Slashdot Mirror
Greenpeace Says the Internet Emits Too Much CO2
Pharmboy writes "A new report put out by Greenpeace argues that the IT sector is not doing enough to decrease reliance on 'dirty energy', saying the Internet, if it were treated as its own country, would be the 5th largest emitter of greenhouse gases. 'Many companies, the organization said, tightly guard data about the environmental impact and energy consumption of their IT operations. They also focus more on using energy efficiently than on sourcing it cleanly.' The report (PDF) doesn't mention how much CO2 is saved by telecommuting and higher corporate efficiency, however. So, exactly how 'green' or 'polluting' is the internet, really?"
As usual, they're simply trying to make a statement in a controversial manner.
In what way is this making a statement in a controversial manner? There is an issue that needs addressing so they released a report. That sounds quite normal to me. And is power consumption of data centres a controversial topic? No, it has been discussed quite a lot over the years. Long before climate change became so prominent in people's minds.
The internet isn't it's own country, it's a communication medium.
They didn't say it was a country, they just put the power usage into perspective to show why we should care.
If they wanted to make a serious statement, they could focus on the waste involved in the manufacture of disposable (quickly obsolete) electronics or focus on the power plants we get our energy from.
But they do already talk about those things. I found plenty of e-waste articles with a simple Google search, and as for talking about where we get our energy from - that is part of the report we are discussing now!
No-one's going to give up the internet to save the planet, arguments like this just continue to paint Greenpeace as a collection of sensationalist, attention-whoring, hippies.
Except they never suggested that we all give up the internet. This is purely about making the data centres that run the net less relient on dirty power. By suggesting that they are saying anything else is just you being a sensationalist, attention-diverting, anti-hippie!
To an extent. But power is semi-fungible. Sure, you can locate your datacenter close to a hydro-power plant and specify that you want your juice from there... but since that is a finite resource you only guaranteed that some other schmuck is using more coal or gas power somewhere else.
Focusing on efficiency is the only way to "buy green" in the energy market - as long as you are consuming energy and 100% of energy is being produced by renewables.
Okay look, if you want to bash on Greenpeace, bash on the facts and stop committing ad hominem attacks. How can we fix the global climate change if no one reads the original report and address that? The Slashdot summary and the linked article are both gravely insufficient.
The slashdot summary also is misleading:
"The report (PDF) doesn't mention how much CO2 is saved by telecommuting and higher corporate efficiency, however."
And yet the article itself address this in several learning points, the most important one is bolded below:
Data centres to house the explosion of virtual information
currently consume 1.5-2% of all global electricity; this is growing
at a rate of 12% a year.
The IT industry points to cloud computing as the new, green
model for our IT infrastructure needs, but few companies provide
data that would allow us to objectively evaluate these claims.
The technologies of the 21st century are still largely powered by
the dirty coal power of the past, with over half of the companies
rated herein relying on coal for between 50% and 80% of their
energy needs.
IT innovations have the potential to cut greenhouse gas
emissions across all sectors of the economy, but IT’s own
growing demand for dirty energy remains largely unaddressed by
the world’s biggest IT brands.
And what's worse, this isn't about telecommuting, it's about cloud computing! They are two different things that do not mean exactly the same thing! So the summary is basically diverting attention away from cloud computing, and the original report by Greenpeace directly admits there's no data here. Greenpeace did not willfully omit data, as the summary suggests. The fact that there is no data here is a problem for companies and the planet, not for Greenpeace's report!
And finally, to address your statement of "how does one choose a green energy resource." Answer: lots of ways
1) Vote for politicians that support and direct resources to green energy
2) Pick companies that only use green energy, in this case, cloud companies that use servers that are powered by green energy.
3) In the US, we have many states that have been trying to introduce energy competition where you can chose your energy generator. While most attempts are pretty woeful, we are trying to introduce "choice" to the masses.
4) Large companies in the US often have many choices. Some companies generate part or all of their own power, and some chose specifically where their power comes from if their physical plant is large enough and has certain requirements. We can influence this choice by choosing companies that chose green energy.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
In looking at the report, there does not appear to be any condemnation about the technology per-se, rather its utilization, deployment, and transparency of same. It's pretty hard to make a case that we'd be better off without IT, and they aren't trying. They appear to simply being trying to highlight a presently overlooked problem area as they see it. It's about sourcing power from "dirty" sources, and the lack of publicly accessible data regarding IT energy policies. Neither of which seem all that unreasonable. This report on IT is barely a blip compared to their rebukes for the manufacturing industry.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
They look only at raw costs, not at opportunity costs. If we got rid of the Internet, then Greenpeace's announcement that the Internet creates too much CO2 would be printed on paper and shipped around in gas-powered vehicles. Their press conference announcing it would have to be covered by reporters who burn fuel driving there and back. It's virtually guaranteed to have a higher CO2 footprint the old way.
Same goes for nuclear power. People always look at just the downsides of nuclear power all on their own. They never get around to comparing it to alternative power sources. If you do that, nuclear ends up being the safest and cleanest power source per TWh available to us.
Cars are actually one of the few topics where people get it right. Nobody looks at an EV and is aghast that it requires 35 kWh to go 100 miles (more than your house uses in an entire month). They compare it to their gasoline car and see that its energy is only 1/3rd the cost for the same distance.
When you're comparing to zero instead of alternatives, everything looks bad. Even breathing.