Slashdot Mirror
Google Details and Defends Its Use of Electricity
theodp writes "On Thursday, Google finally provided information on its energy usage, revealing that it continuously uses enough electricity to power 200,000 homes. Still, the search giant contends that by using more power than Salt Lake City, Google actually makes the world a greener place. Google says people should consider things like the amount of gasoline saved when someone conducts a Google search rather than, say, driving to the library. As Police Chief Martin Brody might say, 'Google's going to need a bigger windmill!'"
Google is not simply using that energy, that energy is being used by google users all over the world.
Those same users are also using energy locally to connect to the internet.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Google is also paying for their energy.
that they are investing into clean energy. Other companies run around screaming that they want coal, while Google says AE. Personally, I wish that Google would make use of some of that money to help create demand for geo-thermal energy, rather than simply investing in it. Honestly, if they insisted on buying energy directly from some geo-thermal locations, they could still manage to keep their costs low, while creating enough demand to stimulate it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You will find that humanity's desire to fill the aching void of its pitiful existence with lolcats and porn is not, in fact, our doing.
Further, because power is one of our major operating costs, you will find that our competitors are unlikely to be able to deliver lolcats and porn appreciably more efficiently than we can.
Here endeth the justification.
but rather are they using the electricity efficiently
The more relevant comparison seems like it'd be to other commercial users. It's not likely that if Google were disbanded, it would turn into residential population; it's more likely that, if we didn't have Google, we'd have other companies employing these people and occupying a certain niche of the economy.
From that perspective, is Google's energy usage high or low for a company of its market-cap / revenue / profits? For example, it has almost exactly the same market cap as Wal-Mart; how does the energy usage of the two companies compare, both in terms of overall size, and things like greenness of the source?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If Google really are "Carbon Neutral" and investing in "green" energy as their blog suggests, then I see no real problem with them using the amount of energy that they do. Google could certainly do more to push renewable energy resources but at the end of the day, it is not their role to do so. Eventually I'm sure the winds of change will bring about a major shift towards renewable energy resources within corporations, the less non-renewable resources available, the higher the price. Corporations are very much focussed on profit, it's inevitable that renewable energy will at some point become cheaper. For the time being though, you can't expect Google to use an infrastructure (let alone create one) that doesn't exist.
by defending Steve Ballmer's use of oxygen.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So it's a fair trade.
The reason that Google needs to defend its use of electricity is because Page and Brin are huge proponents of the need to take drastic action to deal with man caused global warming. When you are a big supporter of those running around telling everybody that the government needs to limit how much energy people can use (limiting how much fossil fuels people can use is the same as limiting how much energy they can use, as we do not have the means, at this time, to replace all of the energy we get from fossil fuels with energy from other sources), then people are going to look closely at how much energy you use.
The issue is not how much energy Google uses. The issue is whether or not Page and Brin are hypocrites. The answer is that they are hypocrites. They preach about Global Warming, yet flew off to the south pacific to view an eclipse.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
. Google says people should consider things like the amount of gasoline saved when someone conducts a Google search rather than, say, driving to the library.
Sure, because the guy who just searched Google to find out what goatse is would clearly have gone to the library to look up such trivial information had Google not been available....
In our digital era, if it weren't for Google to offer Search, emails, video streaming, maps, etc ... another company would do it. With that in mind, the question becomes: which company offers these services in the greenest way ? I'm pretty sure Google does.
iTx Technologies: Open source development in Montreal
Eh, not necessarily. I'm sure they're hypocrites to an extent, but you could make the same argument about people who claim to be animal lovers who aren't vegan. Just because a feeling doesn't rule all aspects of your life, that doesn't mean you're a hypocrite. People who eat meat can still work to benefit animals in other ways (working at the shelter, cleaning up a habitat, etc) and people who care about carbon emissions can both invest in cleaner energy while using massive amounts of it. Besides, Google is one of the largest corporations in the world and is primarily geared towards electronic-powered devices; why wouldn't it use a lot of power?
