3 ms·
That makes quite a lot of sense, but it also makes me frown a bit at the phrasing, which I feel is quite misleading. "The digital emissions from this story are
by danielbarla 6y ago
That makes quite a lot of sense, but it also makes me frown a bit at the phrasing, which I feel is quite misleading.
"The digital emissions from this story are an estimated 1.2g to 3.6g CO2 per page view."
Re-reading it, technically they are right, if "view" is taken in a non-technical fashion. But everyone reading that text would assume if they click refresh, the emissions are doubled.
Also, I do wonder if they take into account bounced users - I would not be surprised if most people only spent 5 or so seconds on the page before moving on.
- maffydub 6y agoSurely "view" should also include the human doing the viewing? :P According to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24068986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24068986, that's 1g every 90s, so 4g CO2 for 6 minutes reading time.
- proto-n 6y agoAlso why not add sustinance cost for the human looking at the device then? Food, water, heating/cooling, clothes, glasses, etc... Proportionally for 2 minutes of course.
- chriswarbo 6y agoThose costs would be the same if the article was read from a newspaper or magazine, so they can be factored out.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 0xffff2 6y agoMy desktop is on whether I'm reading the article or not so those costs can be factored out too.