5 ms·

Smoke, mirrors, reading of dead chicken entrails... You know, the usual PT Barnum stuff to impress the rubes. Interesting paragraph from their site: "CO2Stat

Smoke, mirrors, reading of dead chicken entrails... You know, the usual PT Barnum stuff to impress the rubes. Interesting paragraph from their site: "CO2Stats reserves the right to cap REC purchases in case of excessive use, as its own discretion." That is, you could pay them $100 a month and they may or may not purchase offsets to cover your 5 million page views.

alexwg 18y ago
Thanks for your comment! In fact, every time our customers' footprints have gone over their monthly cost, we've paid for the full corresponding number of RECs. That clause is there to protect against gross abuse. For example, if a site consistently receives 20M hits per month (a custom tier) and signs up for a 5M hit per month package, we reserve the right to manage only the first 5M.
- lliiffee 18y ago
  Ah, so the clause is specifically meant to exclude the case that a website buys RECs for less than they actually use? That's perfectly reasonable, but I have to admit when I read the bit above, I didn't interpret it that way. You might want to think about tweaking the language to make it harder for skeptics to dismiss you.
pg 18y ago
No measurement of this type is ever going to be perfect. Do you think, because of that, that it's not even worth trying?
- axod 18y ago
  I can see why CO2stats may be successful, phrases like "purchases renewable energy to neutralize it, so your visitors feel good about staying longer." are quite compelling for some people... Ah this website uses a ton of power. CO2 is evil. CO2Stats "neutralizes" it so that it's all fine. Wouldn't it be a better idea to help companies reduce their power usage, rather than "buying renewable energy" to offset it? Or encouraging them to install their own renewable energy sources. If I murder 2 people, and offset it by having 2 children, is that fine? :/ (As long as I display a button on my T-Shirt saying I'm "Person neutral")?. Given the wild inaccuracy of geo-ip lookups and the million other factors at play, I don't see any value in guessing at numbers here...
  - rrival 18y ago
    There's value in public steps taken to be green (engaging, marketing) and there's value in saving energy. There are externalities which can't be accounted for by the process of simply reducing consumption, and offsetting, by RECs or otherwise, should be considered something to do after conservation and reduction, but a valid last step.
- rrival 18y ago
  If anyone should try it's this guy - there are so many cowboys running amok in the space that someone with this sort of background is, for better or worse, going to pass the green "sniff test" and be above suspicion. At least to the extent that FUD allows.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  yes
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Down-modded again. hmmmmm Too terse? Or just a way of anonymously trashing a view you don't espouse? I know people get tired of comments about moderation. I get tired of the stupid moderation system. Maybe at some point the frustration on both sides will be addressed.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      There's no quicker way to get down-modded than to talk about getting down-modded. I can speculate that the reason you were down-modded was that you didn't explain why it's not worth trying?
      - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        Yes. I realize I stepped in it. I hope you are right. I was getting ready to make a long argument against attempting to measure things with so many unknowns, but then folks tell me I'm long-winded. So I figured I'd just give a simple answer and if anybody had a question I would be glad to explain myself. I was assuming that a reader would not use the down arrow as a way of disagreeing and would instead simply ask "Why?" Didn't work out that way, though.
        fallentimes 18y ago
        Obviously I can't speak for others, but I'd prefer the long winded response over the too short response. Or maybe try and find the happy medium.
- patrickg-zill 18y ago
  The reality is, that all proposed "climate change" models are mathematically suspect and thus there is no actual evidence that reducing CO2 from man-made sources would in fact modify global temperature. For instance, sunspot activity or the lack of it, has a far greater correlation to short term warming or cooling. For longer term warming or cooling, any true scientist should readily admit that the tools currently available have very limited utility, since the mathematical models cannot possibly take into account enough of the real behavior. For example, the Gulf Stream, which we know has a great deal of influence on East Coast weather, is one of the most studied, yet still is not understood very well; thus no mathematical model of its behavior can be said to be accurate. CO2stats is more about selling "liberal guilt credits" than anything else.
