From Warren Meyer at climate-skeptic.com From the Thin Green Line, a reliable source for any absurd science that supports environmental alarmism:
Sending and receiving email makes up a full percent of a relatively green person’s annual carbon emissions, the equivalent of driving 200 miles.
Dealing with spam, however, accounts for more than a fifth of the average account holder’s electricity use. Spam makes up a shocking 80 percent of all emails sent, but most people get rid of them as fast as you can say “delete.”
So how does email stack up to snail mail? The per-message carbon cost of email is just 1/60th of the old-fashioned letter’s. But think about it — you probably send at least 60 times as many emails a year than you ever did letters.
One way to go greener then is to avoid sending a bunch of short emails and instead build a longer message before you send it.
This is simply hilarious, and reminds me of the things the engineers would fool the pointy-haired boss with in Dilbert. Here was my response:
This is exactly the kind of garbage analysis that is making the environmental movement a laughing stock.
In computing the carbon footprint of email, the vast majority of the energy in the study was taking the amount of energy used by a PC during email use (ie checking, deleting, sending, organizing) and dividing it by the number of emails sent or processed. The number of emails is virtually irrelevant — it is the time spent on the computer that matters. So futzing around trying to craft one longer email from many shorter emails does nothing, and probably consumers more energy if it takes longer to write than the five short emails.
This is exactly the kind of peril that results from a) reacting to the press release of a study without understanding its methodology (or the underlying science) and b) focusing improvement efforts on the wrong metrics.
The way to save power is to use your computer less, and to shut it down when not in use rather than leaving it on standby.
If one wants to argue that the energy is from actually firing the bits over the web, this is absurd. Even if this had a measurable energy impact, given the very few bytes in an email, reducing your web surfing by one page a day would keep more bytes from moving than completely giving up email.
By the way, the suggestion for an email charge in the linked article is one I have made for years, though the amount is too high. A charge of even 1/100 cent per email would cost each of us about a penny per day but would cost a 10 million mail spammer $1000, probably higher than his or her expected yield from the spam.
Intresting, perhaps there should be taxes levied on everything?
Perhaps if the internet was forced into such a problem we might see the ‘internet black market’. What a great opertunity! You may see green, hippy, losers who happen to be smoking a joint, who are ‘fully’ keeping in the spirit of ‘enviormentalism’, taking a quick ‘sneak mail’. While the rest of the population is forced to use the ‘censor bot 1000’, a ‘fully atonomus ai’ who persistently spams your inbox about your 1 cm cubed emitions due to the sending of 100341 emails in your life. Hatemail? hmm How about ‘Artifical’ hatemail?
“…..Save the planet, combine your emails into longer messages”
I quote the immortal words of Rhett Butler: “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a D*M!”
Bob
A while ago I ran across another such greenie that was also dumber than a bag of hammers:
He used very small fonts for all his documents. When asked, he said it was to save hard-disk space. His idea was that smaller font documents require less hard disk space. Therefore the hard-disk then will spin up less often and thus lower his CO2 footprint. I told him to get a felt pen and write directly on his screen. Even lower CO2 footprint because the computer does not even have to be on, and who wants to see anything somebody that stupid writes anyway.
Also, remember to NOT eat your Brussels sprouts because they cause greenhouse gas farts!
Btw Anthony, you should format your copypasta as a quote so people don’t think you are the one suggesting the stupid e-mail tax.
Sorry if I sounded harsh, but it just irks me when someone starts their comment “OT, but…” But nothing. Don’t post it if it’s OT. Simple.
I was speaking about both sides 😉 I don’t remember the brand names of the modems we used at Telenet in the late 80s. Oh, I remember, Racal Vadic, for the 1200baud, don’t remember the 2400 brand. Then we moved to V.29 and V.32 modems, don’t remember the brands on those either, lol. But the latter were card racks I believe (I never saw them, only manipulated them remotely.)
I can think of a long list of minutia to change in order to lower my footprint.
1. Recycle finger and toenail clippings.
2. Used toilet paper could be put back on the role backwards so you could use the other side.
3. Buy only anklets, not knee socks, and buttfloss undies instead of grannywear.
4. Wear miniskirts at all times, not knee length or maxi dresses.
5. When swatting flies, always try for two at a time.
6. Teach your dog to eat cat poop instead of putting it in the landfill (oh, wait, he already does).
7. Teach your cat to eat dog poop.
8. (note to self: do not allow cat or dog to lick your face)
9. When you talk, say only half of what you planned to say.
10. My boyfriend made me say that last one.
Pamela Gray says: {October 27, 2010 at 6:58 pm}
You have a wise boyfriend.
I didn’t even need to read this to tell you it is complete crap. Would make no difference how many emails you send or not send, the cost is still the same. A computer systems uses no more, no less, electricity whether it is sending emails or sitting idle.
This is complete garbage .. total hogwash .. presented by someone that knows not the first thing about technology.
Many people appear to (intentionally?) miss the forest for the tree when talking about CO2 reduction by energy saving.
When you cut electricity consumption by 10%, that may reduce CO2 emission by roughly 250 kg (by Japanese standard) at the utility IF AND ONLY IF the generator (boiler) senses load lowering by you. Electricity cut in 1000 homes of Tokyo (4.5 million homes in total) would never be sensed at the generator, and hence NO CO2 REDUCTION nationwide.
Even when many many homes cut electricity and the corresponding amount of CO2 is reduced at the generator, you still cannot count on CO2 reduction nationwide. By the above-mentioned energy cut you will save ca. 10,000 Yen (USD 120) per year. If you buy gasoline with this 10,000 Yen, that soon emits 250-kg CO2. Hence practically no change in CO2 emission. If you buy some article other than gasoline with the 10,000 Yen, a company produces that article by consuming energy at their factory, thus emitting roughly equivalent amount of CO2.
The upshot is that you can barely reduce nationwide CO2 emission by energy saving.
The best (and only) way to CO2 reduction is to burn the banknote equivalent to the energy saved. For instance, burning a 10,000-Yen banknote produces only 1.2 gram of CO2!
Addendum to my previous post:
When the utility does not sense your electiricity cut, the saved money induces CO2 emission in various ways, so here you see a net CO2 emission INCREASE by energy saving.
Also, deleting emails saves on the storage overhead.
Gary Mount says:
October 27, 2010 at 4:22 am
I use email about 2 times a year. At 1/100th a penny per email, would I mail in my penny to some central world email tax authority, then be good for perhaps the rest of my emailing life, the next 50 years? Seems to be a great make work project for bureaucrats.
They are one step ahead of you, the same system that is used for Melbourne Water will apply. Email service charge of $20.00 plus 1/00th cent per email (Minimum 250 emails) plus carbon disposal tax.
And if we breath through one nostril, we can cut co2 emissions in half.
What is the agw crowd smoking?