4 ms·
>The digital emissions from this story are an estimated 1.2g to 3.6g CO2 per page view. I want to know how many of those emissions are from superfluous javascr
by everdrive 6y ago
>The digital emissions from this story are an estimated 1.2g to 3.6g CO2 per page view.
I want to know how many of those emissions are from superfluous javascript, ads, and tracking.
- asdff 6y agoshould be easy to calculate if you measure the full site size vs plaintext content.
- fabiospampinato 6y agoSize isn't everything. How should 100kb of PNG compare with 100kb of JS? How about 100 bytes of JS that loop endlessly? What about 10kb of text that ultimately convince you to buy solar panels, or a boat, or anything else?
- lostlogin 6y ago> What about 10kb of text that ultimately convince you to buy solar panels, or a boat, or anything else? Gobbled up by the Pihole, generating more CO2.
- pilsetnieks 6y agoSome time back there was an article posted here about those calculations, and the majority of those emissions accounted not for the serving part but for running the reader's device while they read it. I hate the javascript deluge as much as the next guy but probably the most energy is spent in keeping the screen on.
- Someone 6y agoThat article is one click away from reading that text: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200131-why-and-how-does-future-planet-count-carbon https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200131-why-and-how-does....