  - steveplace 18y ago
    Throwing rocks at a hornet's nest ;)
  - corentin 18y ago
    > there is no actual evidence that reducing CO2 from man-made sources would in fact modify global temperature. There is no evidence that such a modification in temperature would be a bad thing, either. Basically, it's just a stack of assumptions. I'm not saying it's necessarily false or anything, but I find it strange to see supposedly intelligent, rational-minded, etc. people (= "hackers") step into this one as easily. Let's question all those assumptions first, would you?
- fluidrazor 18y ago
  pg, let's ask a different question. Measurements aside, is what they are offering really reducing the carbon footprint of a website? I would argue no, it does not. And here's why: They are buying credits which make clean energy cheaper. The trickle down effect (not a reference to Reagan) means that others will be buying cheap energy, which is good, but it does not mean you will be buying cheap energy. So I don't see this as directly translating into reducing your carbon footprint. Moreover, who actually gets the reduction in their personal carbon footprint here: the person actually using the green energy or you, who helped pay for this energy by proxy. I would argue that it is to a much greater degree the person who actually bought this energy who gets most of the benefit. You would be much better off using your time to plant trees in proportion to the amount your site uses or finding a green hosting service than use CO2Stats. Even if CO2Stats is measuring this even remotely accurately (which they couldn't possibly be), their model of buying these renewable energy credits still translates into a very low reduction in your actual carbon footprint. Having said that... is their service worth whatever it costs? Most likely no, since for it to work you would have to pay a disproportionate amount to get an amount that would indeed offset your footprint. Is CO2Stats capitalizing off people's supererogatory desire to do good by nature, regardless of whether there are no benefits? You bet.
  - dcurtis 18y ago
    You can't argue that they aren't doing good for the environment. At least they're making a small impact, even if it's not a total "offset" of the internet experience. In fact, they don't even claim to offset it; they claim to "neutralize" it with clean energy in proportionate amounts.
    - ivankirigin 18y ago
      Actually increasing the supply of alternative energy could easily increase the demand for energy as energy prices decrease. There could be net greater CO2 output. CO2 offsets are bullshit. A more reasonable solution is to fund research into alternatives that are economically viable without subsidies. Tracking energy used, as CO2Stats does, is still an important part of the solution. But buying offsets doesn't necessarily mean you're doing good. On multiple levels, they are like buying an indulgence.
- biohacker42 18y ago
  It is worth trying if you're trying your smartest. If you're simply abdicating the responsibility of doing the hard thinking to someone else, then you're not trying, just flaunting a green badge. This type of measurement ought to be perfect. 1. Computers can report how much power they are using. Laptops directly, for servers you might have to do something fancy like keep track of uptime and check your power supply's wattage. I think the latest Laptop CPUs can reduce power consumption when not fully loaded, not sure. But I don't think server chips are that complicated... yet. 2. Call your power company and ask them how much of the power they provide is hydro, coal, wind, solar, nuclear, etc. 3. Do some math. That should give you exactly how much CO2 you're using. The next question is, does funding green energy sources make sense? It might not. It might be worse then doing nothing. Here's how: High tech has a much lower CO2/output ratio then almost any other industry. So it would be much easier for high tech to pay a green penalty, especially if it comes with bragging rights. However, the other 90% of CO2 producers, will only switch if it is profitable. And here's the crux, by funding unprofitable green sources, you could be hurting the development of ones which are truly economical. OPEC is cutting production with oil over $100 a barrel, for sweet zombie jesus' sake! Alternative energy ought to be competitive without help. If you're still worried about your CO2 emissions, pay someone to plant a tree, that won't compete with green tech. Or buy more stuff from an organic farmer, because organically worked soil is a huge CO2 sponge. Or spend some money on lobbying politicians. Or at least don't give money to someone who: " reserves the right to cap REC purchases in case of excessive use, as its own discretion."