Also, when you have that kind of money, why shouldn't you be able to see the celestial event of a lifetime? Yeah, they could have put it towards more energy, but people could also use the money they spend on entertainment and give it to charity instead. There's nothing wrong with doing both.
Al Gore didn't invent electricity to be wasted on the internet.
Wehen I was a kid, we were more green.
Specifically, my dad had a very cool looking light green '67 Ford Galaxie 500 with a 390 cubic inch V8. When I needed info for a report, my mom used it to drive me down to the public library, probably getting about 9 mpg. So we consumed about 20 kWh worth of fully leaded fuel to do a few simple queries. That's probably enough energy to run one of Google's server nodes for more than a week, but at least we did it in style.
I did a back-of-napkin calculation last night, and came up with about 30-33% of the energy consumption would be related to office operations, and the remainder data center operations. Their data center total came out to something like 170MW demand. Given that a 100,000 square foot data center would be expected to draw about 20MW all-in, the total was much lower than I would have expected. For some reason, I pictured their demand being much higher.
As for alternative energy, green energy, and efficiency, Google really is doing a good job. Comparing them to Bank of America, I would say Google does significantly more for the kWh.
Why is the total electricity used by Google a problem? Google has a huge network of data centers, offices and other business entities that use electricity. The total amount of electricity used is going to be huge.
The real question... has and is Google working to use that electricity wisely and with an eye to maximizing value and minimizing waste? Well from what I have read over the years the answer is Yes.
Everyone, GM, Toyota, the US government, The City of LA, and even my dear old Mom uses electricity (directly and indirectly) and it isn't the total used, but rather the waste (if any) and the strategies to maximize value out of that electricity that needs to be reported and scrutinized.
We all know this right?
Only a fool could imagine that the internet uses more resources than the alternative - mailing or faxing all documents, visiting various libraries in person rather than using Wikipedia and Gutenberg where possible, assembling for all semi-important meetings in person rather than teleconferencing (admittedly most organizations still don't make good use of teleconference), rural folks visiting book stores and computer stores in person rather than getting it shipped, etc.
Why don't FedEx or the New York Public Library have to defend their energy usage, given that the alternative to Google is higher usage of *their* services? Are we trying to make valid, constructive comparisons or are we just fretting about big numbers and bashing every big company with a green-washing CEO to satisfy our own self-righteousness?
"Google says people should consider things like the amount of gasoline saved when someone conducts a Google search rather than, say, driving to the library."
This is exactly akin to Software/Content makers saying that every piracy count is exactly one lost sale. If I had to actually drive to the library, I wouldn't actually DRIVE each time I was wondering about some trivial answer to a meaningless question.
All of that said, data centers use electricity.. if we want to do anything e- or i- (or o- or u-, and sometimes y-) we need to realize that. Google is well aware of how much it spends on electricity, and I'm pretty sure they take steps to try and minimize their expenses (such as using warm-boxes instead of cooling ambient air, etc..)
----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean what they're *saying* isn't valid; it means that what they're *doing* isn't valid.
If you believe someone gives good advice, then calling them a hypocrite isn't a free pass to spend more time criticizing their following of said advice than you do following it yourself.
I honestly don't care how much energy Sergey and Larry use: we'd get a thousand times farther if we reduced the energy footprint of the average American by a tenth of a percent than we will bitching at Google founders until they implement every green technology known to man. Just accept that they're flawed, self-righteous, and hypocritical and move on.
The reason that Google needs to defend its use of electricity is because Page and Brin are huge proponents of the need to take drastic action to deal with man caused global warming.
But that is a false dichotomy since extreme use of energy does not necessarily imply the energy is obtained from burning coal, fecal matter, babies, dolphins and wood from endangered species in mega furnaces churning tons of smog, sooth, chlorofluorocarbons, weaponized anthrax spores and sarin gas directly into the polar ozone holes.
