3 ms·
Should we guess whether you've done any air travel in the past couple of years? (I have too, I'm a hypocrite as well.) I have no idea the source of your number
by asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
Should we guess whether you've done any air travel in the past couple of years? (I have too, I'm a hypocrite as well.)
I have no idea the source of your number. I see half a percent here[1]. That is also possibly inaccurate, because at least one major internet company offsets all their carbon emissions with things like farm animal feces digestors and methane recapture covers for mines. Even if it is three percent, it's not clear that a given amount of bandwidth is responsible for the same fraction of emissions. Also, perhaps the more people watch movies, the less they drive around and do fun things outside the house. So it may be that for each % you increase internet emissions you decrease other emissions by %*2. Who knows?
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/12/carbon-footprint-internet https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/12/carbon-f...
- donkeydouglas 7y agoThat's not really relevant, though. The point is not "Video produces significant emissions, therefore it is bad." The point is "Video produces significant emissions, therefore making it more efficient would be good." The fact that video is not as bad as something else has no bearing on whether video could be made even better. It's worth bringing up because in a decision between x% better image quality or x% lower emissions, the total amount of those emissions is the key piece of information.