-
Website
http://i.treehugger.com/test/mt4/ -
Original page
http://i.treehugger.com/test/mt4/files/2009/05/google-carbon-footprint.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Definitely some silly comparisons there. There have to be better things to compare with. Calling around for the information, going to a library... admittedly the existence of search engines has created more of a demand for their services and so it's hard to say where they've made things better or worse.
But if you're going to mention Google's attempts at green, don't forget the bit about mowing with goats: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/mowing-with-goats.html
They're trying to put the carbon emissions into perspective. Since there's nothing that really compare directly do, they just did comparisons of a few things most people would come in contact with.
Not like any better comparisons were suggested.
Don't forget that some of those searches result in minds expanding, technology advancing, consciousness evolving, and thus some great environmental hoorah may come of it all, or lots of little ones. So, try measuring that. :)
This whole thing is just silly. Without Google, we'd still have to rely on phone books, maps, and a whole load of other material items. Just think of how much co2 (and trees) Google is saving with their map service, think of how much paper goes into a phone book, and think of how much time we'd have to spend just to find something as simple as a natural cure for whatever you may have if it weren't for Google.
People need to start seeing the big picture and stop nitpicking silly things such as this.
"Don't forget that some of those searches result in minds expanding, technology advancing, consciousness evolving, and thus some great environmental hoorah may come of it all, or lots of little ones. So, try measuring that. :)"
I completely agree with this comment.
I like it, because I'm engineer?
(It is fair to compare to all the things we do every day. If we put out the equivalent of a few thousand Google searches before breakfast, we've got no reason to complain about Google. If anything, we should start complaining about newspapers.)
Dr. Weisman-Gross, the Harvard scholar whose study of the CO2 production of online activity caused a storm in a teacup when Rupert Murdoch's Times turned it into a Google-bashing pretext (Dr. Weisman-Gross did not single out Google), is quoted as saying that a visit to a simple website costs about 20 mg of CO2 per second. There being 3,600 seconds in an hour, an hour on a simple website costs 72 grams of CO2--about the same as the single-serving of Walker's potato crisps (chips in N.A which was one of the first, and very nearly the only commercial products to be fully costed out.
Dr. Weisman-Gross calculated that a visit to a website with a lot of pictures and other features can cost 300 mg per second, or 1500% of the simple site.
While you were reading this, you have been producing quite a few miligrams.
Google, in its rebuttal to the Times attack, poiints out a Google search typically takes about 0.2 seconds (one fifth of a second) which produces about 0.2 grams (the same as 20 mg) of CO2. In other words, one google equals one second of what you are doing now, provided, of course, that you are looking at this page in text mode, without pictures, links, etc.
Which is highly unlikely.
Is that a direct comparison that means something to you?
Time is time. Whether you spend in taking a drive in your car, drinking and eating, or skiing down Mount Everest is your business, but it's easy to convert the energy used to make a specific product than it is to take into account, for example, how many people will read a book in its lifetime.
I hear a lot of weeping over dead trees but I suspect that a well-bound book is a better carbon sink than a living tree--libraries burn less often than forests.
There are a lot of axes to grind in CO2 and Google debates separately or combined. Let's not forget that Google is a direct competitor of The Times and all of Rupert Murdoch's right wing propaganda organs and that The Times is a consistent supporter of global warming denial and propaganda, while Google is relatively green--not to mention liberal.
I could go on and on and on, but you've probably stopped reading and shut down your computer forever.
Ahem, I suspect that searches are cheap compared to indexing...
I'm still not worried about google's impact.
Something with the carbon footprint of 1/1,000 of a cup of orange juice is utterly unworthy of my consideration. That is the point that Google is trying to make.
If I could clarify a small little discrepency: "a Google search typically takes about 0.2 seconds (one fifth of a second) which produces about 0.2 grams (the same as 20 mg) of CO2." The reason you might think that is highly unlikely, is because 0.2 grams is equal to 200 milligrams, not 20. So, in your example, one google search is the equivalent of ten seconds of website viewing, which sounds plausible to me.
If it wasn't for incredibly ridiculous articles being written about the absurdly-high CO2 emissions of a single search query they wouldn't need to publish this. See here: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/google-global-warming-co2.php
Google's on the defensive because people are idiots and believe anything they read then type up an article about it.
You have no grounds to be snide, Brian.
The reason the CO2-per-search levels are "so high" is due to necessary measures to minimize search delays (and thereby stay competitive in their market).
Is it good that we know the CO2 emissions-per-search?
Sure.
Is it a big deal?
Nope.
This is just another drummed-up controversy. Let's not ride Google too much on this. They're generally one of the good guys.
Google search is better than driving to the library.
if this is "alarming" maybe you should calculate and publish treehugger.com's CO2 footprint? (with and without discovery.com in the total....) and keep it someplace easy to find (like on the About page...)