Taking drastic actions against global warming does not mean turning off the lights completely. It means a lot of other things regarding how to use energy efficiently. And if your business requires to use tremendous amounts of energy but you are doing it in an energy-eco-efficient manner, then you are taking drastic actions.
When you are a big supporter of those running around telling everybody that the government needs to limit how much energy people can use (limiting how much fossil fuels people can use is the same as limiting how much energy they can use, as we do not have the means, at this time, to replace all of the energy we get from fossil fuels with energy from other sources), then people are going to look closely at how much energy you use.
And which is fine and dandy, so long as people do not jump to stupid conclusions of the form (using lots of energy) -> (energy inefficient).
The issue is not how much energy Google uses. The issue is whether or not Page and Brin are hypocrites. The answer is that they are hypocrites.
Your logic is absolutely flawless</rolls eyes>
What is happening here is that you are trying very hard to find a) something to be upset about and b) someone to point the finger at to justify the former.
They preach about Global Warming, yet flew off to the south pacific to view an eclipse.
Because they only way to fight global warming is to live in absolutes and become a hermit living with in kumbaya with the bunnies, the flowers and the dolphins. The audacity of taking a pleasure trip afforded by someone's earned wealth is an unspeakable horror in this world of absolute black and whites, erasing anything of value done or spoken by the aforementioned tree killers when it comes to eco-responsibility.
By that same logic, I should stop myself talking about energy responsibility or forego taking my daughter to the park to enjoy a fine day because ZOMG I'm burning dinosaur juices right into the air!!! The horror, the horror.
Congratulations sir, here is your trophy for winning the competition of infallible logic: a crowbar. It comes very handy to unplug your one's head out of one's ass.
I don't have an issue with Google using more power so we lose less. I have an issue with them using it as an excuse to blame people for power usage, by going to the library. It's the responsibility of big corporations to push economical, green energy, not to push oil and coal on us and then blame the people for global warming etc.
They are not blaming people for going to the library. They are saying, or so their argument goes, they are facilitating people with more energy-efficient means of searching things compared to driving to the library.
That you deliberately chose to interpret their argument the way you did speaks more about your than them. Either that or there is a tremendous failz in reading comprehension.
Because they only way to fight global warming is to live in absolutes and become a hermit living with in kumbaya with the bunnies, the flowers and the dolphins.
I'll believe global warming is a problem, when the proponents ACT like it's a problem.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Well, then I guess you will express similar thoughts the next time someone condemns a prominent promoter of "family values" (or other conservative position) is caught violating those values?
The reason that Brin and Page have to defend themselves from the charge of hypocrisy is that so many in the statist camp constantly try to claim that only people on the other side are hypocritical.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Doesn't Google use Bloom Boxes? And my personal vex with Bloom Energy is that they don't make a small business version, (cue Sour Grapes Face).
Because they only way to fight global warming is to live in absolutes and become a hermit living with in kumbaya with the bunnies, the flowers and the dolphins.
I'll believe global warming is a problem, when the proponents ACT like it's a problem.
Because that piece of rhetoric absolutely and logically follows from my post. Here, let me help you. Define ACT. And by "define" I mean objectively, practically and pragmatically.
By that same logic, I should stop myself talking about energy responsibility or forego taking my daughter to the park to enjoy a fine day because ZOMG I'm burning dinosaur juices right into the air!!!
If you believe that Global Warming is a problem that justifies massive government intervention into the everyday lives of the majority of people, then the answer is "Yes". There is a difference between talking about energy responsibility and saying that we need to stop building new coal fired electric generating plants and shut down existing ones. Page and Brin are in the latter camp.
I do not have a problem with Page and Brin using thier wealth to fly to the south pacific to view the eclipse. I have a problem with them doing so when they try and tell me that Man caused Gloabal Warming is such an urgent problem that it justifies a vast increase in government power.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
"Windmills do not work that way!"
Taxing carbon emissions, or establishing a carbon emissions market, is a vast increase in government power? Are you aware of how the government successfully curbed the acid rain pollution problem?