alexwg 18y ago

Thanks for your comment! In fact, every time our customers' footprints have gone over their monthly cost, we've paid for the full corresponding number of RECs. That clause is there to protect against gross abuse. For example, if a site consistently receives 20M hits per month (a custom tier) and signs up for a 5M hit per month package, we reserve the right to manage only the first 5M.

lliiffee 18y ago
Ah, so the clause is specifically meant to exclude the case that a website buys RECs for less than they actually use? That's perfectly reasonable, but I have to admit when I read the bit above, I didn't interpret it that way. You might want to think about tweaking the language to make it harder for skeptics to dismiss you.

pg 18y ago

No measurement of this type is ever going to be perfect. Do you think, because of that, that it's not even worth trying?

axod 18y ago
I can see why CO2stats may be successful, phrases like "purchases renewable energy to neutralize it, so your visitors feel good about staying longer." are quite compelling for some people... Ah this website uses a ton of power. CO2 is evil. CO2Stats "neutralizes" it so that it's all fine. Wouldn't it be a better idea to help companies reduce their power usage, rather than "buying renewable energy" to offset it? Or encouraging them to install their own renewable energy sources. If I murder 2 people, and offset it by having 2 children, is that fine? :/ (As long as I display a button on my T-Shirt saying I'm "Person neutral")?. Given the wild inaccuracy of geo-ip lookups and the million other factors at play, I don't see any value in guessing at numbers here...
- rrival 18y ago
  There's value in public steps taken to be green (engaging, marketing) and there's value in saving energy. There are externalities which can't be accounted for by the process of simply reducing consumption, and offsetting, by RECs or otherwise, should be considered something to do after conservation and reduction, but a valid last step.
rrival 18y ago
If anyone should try it's this guy - there are so many cowboys running amok in the space that someone with this sort of background is, for better or worse, going to pass the green "sniff test" and be above suspicion. At least to the extent that FUD allows.
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
yes
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Down-modded again. hmmmmm Too terse? Or just a way of anonymously trashing a view you don't espouse? I know people get tired of comments about moderation. I get tired of the stupid moderation system. Maybe at some point the frustration on both sides will be addressed.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    There's no quicker way to get down-modded than to talk about getting down-modded. I can speculate that the reason you were down-modded was that you didn't explain why it's not worth trying?
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      Yes. I realize I stepped in it. I hope you are right. I was getting ready to make a long argument against attempting to measure things with so many unknowns, but then folks tell me I'm long-winded. So I figured I'd just give a simple answer and if anybody had a question I would be glad to explain myself. I was assuming that a reader would not use the down arrow as a way of disagreeing and would instead simply ask "Why?" Didn't work out that way, though.
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        Obviously I can't speak for others, but I'd prefer the long winded response over the too short response. Or maybe try and find the happy medium.
patrickg-zill 18y ago
The reality is, that all proposed "climate change" models are mathematically suspect and thus there is no actual evidence that reducing CO2 from man-made sources would in fact modify global temperature. For instance, sunspot activity or the lack of it, has a far greater correlation to short term warming or cooling. For longer term warming or cooling, any true scientist should readily admit that the tools currently available have very limited utility, since the mathematical models cannot possibly take into account enough of the real behavior. For example, the Gulf Stream, which we know has a great deal of influence on East Coast weather, is one of the most studied, yet still is not understood very well; thus no mathematical model of its behavior can be said to be accurate. CO2stats is more about selling "liberal guilt credits" than anything else.
- steveplace 18y ago
  Throwing rocks at a hornet's nest ;)
- corentin 18y ago
  > there is no actual evidence that reducing CO2 from man-made sources would in fact modify global temperature. There is no evidence that such a modification in temperature would be a bad thing, either. Basically, it's just a stack of assumptions. I'm not saying it's necessarily false or anything, but I find it strange to see supposedly intelligent, rational-minded, etc. people (= "hackers") step into this one as easily. Let's question all those assumptions first, would you?
fluidrazor 18y ago
pg, let's ask a different question. Measurements aside, is what they are offering really reducing the carbon footprint of a website? I would argue no, it does not. And here's why: They are buying credits which make clean energy cheaper. The trickle down effect (not a reference to Reagan) means that others will be buying cheap energy, which is good, but it does not mean you will be buying cheap energy. So I don't see this as directly translating into reducing your carbon footprint. Moreover, who actually gets the reduction in their personal carbon footprint here: the person actually using the green energy or you, who helped pay for this energy by proxy. I would argue that it is to a much greater degree the person who actually bought this energy who gets most of the benefit. You would be much better off using your time to plant trees in proportion to the amount your site uses or finding a green hosting service than use CO2Stats. Even if CO2Stats is measuring this even remotely accurately (which they couldn't possibly be), their model of buying these renewable energy credits still translates into a very low reduction in your actual carbon footprint. Having said that... is their service worth whatever it costs? Most likely no, since for it to work you would have to pay a disproportionate amount to get an amount that would indeed offset your footprint. Is CO2Stats capitalizing off people's supererogatory desire to do good by nature, regardless of whether there are no benefits? You bet.
- dcurtis 18y ago
  You can't argue that they aren't doing good for the environment. At least they're making a small impact, even if it's not a total "offset" of the internet experience. In fact, they don't even claim to offset it; they claim to "neutralize" it with clean energy in proportionate amounts.
  - ivankirigin 18y ago
    Actually increasing the supply of alternative energy could easily increase the demand for energy as energy prices decrease. There could be net greater CO2 output. CO2 offsets are bullshit. A more reasonable solution is to fund research into alternatives that are economically viable without subsidies. Tracking energy used, as CO2Stats does, is still an important part of the solution. But buying offsets doesn't necessarily mean you're doing good. On multiple levels, they are like buying an indulgence.
biohacker42 18y ago
It is worth trying if you're trying your smartest. If you're simply abdicating the responsibility of doing the hard thinking to someone else, then you're not trying, just flaunting a green badge. This type of measurement ought to be perfect. 1. Computers can report how much power they are using. Laptops directly, for servers you might have to do something fancy like keep track of uptime and check your power supply's wattage. I think the latest Laptop CPUs can reduce power consumption when not fully loaded, not sure. But I don't think server chips are that complicated... yet. 2. Call your power company and ask them how much of the power they provide is hydro, coal, wind, solar, nuclear, etc. 3. Do some math. That should give you exactly how much CO2 you're using. The next question is, does funding green energy sources make sense? It might not. It might be worse then doing nothing. Here's how: High tech has a much lower CO2/output ratio then almost any other industry. So it would be much easier for high tech to pay a green penalty, especially if it comes with bragging rights. However, the other 90% of CO2 producers, will only switch if it is profitable. And here's the crux, by funding unprofitable green sources, you could be hurting the development of ones which are truly economical. OPEC is cutting production with oil over $100 a barrel, for sweet zombie jesus' sake! Alternative energy ought to be competitive without help. If you're still worried about your CO2 emissions, pay someone to plant a tree, that won't compete with green tech. Or buy more stuff from an organic farmer, because organically worked soil is a huge CO2 sponge. Or spend some money on lobbying politicians. Or at least don't give money to someone who: " reserves the right to cap REC purchases in case of excessive use, as its own discretion."