Internet search giant emits 500 kg of CO2 emissions per second.
Every Google search comes at a cost to the planet. In processing 3.5 billion searches a day, the world’s most popular website accounts for about 40% of the internet’s carbon footprint.
Despite the notion that the internet is a “cloud,” it actually relies on millions of physical servers in data centers around the world, which are connected with miles of undersea cables, switches, and routers, all requiring a lot of energy to run. Much of that energy comes from power sources that emit carbon dioxide into the air as they burn fossil fuels; one study from 2015 suggests internet activity results in as much CO2 emissions as the global aviation industry.
“Data is very polluting,” says Joana Moll, an artist-researcher whose work investigates the physicality of the internet. In 2015, to illustrate the environmental consequence of Google searches, Moll created a data visualization called CO2GLE:

(Click here to launch “CO2GLE” and see a real-time counter.)
“Almost nobody recalls that the internet is made up of interconnected physical infrastructures which consume natural resources,” Moll writesas an introduction to the project. “How can such an evident fact become so blurred in the social imagination?”
CO2GLE uses 2015 internet traffic data, Moll says, and is based on the assumption that Google.com “processes an approximate average of 47,000 requests every second, which represents an estimated amount of 500 kg of CO2 emissions per second.” That would be about 0.01 kg per request. She says these numbers are approximations, though when Quartz shared CO2GLE with Google, the company didn’t contest the math. In fact, in a 2009 estimate, Google said each query causes 0.2 grams of CO2 emissions.
Read more at Quartz
Here’s an inside view of Google datacenters:
This makes me wonder about other services, such as the darling of liberals everywhere, Apple’s iTunes service. This is what their new datacenter in Iowa is to look like.
In their August 2017 press release for the datacenter, Apple claims this:
Des Moines, Iowa — Apple today announced plans to build a 400,000-square-foot, state-of-the-art data center in Waukee, Iowa, to better serve North American users of iMessage, Siri, the App Store and other Apple services. Like all Apple data centers, the new facility will run entirely on renewable energy from day one.
Facility Outside Des Moines Will Run on 100 Percent Renewable Energy
That will be some trick at night. Of course in the press release they don’t explain how they will achieve 24/7/365 100% renewable energy, they only say this:
Apple will be working with local partners to invest in renewable energy projects from wind and other sources to power the data center. Apple has pledged to power all of its global operations with 100 percent renewable energy, and has already reached that goal in the US and 23 other countries.
A noble goal, but I think at night when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow, they’ll be liars. We’ve already called them out on this: Apple caught fibbing about running on 100% renewable energy
The tell will be if the new facility is hooked up to the grid or not. I’m pretty sure it will be.
Perhaps Apple will eventually go the way of Google as they realize their goal is impossible: Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’
Meanwhile, the claim of 100% renewable powered Apple will help those snowflakes and SJW’s feel good about listened to iTunes while penning their latest screed about how fossil fuels are bad, and isn’t that really what counts? Making people feel smart and good about using your product is the oldest marketing trick in the book.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

So California could sue Google. Greeeaat!
Q: “How can such an evident fact become so blurred in the social imagination?”
– Joana Moll
A: “Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see”
– The Beatles (Strawberry Fields Forever)
If they want to do something that will actually benefit the environment, they will turn that nice monoculture grass lawn into a meadow of native grasses and wildflowers. The local wildlife would be thankful.
I wonder how many of these companies realize that their costumers may not WANT them to use “100%” renewable power. I realize that most data is being stored on multiple servers in multiple countries, but tangible things are still vulnerable. Companies that store frozen embryos and gametes for people – think anyone wants those facilities to be powered by unreliable energy sources? (Okay, besides Malthusians.) Do people want food warehouses to power their industrial freezers and refrigerators with erratic renewables? All these fancy tech devices usually say not to store them in high or low temperatures. What happens when the wind turbines and solar panels do not produce enough energy to support the warehouse HVAC system?
Very few companies could afford to actually run their companies on 100% renewables. Most equipment and products are best used and stored at moderate, steady temperatures. Good luck doing that without fossil fuel backups.
Cell towers use a lot of power too.
Yes, but the farmers who rent space to cell phone companies get paid for it, so they win!
If we accept the consensus that CO2 is a deadly pollutant, then Apple, Google and the rest must be shut down immediately to save the planet. I am sure all watermelon fellow travelers will agree. 500kg per second from just one company, the total emissions from all these Liberal orientated high emission companies must be enormous.
On the other hand, if the non consensus, PC incorrect science that CO2 is a plant fertilizer, is essential for human life, and has no significant effect on global temperatures, is accepted then Apple, Google, and the rest better start sticking up for themselves, or face being exterminated unnecessarily.
A more relevant measure is
MACF = µ(methane assprint)/(carbon footprint)
where µ = propensity to man-spread
I’m doing my part by NOT using Google/Alphabet for my online searches (or most anything else for that matter).
PS
I’m betting that the 10g-CO2/search number is correct. 0.2 g for the initial search, and 9.8g for all of the subsequent spybots and trackers that Google sends out in order to invade your privacy!