On what planet do you spend the majority of your time?
As long as they are paying an unsubsidized price for it, or they are investing an amount same or more than whatever subsidy in the included in the bill in green tech?
Or, you know, it could be that they understand that drastic action doesn't mean moving back to caves and living off of berries. That there is something in between our current use and zero that would mitigate our current problem.
No, couldn't be. Instead of proposing sensible solutions that are easy to implement which have a significant effect, they are hypocrites to be ignored. Let me guess: the only people who aren't hypocrites are the people who tell you what you're doing is A-OK, and that you don't need to change anything about where you get energy from and how you use it.
Personally, I prefer hypocrites to lazy asses who can't take constructive criticism. Your mileage obviously varies.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
reading that google uses mainly consumer hardware for their servers, lots and lots of them. Not even bothering to remove/turn off/ fix servers when hard drives go bad. Power usage is actually a pretty major concideration in enterprise gear.. I wonder if the majority of their power usage is being wasted because of this choice.
Calling someone a hypocrite doesn't invalid their point, but it does put it in a meaningful context. If someone is saying the world is going to end next year and we should all repent, how seriously would you take them if they put a great deal of money into a 2 year CD? That's hypocritical. If they truly believed what they were saying they'd be donating it, or at least blowing it. The fact that they're making a long term investment gives you a gauge on their confidence in their own beliefs. Maybe they're just hedging their bets, sure, but you can be sure they are especially certain (regardless of what they say) that their prediction is correct.
So in this case, you have two guys that in one joy ride spewed about 60 tons of CO2* (vs. 4.5 for a average year's car travel). How serious can they actually think global warming is? Do they want government intervention because they can't control themselves? Or do they not actually give a damn and think/expect the rules won't apply to those with enough money like them?
For me, at least, the latter is the real sticking point. You have all these rich/privileged people like CEOs and congressmen pushing for massive regulation to fix a problem that they disproportionally cause. Between that and the ridiculous cap and trade bill**, it becomes quite clear that people like them are using global warming as an excuse to leverage even more government control and prevent market competition.
So, yes, just because they're hypocritical doesn't mean that global warming is fake. It does, however, speak very strongly to their motivations which is mostly what the GP was addressing.
*According to http://www.conservation.org/act/live_green/carboncalc/pages/methodology.aspx and a round trip estimate of 6000 miles, which looks about right.
**There's a small chance I'm remembering incorrectly, but even supporters of GW legislation said the bill would to nothing to combat the problem and would only prevent new/small businesses from growing and competing with existing large ones.
Okay, honestly there are very few things that I look up on google that I would drive to a library to research.
My other sig is extremely clever...
The big problem is that every technology has a downside. Solar requires large areas of land; hydro requires us to block off rivers; coal pollutes; oil... also pollutes; nuclear is the biggest target of NIMBY-ism I can think of; geothermal is expensive and hard to do properly.
We can't magically fix our energy problems. There is only so much energy capacity in the world. We can only build so many solar panels, so many hydro plants, so man coal or oil plants, so many windmills. The better solution to fixing our energy problems is for us to look into increasing efficiency of existing technologies, using them where necessary, and reducing our energy consumption in general. If our consumption continues to grow, we will eventually be unable to generate enough to power all our stuff.
Seriously, does grandma, who only watches youtube videos of the kids and e-mails her bridge club, need a PC that draws 700W? Does Uncle Bob really need a 63" LCD display when his whole apartment is 10 feet wide? Do we really need to *drive* to the grocery store for a gallon of milk when it's actually quicker to get there by bike?
We can save a *lot* of energy -- and money -- by thinking about our choices.
Since when does anyone have to MORALLY justify their energy usage?
Google does some shady things. Using power is not among them.
It's a commodity. They purchase it. Sheesh.
They flew in a jet, so they dont care about climate change...hasty generalization. You cannot judge someone based off one action. You have to tally everything they do compared to your "ideal" person".
