3 ms·

The internet doesn't intrinsically consume fossil fuels and never has. It consumes electricity. We need to focus our attention on the electricity production s

The internet doesn't intrinsically consume fossil fuels and never has. It consumes electricity. We need to focus our attention on the electricity production sector. Tax fossil fuel burning to internalize the social cost it puts on all of us, and let the free market eradicate the burning because it can't compete against cleaner sources. Consumers like datacenters will always end up clustering around the cheapest electricity source that's close enough to population centers for latency requirements. As someone who believes climate change is a very real, existential threat to civilization, it's incredibly frustrating to see articles like this that misdirect our attention at consumers, when the only real solution will come by focusing on producers. It's a waste of time, attention, and political capital that we can't afford.

lucasyvas 4y ago
I completely agree that is where the real issue is. Although, the Software industry has had a free lunch with Moore's Law for decades and now the bill has come due - we write a lot of (almost irresponsibly) inefficient software that certainly doesn't help the situation. We should really fix it all, but I agree the major onus should not be on the consumer, since it merely follows the producer. The producer has to set the tone.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Look, it is not hard to determine where major data centers get their electricity. Yes there are greater policy concerns, and really the economics of solar and wind make this a foregone conclusion in the long run. "The internet doesn't intrinsically consume fossil fuels and never has." - This is almost an offensive statement in whitewashing/passing the buck. Does the trucking industry say "we just transport trailers, the issue of whether the tractors burn diesel is a different issue". COME ON. Like trucking, where specific engineering needs to be applied to produce BEV or emission free transportation for their use cases, specific engineering and policy will be needed for the major industrial segment of power consumption: the internet. Major datacenters site location and design are explicitly built around hydroelectric and other sources since power is such a large cost component. There are bitcoin mining centers in outer mongolia and other places that can be directly pointed to why they are sited: ultracheap coal and no environmental controls. Related to this notion in the article is the big steaming (literally) issue of bitcoin network power. Anwyay, AWS could absolutely be branded on the basis of zero-carbon-emission power. So could GCE and a lot of other major websites. The fact that is can be a very widespread and branded movement like gay rights and other things that corporations rapidly adopt and fight at the state, federal, and local level for is a tantalizing opportunity. Especially since fundamentally it drives down costs in the long run. AWS and the like represent a centralization of major internet service, for better or worse, and therefore at a minimum they should be pressured / incented to build that basis on alternative or non-carbon-emitting power. The choice of IAAS or PAAS should have a marketing component of zero emission or not. We're talking a substantive slice of overall power generation being dedicated to this. So this conclusion is utterly wrong IMO: "It's a waste of time, attention, and political capital that we can't afford"
- corncob15 4y ago
  AWS claims to be on track to power 100% of their datacenters with renewables by 2025[1]. GCP is carbon neutral right now (probably with renewable power credits or carbon credits) and is on track for similarly 100% renewable by 2030[2]. Microsoft, including Azure, plans 100% renewable energy by 2025[3]. 1: https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/environment/the-cloud https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/environment/the-cloud 2: https://cloud.google.com/sustainability https://cloud.google.com/sustainability 3: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/explore/global-infrastructure/sustainability/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/explore/global-infrastruct...

lucasyvas 4y ago

I completely agree that is where the real issue is. Although, the Software industry has had a free lunch with Moore's Law for decades and now the bill has come due - we write a lot of (almost irresponsibly) inefficient software that certainly doesn't help the situation. We should really fix it all, but I agree the major onus should not be on the consumer, since it merely follows the producer. The producer has to set the tone.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

Look, it is not hard to determine where major data centers get their electricity. Yes there are greater policy concerns, and really the economics of solar and wind make this a foregone conclusion in the long run. "The internet doesn't intrinsically consume fossil fuels and never has." - This is almost an offensive statement in whitewashing/passing the buck. Does the trucking industry say "we just transport trailers, the issue of whether the tractors burn diesel is a different issue". COME ON. Like trucking, where specific engineering needs to be applied to produce BEV or emission free transportation for their use cases, specific engineering and policy will be needed for the major industrial segment of power consumption: the internet. Major datacenters site location and design are explicitly built around hydroelectric and other sources since power is such a large cost component. There are bitcoin mining centers in outer mongolia and other places that can be directly pointed to why they are sited: ultracheap coal and no environmental controls. Related to this notion in the article is the big steaming (literally) issue of bitcoin network power. Anwyay, AWS could absolutely be branded on the basis of zero-carbon-emission power. So could GCE and a lot of other major websites. The fact that is can be a very widespread and branded movement like gay rights and other things that corporations rapidly adopt and fight at the state, federal, and local level for is a tantalizing opportunity. Especially since fundamentally it drives down costs in the long run. AWS and the like represent a centralization of major internet service, for better or worse, and therefore at a minimum they should be pressured / incented to build that basis on alternative or non-carbon-emitting power. The choice of IAAS or PAAS should have a marketing component of zero emission or not. We're talking a substantive slice of overall power generation being dedicated to this. So this conclusion is utterly wrong IMO: "It's a waste of time, attention, and political capital that we can't afford"

corncob15 4y ago
AWS claims to be on track to power 100% of their datacenters with renewables by 2025[1]. GCP is carbon neutral right now (probably with renewable power credits or carbon credits) and is on track for similarly 100% renewable by 2030[2]. Microsoft, including Azure, plans 100% renewable energy by 2025[3]. 1: https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/environment/the-cloud https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/environment/the-cloud 2: https://cloud.google.com/sustainability https://cloud.google.com/sustainability 3: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/explore/global-infrastructure/sustainability/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/explore/global-infrastruct...