3 ms·

Exactly which aspect is nonsense? I see this kind of kneejerk response too often. Yes digital streaming accounts for a tiny proportion of CO2 emissions, but if

Exactly which aspect is nonsense? I see this kind of kneejerk response too often. Yes digital streaming accounts for a tiny proportion of CO2 emissions, but if the report is correct and HD video streaming on a phone generates about eight times more in emissions than standard definition, then it is the kind of thing that service providers should be thinking about when developing services. These days ‘how can we minimise CO2 footprint’ should be standard step in service design. Information on where carbon costs are is useful

tjansen 6y ago
It all comes down to the CO2 footprint of energy production. Instead of finding 10000 things where you can shave off a few percent, without ever getting even close to 0, concentrate on getting energy sources that do not produce CO2.
CalRobert 6y ago
Indeed it should. We also need to get to a state where "minimising our CO2 footprint helps us stay in business" is a more likely statement than "minimising our CO2 footprint means our competitors destroy us and we all get fired". Incentives are _completely_ broken. Until we handle this at a government level we're effectively punishing people who are trying to do right by the planet.
ben_w 6y ago
8x $small_num is still very little. I prefer low definition for other reasons and will therefore do this anyway, but saving the environment (or improving any other metric) is function of cost and benefit — while switching to SD is low cost (in my case negative cost) it is also not beneficial enough to make a noticeable dent in annual emissions, given the more detailed estimates for energy cost in the following article: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-on-netflix https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-is-the-carbon-foo...
- johan_felisaz 6y ago
  I'm curious, what are your other reasons for SD ? Battery / data savings ?
  - ben_w 6y ago
    It used to be data allowance, now it is bandwidth — I watch at double speed and my WiFi doesn’t get good signal though all the walls.
baryphonic 6y ago
> if the report is correct and HD video streaming on a phone generates about eight times more in emissions than standard definition, then it is the kind of thing that service providers should be thinking about when developing services. Because if it contributes .01% to climate change (the number is made up since the article doesn't actually say), then you're making a relatively significant inconvenience to yourself for a benefit that is entirely dwarfed by someone taking an extra plane trip. Someone quoted in the article says as much. > Another co-author of the report, Prof Corinne Le Querre from the University of East Anglia, told BBC News: “To be honest, digital tech is a small fraction of your emissions compared with, say flying even once a year – but every bit of CO2 saving is significant. [emphasis added]" This is not a rational statement in the slightest. Most religious dogma is more sensible. There exist vast swathes of "savings" that are not significant (including, IMO, watching SD video). It is in fact counterproductive if it means that people sacrifice in a variety of ways to fulfill their mythic "every bit of savings is significant" duties while taking part in behaviors that contribute to climate change. (And this ignores the central dogma that all climate change is necessarily destructive and will have no benefits to humanity or Earth whatsoever.) My favorite nonsense recommendation in the article is to run all computing in the cloud - I guess the Google donation is paying off[1]. ARM is listed as another donor, so if Apple joins, expect buying M1 Macs to be yet another way to help the planet! Sarcasm aside, we could consider things like nuclear energy, traveling by train (it's quite affordable and enjoyable), "trillion tree initiatives," and a host of other programs that might actually make an impact assuming climate change seriously concerns you (it's only of mild concern to me). [1]https://royalsociety.org/about-us/funding-finances/support-us/our-donors/ https://royalsociety.org/about-us/funding-finances/support-u...
- daemoncoder 6y ago
  digital tech is a small fraction of your emissions - reminds one of David MacKay's book: Sustainable Energy – without the hot air. In particular as Professor MacKay puts it: "Obsessively switching off the phone charger is like bailing the Titanic with a teaspoon. Do switch it off, but please be aware how tiny a gesture it is." https://www.withouthotair.com/download.html https://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

tjansen 6y ago

It all comes down to the CO2 footprint of energy production. Instead of finding 10000 things where you can shave off a few percent, without ever getting even close to 0, concentrate on getting energy sources that do not produce CO2.

CalRobert 6y ago

Indeed it should. We also need to get to a state where "minimising our CO2 footprint helps us stay in business" is a more likely statement than "minimising our CO2 footprint means our competitors destroy us and we all get fired". Incentives are _completely_ broken. Until we handle this at a government level we're effectively punishing people who are trying to do right by the planet.

ben_w 6y ago

8x $small_num is still very little. I prefer low definition for other reasons and will therefore do this anyway, but saving the environment (or improving any other metric) is function of cost and benefit — while switching to SD is low cost (in my case negative cost) it is also not beneficial enough to make a noticeable dent in annual emissions, given the more detailed estimates for energy cost in the following article: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-on-netflix https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-is-the-carbon-foo...

johan_felisaz 6y ago
I'm curious, what are your other reasons for SD ? Battery / data savings ?
- ben_w 6y ago
  It used to be data allowance, now it is bandwidth — I watch at double speed and my WiFi doesn’t get good signal though all the walls.

baryphonic 6y ago

> if the report is correct and HD video streaming on a phone generates about eight times more in emissions than standard definition, then it is the kind of thing that service providers should be thinking about when developing services. Because if it contributes .01% to climate change (the number is made up since the article doesn't actually say), then you're making a relatively significant inconvenience to yourself for a benefit that is entirely dwarfed by someone taking an extra plane trip. Someone quoted in the article says as much. > Another co-author of the report, Prof Corinne Le Querre from the University of East Anglia, told BBC News: “To be honest, digital tech is a small fraction of your emissions compared with, say flying even once a year – but every bit of CO2 saving is significant. [emphasis added]" This is not a rational statement in the slightest. Most religious dogma is more sensible. There exist vast swathes of "savings" that are not significant (including, IMO, watching SD video). It is in fact counterproductive if it means that people sacrifice in a variety of ways to fulfill their mythic "every bit of savings is significant" duties while taking part in behaviors that contribute to climate change. (And this ignores the central dogma that all climate change is necessarily destructive and will have no benefits to humanity or Earth whatsoever.) My favorite nonsense recommendation in the article is to run all computing in the cloud - I guess the Google donation is paying off[1]. ARM is listed as another donor, so if Apple joins, expect buying M1 Macs to be yet another way to help the planet! Sarcasm aside, we could consider things like nuclear energy, traveling by train (it's quite affordable and enjoyable), "trillion tree initiatives," and a host of other programs that might actually make an impact assuming climate change seriously concerns you (it's only of mild concern to me). [1]https://royalsociety.org/about-us/funding-finances/support-us/our-donors/ https://royalsociety.org/about-us/funding-finances/support-u...

daemoncoder 6y ago
digital tech is a small fraction of your emissions - reminds one of David MacKay's book: Sustainable Energy – without the hot air. In particular as Professor MacKay puts it: "Obsessively switching off the phone charger is like bailing the Titanic with a teaspoon. Do switch it off, but please be aware how tiny a gesture it is." https://www.withouthotair.com/download.html https://www.withouthotair.com/download.html