Re: Google, you are comparing totally watts per unit to total units, its not a valid comparison.
Google is one of the largest companies in the world (by market cap). Market cap by watt, its tiny.
Because the "knowledge industry" is so large these days it makes a measurable impact on natural resources and the GDP.
I'd like to see a comparison to the energy usage in producing a days consumption of food or living in a house. Those numbers are nto small either.
Being from a pre-internet generation, I don't remember rushing to the library more than once because I "had to know right now". Library trips weren't more frequent; knowledge searches were just far more sporadic, waiting until the due date for your currently checked out books. As such, Google can't say they're saving energy that way, but they can say that they're helping to foster a more educated populace (educated in *what* is a separate question). Kind of like how the invention of the vacuum cleaner didn't reduce work for housewives of the era, it actually increased it (pushing a big heavy thing around instead of a broom). But it did make things cleaner, picking up all the dust that brooms left behind.
Google may have both the most expensive and efficient supercomputer on the planet. This is not contradictory, just huge.
I love how when a prominent spokesperson who calls for Americans to return to moral values is caught violating those moral values it is used as evidence that all proponents of moral values are morally bankrupt. But when people who call for Western economies to bankrupt themselves to prevent the disaster of Global Warming are caught acting as if it is no big deal, we are supposed to ignore thier actions and just evaluate thier message.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It is interesting that the poster used the power compared to SLC. The NSA is building a new server farm south of Salt Lake and when it was announced they talked a lot about how it would use as much power as Salt Lake City. I wonder how the server farms compare.
The question is not about what we "need". It is about who gets to decide. However, if you are telling that grandma that she shouldn't buy that PC that draws 700W, because she doesn't need it, then you had better not fly off to the south pacific to watch the eclipse, because it is a lot clearer that you don't need to do that than it is that grandma doesn't need that PC.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
global warming doesn't require belief anymore then gravity requires belief. It's happening, they overlying heating is caused by man made emission. It's a fact. If someone comes up another plausible cause it will be looked at and evaluated, just like everything else in science.
And why you think people aren't acting on it is beyond me. Insurance companies, city planners, coastal designers, all of the world are seeing change and reacting to it.
No, no one is going to go back to living in a cave because, that's not really living. We can invest in other technologies to stop using coal, and start including it in designs.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"..vast increase in government power."
what vast increase? Why do you keep saying that?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
All you've done is shown me that a ton of CO2 isn't a lot. You're trying to use 60 tons in an OMFG THOSE BASTARDS sort of way, but when you look at it as a single private airplane flight, which really doesn't produce THAT much CO2. So you're probably making your point less relevant to most normal people. You're also ignoring that any other method of getting there would have produced more. So you're either blowing things out of proportion on purpose, or just raging against the fact that Googles founders have a lot of money and enjoy themselves.
They may be hypocrites, I'm not arguing that. I will say that if you get all bent out of shape over their single private flight, you just make yourself look irrational and overreacting. They've saved hundreds of times that in the last years modifications to their data centers efficiency, so acting like they are evil bastards for using a little bit of what their organization saved just makes you seem like nothing will ever be enough.
So they took a plane flight, its not that big of a deal, certainly not outweighted by the good they've done in that same area. Go have a beer and chill out, otherwise you're going to stress yourself to an early death, long before global warming gets you.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You need to experience a Mormon girl gone wild, you'll change your opinion.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Not when the cost of using energy doesn't reflect the actual environmental toll because regulation is lax,
I love how when a prominent spokesperson who calls for Americans to return to moral values is caught violating those moral values it is used as evidence that all proponents of moral values are morally bankrupt.
Citation needed.
But when people who call for Western economies to bankrupt themselves to prevent the disaster of Global Warming
Citation needed.
are caught acting as if it is no big deal
Citation needed.
we are supposed to ignore thier actions and just evaluate thier message.
Strawman.
