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?"

Comments

FFS

[Anrego]

So, exactly how 'green' or 'polluting' is the internet, really?

The more important question is, how exactly does one "choose" a green energy source. I don't know about other parts of the world, but up here in Canada we generally only have one choice of power provider. We don't get to shop around for which power plant we want to produce our power. I guess if you are big enough to be able to "choose a location for the new datacenter" then you kinda can... but for the large majority of users not so much.

Yes, there are alternatives, but they arn't ready for the masses yet. Doing anything for power besides paying the going rate in your local area is at best risky. Unless you can use it as a PR piece effectively to the point of being worth it or it saves your more money over a reasonable amount of time, no one is going to go for it.

The report (PDF) doesn't mention how much CO2 is saved by telecommuting and higher corporate efficiency, however.

Greenpeace.. biased.. who'd have seen that one ;)

Seriously though, while I agree with some of the greenpeace message... I have very little respect for the organization and have a hard time taking anything they say seriously.

Re:FFS

[jellomizer]

Successful activist groups work a lot like corporations. They either need to grow or die. Because if they just try to solve one problem in the world they will more likely succeed then they will out of business and then will need to refile as an other NPO for the next thing. So Greenpeace like PETA, and MAAD, Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups they expand their scope of problems so they will stay in business longer (Espectially if their goal is popular enough they quickly get big enough where they have paid staff and a CEO who making 6 - 7 figures a year) but by expanding their scope they actually hinder on getting anything meaningful done. If you want to save the Wales Greenpeace could probably do it. But they are too bogged down with their other issues to put effort into solving any one problem.

Re:FFS

[mysidia]

The more important question is, how exactly does one "choose" a green energy source. I don't know about other parts of the world, but up here in Canada we generally only have one choice of power provider. We don't get to shop around for which power plant we want to produce our power. I guess if you are big enough to be able to "choose a location for the new datacenter" then you kinda can... but for the large majority of users not so much.

It's not like their power is being wasted or there is a massive surplus of clean energy being generated that goes to waste. If your company uses power from that "clean" source, then that means someone else has to get their electricity from another source.

Unless of course... you're suggesting that companies pay extra for their electricity on condition of it being clean to ensure it's made artificially more profitable for a clean source to produce that electricity.

Re:FFS

[Technician]

On the flip side of computing, the retired computers were fuel hogs by todays standards. Most reasonably modern desktop computers outperform the Cray 1 Supercomputer of the past. They have more memory, more disk storage, much faster processing, and don't need a refrigeration system to keep it cool.

It was a 64 bit machine with 8 megs of ram with a clock speed under 100 Megs. That is 0.1 Ghz for you young whippersnappers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray-1

To replace the internet with a telephone system and library with as much information at our fingertips would be a feat that makes the true efficiency of the communications and data storage of the modern Internet look truly efficient.

Moving to more efficient access with netbooks, phones, pads, etc and more efficient hosting shows there is still improvement in energy cost savings as well as reduction in greenhouse gases.

Even the new Facebook datacenter in Oregon is an improvement.

Stone Age

[geoffrobinson]

Can't do nuclear, can't put windmills up due to the birds or hurting the value of the Kennedy compound. Ethanol doesn't work. Honestly, I don't think the environmentalists will be happy until we're back to living in caves and dying at around age 25 from famine.