FYI, I cannot find a source report for this. I would expect better from a UK accredited charity with "Royal" in it. Why no link to source? Or numbers? In an er

FYI, I cannot find a source report for this. I would expect better from a UK accredited charity with "Royal" in it. Why no link to source? Or numbers? In an era of "fake news", does traditional media not differentiate itself by providing those markers of quality? The last report I saw on this theme credited half an hours' netflix with 1.6 kg CO2 emissions, by "the Shift project". With a typical grid, that's 4 kWh in half an hour, or 8 KILOWATTS to sling video. By their own emission, they overestimated by a factor of 8 (https://theshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2020-06_Did-TSP-overestimate-the-carbon-footprint-of-online-video_EN.pdf https://theshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2020-...). Even after that they're still an outlier. About the only thing vaguely correct is that mobile data does appear much more intensive than landline. Knowing CO2e per GB would be useful (possibly CO2e per GB.km). Unfortunately, and inevitably, the space is filled with bad actors. The BBC should know better than to give them oxygen.