Man, not even one sentence that can be used as a point of debate in any way.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
By that same logic, I should stop myself talking about energy responsibility or forego taking my daughter to the park to enjoy a fine day because ZOMG I'm burning dinosaur juices right into the air!!!
If you believe that Global Warming is a problem that justifies massive government intervention into the everyday lives of the majority of people, then the answer is "Yes".
Ah, I get it. You correctly identify that Global Warming is a massive externality not accounted for by current markets, and therefore can only be addressed by government intervention, or altruism on a massive, unprecedented and completely unlikely scale. You then use an exaggerated position that cannot be met by anybody who isn't living in a cave off of berries, and which serves a dual-purpose: it guarantees that no one can talk about how to fix Global Warming, and, in the unlikely case you do come across said hermit, you have your example they want to destroy Western Civilization.
In other words, it's an argument specifically designed to kill and avoid any debate around how to fix Global Warming. Good to know that you have actually no interest in debating the matter.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
...is that so many in the statist camp constantly try to claim...
Huh? What statist camp? What does being a statist have to do with criticizing family values? And who says family values are a conservative position? Most liberal families I know have a pretty core set of values, they just vary somewhat from the values held by conservative families.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
As if there are no commercial, governmental, and industrial energy users in Salt Lake City.
200,000 homes do not use the same amount of power as a city of 186,000.
Want to save all the carbon emissions created when you search? Hold your breath.
I8-D
If Global Warming was likely to cause hundreds of millions of deaths without dramatic government action, would you consider that urgent enough?
Sure, but then I would expect to see the people who were telling me that behaving as if they thought it was true.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You can repeat your argument all you want, but that does not change the fact that it is an Ad hominem attack, and thus invalid.
If you watched less fox news you would be less misinformed
a carbon taxor cap is simply a tax or regulation on a negative externality, something we have been doing for hundreds of years there is no expansion of government power with that. The expansion of power came most recently when bush signed the USAPATRIOT act
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
It doesn't follow conversely that because someone is a hypocrite, they must have had a valid point originally. It is just that some do.
I'm really tired of the media knowingly and intentionally misleading their readers into assuming something. The use of absolute figures in the knowledge that most readers have no sense of scale is intentionally stating information out of context.
Jump down to paragraph 5 and the facts are made more relevant due to context:
The article subsequently seems to turn into praise about how green Google is.
I notice the Slashdot summary contains the worst of the article, thus explaining the root of the issue. It doesn't explain why to bother reading Slashdot if the summaries are going to offer no value beyond that of an RSS aggregator.
If there wasn't a google, the likelyhood is there would be someone doing what google does anyway and they might just be using a lot more power to do it.
An Ad Hominem attack is to discredit the argument because of characteristics of the one making the argument. All I am doing is pointing out that Page and Brin are hypocrites. I have not at any time argued that because they are hypocrites that AGW is not true. I have said that I am unlikely to take the arguments of a hypocrite seriously on the subject about which they are being hypocritical.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You have a good point (I'm also from the pre-internet, brick-n-mortar library era as well.) One could then argue that Google is helping to foster a more "educated" (in question marks) population in a more energy-efficient manner that what would be possible with brick-n-mortar libraries alone.
You need to experience a Mormon girl gone wild, you'll change your opinion.
Second!
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -HLM
According to Google, they use renewable energy where they can or buy carbon offsets where they can't.
Besides, that is an ad hominem attack.
Actually, it's a small increase in government power, but a huge increase in the power of big corporations.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Ah, logical fallacy #15 of the leftist code. "You disagree with me, thus you must be a GWB fan."
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Uh... no. I was responding to a post that said that being a hypocrite doesn't matter, and I said why it did. Then I said how you'd apply that in this case. So your reply is not really to the topic of my post anyways, even if you are indeed not arguing that they aren't hypocrites.
Besides, I don't actually give a damn about global warming and am much more concerned with what will be done in its name than what will come of it itself. Frankly I'm in full support of them enjoying their money how they see fit. My problem is when super wealthy people like them want to tell _other_ people how they can spend their money (and it's not just global warming, mind you), unless they're (also) rich enough to exempt themselves from the rules (e.g. carbon credits, or tax shelters, trusts, etc for other cases).
