4 ms·

The “saving X bytes saves Y emitted carbon” trope is a pet peeve of mine. Nobody knows how much carbon a request’s full internet transmission path, storage, an

The “saving X bytes saves Y emitted carbon” trope is a pet peeve of mine. Nobody knows how much carbon a request’s full internet transmission path, storage, and possible 24/7 availability of a server consume. Stacks are too different, equipment widely varies, international internet traffic likely consumes more. I’m typing this using wind energy that I pay extra for. But who knows what my ISP’s equipment and onward are using. If you carbon-optimize your content so much that I have to make multiple requests or paste it into ChatGPT to understand it, you did not reduce your footprint. There’s no direct byte to carbon conversion.

croemer 3y ago
Saying you use wind energy you pay extra for is a pet peeve of mine :) You're not really using wind energy. The electrons don't know who is pushing them. You just increase the share of non-wind that others get, but as long as there are fewer wind subscribers than there is wind energy it doesn't change thing. Premium goes entirely to your energy provider, their profits and marketing department. Happy to be proved wrong in your case if you have a link to your plan.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  This is an oversimplification. I assume you're both talking about REGOs. Electrons are fungible so you're sort of right in that you aren't using the exact electrons that come from a wind turbine. But you're wrong that the extra money just goes straight to profits and has zero effect on green energy generation. Imagine two scenarios: 1. Everyone believes your comment so nobody pays extra for green energy. Therefore the market value of RIGOs is 0. This means green energy generators get paid exactly the same market price per kWh as brown (?) generators. 2. Some people (not necessarily everyone) pay for 100% green energy. This increases the market value of RIGOs so now green suppliers get paid a bit more. Green energy is now worth more than brown energy, which changes the supply/demand curve so you get more green energy overall. The RIGO market is a very elegant market solution to selling the "greenness" of green energy. The fact that it isn't a dumb 1:1 connection that people naively expect doesn't mean it is a scam.

croemer 3y ago

Saying you use wind energy you pay extra for is a pet peeve of mine :) You're not really using wind energy. The electrons don't know who is pushing them. You just increase the share of non-wind that others get, but as long as there are fewer wind subscribers than there is wind energy it doesn't change thing. Premium goes entirely to your energy provider, their profits and marketing department. Happy to be proved wrong in your case if you have a link to your plan.

IshKebab 3y ago
This is an oversimplification. I assume you're both talking about REGOs. Electrons are fungible so you're sort of right in that you aren't using the exact electrons that come from a wind turbine. But you're wrong that the extra money just goes straight to profits and has zero effect on green energy generation. Imagine two scenarios: 1. Everyone believes your comment so nobody pays extra for green energy. Therefore the market value of RIGOs is 0. This means green energy generators get paid exactly the same market price per kWh as brown (?) generators. 2. Some people (not necessarily everyone) pay for 100% green energy. This increases the market value of RIGOs so now green suppliers get paid a bit more. Green energy is now worth more than brown energy, which changes the supply/demand curve so you get more green energy overall. The RIGO market is a very elegant market solution to selling the "greenness" of green energy. The fact that it isn't a dumb 1:1 connection that people naively expect doesn't mean it is a scam.