace that cash somehow.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Authoring, editing, and distributing inane studies about the environmental impact of things like Google Searches?
I have an idea... how about all the people who are worried about it stop using their computers.... and stop breathing... then the rest of us can get on with our lives.
Right, because Microsoft would benefit from people using computers less.
1. Exposing corporations for the evil bastards they are has much less impact when you make up all the numbers.
2. In the Dalles here in Oregon, their project 02 datacenter pulls all of it's power straight from the hydro dam next door. In fact, the whole reason they built there was because of all the dark fiber underneath, and the hydroelectric dam adjacent. Google didn't get rich by making shitty decisions when it comes to power consumption.
Now lets be really pessimistic on the Google front. Suppose my search takes Google 1 second, and the search is distributed over ten 500W servers. That's 5 kJ expended. Lets double that to allow for the costs of spidering and indexing, and double again since the article mentions two searches per cup. Thats 20 kJ. Assume I spend a minute on my 30W laptop viewing the search results; thats another 2 kJ.
So We have 84 kJ verses 22 kJ.
These are never real environmental groups. Do you ever wonder where they get their money? It's from industries that don't want competition. Sometimes environmentalists don't even realize they are working for a competing industry.
This is where you are wrong. Some time back, in a discussion about greenhouse gases, I posted a very long list of scientific articles and papers that refute the CO2 and other greenhouse warming models. Saying that "nobody who's seriously studied it disagrees" is simply a false statement. Look it up if you want to. It did not take me long at all.
If you are a subscribed member of slashdot, you can find my post with all the references very easily. For that matter, even if you are not, you can still find a link to my slashdot post on Google.
I can offer a great deal better than just criticism from non-scientists. How about some of the scientists who worked on the original IPCC climate change report from the U.N.? Some of whom have tried to have their names removed from the report for the simple reason that "our science does not support the published conclusion"?
I will be honest with you: I have grown tired of re-publishing this information for everybody who has sucked up the mainstream media view and refuses to believe anything else. I have done so many times already. Nevertheless, I will link to it one more time. If you actually read these articles (not all of them are peer-reviewed but they reference other peer-reviewed papers, some by the same authors), you will see that there are a LOT of reputable scientists who do in fact disagree. I do not expect to sway your opinion, but if you really do read this material, and come back still believing that "greenhouse global warming" is an established reality, then you will not have been honest with yourself.
I have not updated this in a while but then I have had no need:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=591545&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=23930415
And by the way, I am also seriously tired of -- and pissed off about -- being constantly modded as "troll" or "flamebait" for simply mentioning things that are backed by science and which I can support with plenty of evidence... as I did here, yet again. All that shows is the general level of ignorance of the typical slashdot reader. I am not pointing fingers at anybody who has actually participated in discussion here.
You don't know this either. You've just been told by people who want to disagree with the media and organizations like the U.N.
This is true but it's always good to fully explain what is meant by it: It takes as much fuel to drive an SUV around the world as it does to fly around the world.
So if you were to drive at 65 MPH for 24+ days (assuming 8 hours sleep a day) you would use as much fuel as one flight. It goes to show you how much fuel those planes use, eh?
Again, if you're reading this and you're from New Zealand visit CreativeFreedom.org.nz
Think about this logically: someone, somewhere, has to pay for the electricity for all that. It trickles down to the consumer or the company fails. So: where is the massive cost from the rough equivalent to 400-odd cups of tea I boil every day?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
It would take spectacular dishonesty to fudge the energy to make a cup of tea an order of magnitude lower.
The skepticism shown in this thread is fully justified.
Efforts to operate more efficiently are not helped by fallacious arguments and mindless cheerleading.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I posted a very long list of scientific articles and papers that refute the CO2 and other greenhouse warming models. Saying that "nobody who's seriously studied it disagrees" is simply a false statement. Look it up if you want to.
That sounded like an incredibly reasonable statement, so I went ahead and clicked on your link to take a look at the articles and papers you talked about.
Turns out you had a bunch of links from obviously biased websites like "heartland.org" who seem to be some bullshit about how the free market is the solution to all problems, forces.org which has some bullshit "scientific evidence" that smoking is not really that bad for you, a republican senator's speech as some type of authority on the subject (not to mention that Jim Inhofe has a history of citing the Bible as support for his stance on issues...how scientific of him), and a blog.
You didn't cite a single peer-reviewed article, and you excuse yourself for not doing that by first posting a bunch of links that aim to prove peer-review is flawed. I've been in academia, so I know it's not perfect, but peer review is sort of like democracy. It's the worst possible method to do things, except for all the others.
And by the way, I am also seriously tired of -- and pissed off about -- being constantly modded as "troll" or "flamebait" for simply mentioning things that are backed by science and which I can support with plenty of evidence
You don't post anything backed by science, though. If you want anybody to take you seriously, you must use peer-reviewed sources and only from reputable journals at that. Otherwise, your evidence amounts to shit kooks believe in.
Now, that said, I'm not unsympathetic to the ultimate goals places like forces.org and hell, even heartland.org have. However, they need to accomplish their goal by not trying to bs the public. The evidence clearly points that smoking is horrible for your health. However, if people want to smoke, it's their goddamn life, and it's their right to risk it if they want to, I don't need some article showing some fake evidence that you're actually better off not quitting because the health risks of quitting are worse.
Similarly, the evidence clearly points in support of greenhouse global warming. However, it makes absolutely no sense for us to leave less convenient lives and use less energy in an attempt to curb it. Even if all of us cut our energy usage by half, population growth and continued development of third-world countries will quickly cause total energy usage to grow significantly beyond current total usage. We need to control population growth by supporting birth control and improving economic conditions (developed nations actually have negative growth if you don't count immigration). We need to quit our fear of nuclear and build a bunch of breeder reactors, which are actually efficient with their nuclear fuel and have very low emissions.
Basically, have the courage to say, "yes, global warming is real, but who the fuck gives a shit if polar bears go extinct? They're not the first species on the planet to do, and they won't be the last. Don't be a moron trying to claim "scientific" evidence exists while simultaneously claiming the only thing that makes scientific claims valid (peer-review) doesn't work and dismissing all the peer-reviewed papers because of it. You're just showing your ignorance.
> We need to use non carbon emitting sources such as nuclear power, solar and wind power.
None of these are 0 carbon if you look at the full life cycle: building, transporting the materials (and fuel and waste), storing the waste and then decommissioning. What you try to do is *reduce* the carbon output. And not consuming energy is the best for that. And the quickest.
> Its also ironic that the greenies always try to inhibit the green power they always go on about.
There is nothing ironic about it: "greenies" are not some kind of homogeneous blob: they are different people with different priorities and ideals, same as all groups of people.
"what it doesn't say is that the website--and Wissner-Gross-- directly benefits from this kind of research. C02Stats offers clients plans, ranging from $5 a month to $100"
davecb5620@gmail.com