That aside, I did, in fact, indicate why this is a lot of CO2: It's the average annual car emissions of _13_ people. For one weekend trip. To save this amount of CO2, that would mean _26_ people would either have to drive hybrids (22mpg was the figure used) or drive half as much. Or, probably about 60, then, could save that by biking to work whenever possible.
For a year. For one flight.
So, when these people come saying how you need to bike to work, or buy a hybrid, and it's so great that gas prices are high because they encourage people to do these things just remember: You and 25 others have to do that to balance out one weekend trip.
It is not an ad hominem attack to allege that Page and Brin are hypocrites for flying to the south pacific to view the eclipse when they say that Man caused Global Warming is a problem that requires reworking our entire economy. An ad hominem attack would be saying that because they are hypocrites, Global Warming is not true.
However, what I said, is that if they expect me to believe what they are saying about Global Warming, they should act as if they believe it. I do not believe that the proposed solutions to Global Warming are the correct approach for many reasons. However, I do not know of any prominent proponent of Anthropogenic Global Warming who acts as if he/she believes it is true.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Actually it was found that the canaries dying caused quite a distraction for the miners getting their work done. So we had the canaries removed. You're welcome.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
Rich people are allowed to use more energy than poor people. That is one of the very fundamental differences between rich people and poor people. Energy is currently priced too low, but fixing that does not mean that poor people get to use as much as rich people.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
So, when these people come saying how you need to bike to work, or buy a hybrid, and it's so great that gas prices are high because they encourage people to do these things just remember: You and 25 others have to do that to balance out one weekend trip.
When a rich person buys a Ferrari, they use resources and manpower which could have provided 13 people with cars. When they do that, it means that you and 25 other people have to double how long you make a car last to balance out just one Ferrari.
There are rich people arguing for increased taxes right now. Do you call them hypocrites when they don't call for taxes which make everyone equally well off? Have you completely given up on capitalism?
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
You are vastly underestimating the amount of solar power available. It is true that all exponential growth must eventually come to an end, but at the point when we collect even 1% of the solar power available, 700W for every person in the world will be a completely trivial amount.
Solar power requires completely trivial amounts of land compared to farming, at least if we contend ourselves with using perhaps 5 times as much energy as we use today. I think most people could handle that sacrifice.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
You increase the cost of producing energy until its cost equals its production cost plus negative externalities (pollution etc). Then the invisible hand sorts out who gets to fly to the South Pacific and who gets a PC.
Hint: Energy would have to become AWFULLY expensive to prevent Page and Brin from flying to the South Pacific.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
5 times the global average, or 5 times the American average?
and 1% of the solar power available, right now, would require ~1% of the planet's surface. Barring ocean installation, which means we'd have to use ~3% of the land surface of the planet. And that's only if we have 100% efficient panels. Panels now are, what, 50% efficient? So we'd need 6% of the land surface of the planet in order to harness 1% of the solar power available...
If my math or assumptions are waaaaaaay off, please let me know.
Also, I rather like your sig.
Which tells you why they are big supporters of Global Warming, they figure the government policies aren't going to effect them much.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Not only that, why choose SLC? It's not like it is a 186,440 person city sitting out on its own in the countryside. It is part of a contiguous metro area with a population of 1,124,197 and also a contiguous urban area with a population of 2,238,697 (wiki). I was born and raised here and I couldn't tell you with much accuracy where SLC proper starts and ends.
I'm sure there is a ~200,000 resident US city sitting nicely out on its own.. but probably few have ever heard of it. The state capital of Utah on the other hand? Far more sensational.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
Yet another dangerous grain of truth.
Detroit has long sold large, steel battering rams on the image of safety: good for you, bad for anything else you happen to impact.
