> The inefficiencies are in the chair, the users chair. If that is the case, then optimize for the user so they aren't running their car to charge their phone

> The inefficiencies are in the chair, the users chair. If that is the case, then optimize for the user so they aren't running their car to charge their phone as often (or other such craziness). My biggest problem with the article is the failure to quantify the energy use of these optimizations. Sure, it is difficult to do since there are so many variables and most of those variables are difficult to generalize. On the other hand, it should be possible to come up with relative measures to facilitate the optimization process. For example: when is it better to do something on the server vs. on the client? When will the decision even matter? Of course, the suggestions offered by the article are also varied in quality. Some clearly offer better energy efficiency for both parties, such as not adding elements that you do not need. Others may indirectly benefit both parties: doing more server side processing on a popular website is going to benefit the consumer, but it also forces the provider to consider the cost of added overhead. Some simply have questionable merit, such as optimizing the size of resources that are infrequently used. Others are of dubious merit, such as the tendency of SEO to be used to find the provider's content rather than what the consumer needs. It is a much more complex issue than can be addressed from a few quick tips.