There would be less escalation to large steel battering rams if people weren't made to feel unsafe by their copious production. Detroit manipulated demand more callously than most. Nice to be Krupp alternating upgrades to opposite sides, since no one wants to have last year's targeting distance in an African square dance.
Rule three: Expect a corporation to arrange for you to care most about staying ahead of the Rommels.
I honestly don't care how much energy Sergey and Larry use: we'd get a thousand times farther if we reduced the energy footprint of the average American by a tenth of a percent than we will bitching at Google founders until they implement every green technology known to man. Just accept that they're flawed, self-righteous, and hypocritical and move on.
Individual USians use 39% of power consumption compared to commercial and industrial users. The "average" American probably already uses less energy than upper middle class and the rich. That's for a different study.
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/how-much-energy-do-individuals-actually-use
Then what they need to show is how they are or not part of the problem. For what I know, they have solar panels they use to acquire power at their Googleplex. Another comment spotted that they built one of the biggest data centers close to a hydroelectric plant to be close to the distribution (my take is efficiency). So yes, they may be consuming a lot, but are they also consuming efficiently? And are they consuming out of fossil fuels? I think comparing to a number of houses it's odd because you don't even know what's the average home consumption. Is it a Texan ranch? or a Californian house? or a NY apartment? Doesn't say much sincerely.
Grandma may very well not realize that the reason that her electric bill is so high is due to her over powered PC. The government can help by requiring PC makers to honestly state the power usage of their PCs, educate grandma that the 50 watt box works just as well for her uses and even give a sales tax break on the energy efficient box as my provincial government did for a while.
Then grandma can make an informed decision and if she's like most of the older people I know who are barely getting by she may ditch the 700 watt PC or at least when it's time to replace it opt for the 50 watt one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Knowledge is power.
Page and Brin are huge proponents of the need to take drastic action to deal with man caused global warming
[Citation Needed]
I'm Erwin Schrodinger and I approve of this message, and I do not approve of this message!
According to the wikipedia page on Solar energy, total solar flux for the Earth is 3,850,000 EJ. Primary energy use of the entire world population is listed as 487 EJ. Assuming that this solar flux is evenly spread over land and ocean (certainly wrong, but probably not horribly wrong), that leaves 1,155,000EJ on land surface. Panels are actually more like 10% efficient, although you can do a bit better where it really matters with solar thermal. So then we're at 115,000EJ, which means that we need to cover less that 0.5% of land surface with solar collectors. If we place the solar collectors smartly instead of randomly, we can probably cut that in half too. So yes, 3% of the land surface if we go with 5 times the total energy use of the world today. Again according to Wikipedia, 40% of land surface is in use for some kind of farming/pasture.
T
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Sure, they probably estimate that the risk to their fortunes from climate change is larger than the cost of having to pay a bit more for energy. It is certainly likely that their position is based on a cost/benefit analysis. Is that a bad thing? Liberalism is based on the belief that if we all do what is best for ourselves, that will lead to the best overall outcome for us all.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Liberalism is based on the belief that if we all do what is best for ourselves, that will lead to the best overall outcome for us all.
That is actually the position taken by those called conservatives in U.S. politics. Those called "liberals" in U.S. politics take the position that the overwhelming majority of people are too stupid to make decisions as to what is best for them, therefore "experts" in government must make those decisions for them. Of course, they never quite explain why I should think these "experts" will make better decisions for me than I would. The evidence suggests to me that the "experts" the government hires to make these decisions are drawn from the group of people whose decisions are used as examples of why "experts" should be given the authority to make decisions for people.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Mud-hut GREENs can choke on it. Every kilowatt humans produce increases our cultural and individual standard of living. We burn against the everlasting night. Bytch Gaia ... the snake-goddess of ebola and rabies, ectopic pregnancy, tsunamis and mongoloids can have energy conservation shoved up her *zzwhole like a pile of burned-out coal slag mixed with the bones of toasted guilt-ridden GREENs.
Hey everyone it's J.P. Rockefeller himselves!
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan