Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research.
While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. “Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power,” said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon. “A Google search has a definite environmental impact.”
Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its data centres. However, with more than 200m internet searches estimated globally daily, the electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions caused by computers and the internet is provoking concern.
Revealed: the environmental impact of Google searches – Times Online — Even taking a crap creates global warming. Take less!
1
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
We need a Google Tax and we need to force Google to buy carbon credits! They make enough money on our searches so they can afford it.
John, if only you’d buy a crap recycler that outputs food, you’d finally be carbon-neutral!
Now that’s pushing it too far. It sure saves a lot of energy and CO2 non the less, just think of the carbon footprint of the alternative ways of getting the same information.
I would only look at it if they actually compared it to 5000 dusty librarians searching in 5000 libraries for a list of books and fed-exing them to you for each search, which is effectively what google/yahoo searches replace.
Otherwise they can kiss my google/yahoo searching bottom.
Al Gore, go to bed.
OK! I did 1 search it found me this post. I learnt from this post and now stopped boiling in a kettle and drink my tea cold. Now do I have carbon credits?? Am I neutral yet??
January 8, 2009 – U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, today delivered a global warming speech entitled: “Global Warming ‘Consensus’ in Freefall: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” Inhofe presented his ground breaking new global warming report detailing the More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims to Congress on the Senate Floor. Inhofe also detailed the growing number of left of center scientists and environmental activists who are speaking out to reject man-made climate fears.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=b84196ff-802a-23ad-4827-17b10ab7dfcc
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_execsum.asp
ok, but those servers work 24/7 and use a almost constant amount of power.
We should force people to Bookmark or a pay tax.
Oh Pleeeease! let’s just stop living already.
I had a guy approach my car in a large outdoor lot the other day, about 30 seconds after I turned it on. My wife had a sudden change of plans so i was listening to directions. It was also -12 C. He complained that he was forced to smell my exhaust and that I should have turned off my car if i wasn’t going to drive it away within 10 seconds of turning it on. I pointed out that he was driving an SUV. His response was that he didn’t have a choice. What an ass.
Gore and his ilk have caused a great deal of unnecessary angst. The problem isn’t climate change or global warming. It’s pollution in general, and the costly oil-based infrastructure the entire world runs on. It’s not going to change overnight, or even in 10 years. I suggest that if the world was in such dire danger, 3 trillion $ should have been spent installing windmills and such, instead of bailing out the banks. Obviously the powers that be… that represent you… are liars or hypocrites.
That’s why post #8 is plausible.
Someone has far too much time on their hands to even think of this crap. Get a life. There are far better ways to help the cause.
#12 – If someone said that to me, I’d burst out laughing at the fool. Maybe even rev the engine a bit.
So how much would it cost in carbon to drive to the library to look up the info?
#4 is right. If you can search from home using Google or another search engine, you’ve saved a trip to the library, which probably would burn more fuel than a search engine would. Of course if you really need to read a specific book, you might need to head for the library anyway and stop worrying about the carbon footprint.
Google’s servers run whether you’re using Google (GMail, Picassa, Google Groups, etc.) or not. If you can figure out a way to reduce power consumption from their server farms, you should let Google know, and you just might profit from your idea. Otherwise, kwitcherbitchin’.
You guys are missing the deeper issue. If you’re trying to ‘find out about stuff’ you must be anti-earth. Therefore, the terrorists win.
Ignorance is green bliss…
Install Track Me Not and set the query frequency to 10 per minute…
I can see how a person could find great joy in this kind of research but me I would rather jack off.
How does hydroelectric and nuclear power create CO^2?
RBG
Want to see power consumption and CO2 production? Powering cell towers & cooling them…
Any global warming nut who uses a cell phone is a hypocrite.
#20 Paddy-O
Good one! 🙂 What are the figure for CO2 on that?
What was the carbon footprint of the research of the carbon footprint of google searches? And the carbon footprint of publishing his/her research?
Given how much Google is supporting groups pushing a anti-global-warming agenda, I think it’s only fair we place a tax on all Google searches, and at the very least make them reveal their carbon footprint.
PaddyO, you don’t really expect global warming guys to put down their iPhones?
I still say they should restrict flat screen monitors, and I see that California is starting to do that. No one needs more than a 14 inch monitor. If you want brightness, go outside.
And frankly, if Al Gore is going to keep talking, they should march into his office and take away those screens. Every time he speaks, people should just ask what is the carbon footprint of having 3 30 inch monitors plus a flat screen TV, all running at once?
http://tinyurl.com/3yxxk4
As usual, the wing nut crowd has fallen for another outlandish headline and gotten their lacy undies caught in a bunch.
There is no research done on what energy it takes to do a Google search because Google has not released any numbers. The researcher doesn’t even know how many data centers Google has nor the size of the server banks. And it goes without saying that the researcher doesn’t know the efficiency of those data banks.
So obviously any numbers published are made up. Just the type of numbers the wing nut crowd likes, imaginary numbers instead of anything factual.
The TIMESONLINE is not an objective site. It is another one of Rupert Murdock (FOX SPEWS, the NEW YORK POST, and sundry other biased rags.) and has little claim to being a news source.
When I see it can take 1g to 10g to do an internet search, depending on if you have to start your computer is utter bullshit. Starting a computer is cycle intensive and involves a lot of HD use. Searching a web site takes very little energy and certainly less than would be available to create 1g of CO2
If having an avatar requires 1700 KWH of energy, there is something wrong. That is more than I use in a month to power my whole house. That is more than it takes to power a refrigerator (1239 KWH), an electric clothes dryer, (1,079 KWH), and almost as much as an electric water heater (2,500 KWH)for the same length of time.
When will you guys start reading and questioning before jumping into believing the headline?
I’ve been aware of this for some time. At the end of the day, a personal PC is just like a 300-watt waffle iron plugged into the wall. All those millions of transistors, myriad capacitors and such are essentially one big resistor. Except it doesn’t make waffles.
Did they account for the CO2 that went into manufacturing of the kettle? Did they account for the fuel used to ship the kettle to my house? Did they account for the fuel that went into the manufacturing and shipping of the cup? What about the cost to build the pumps and plants to get the water to my house? Did they account for the CO2 to build the stove and ship the gas to my house? I haven’t started on what went into the process to get the tea into my cup.
A birth carbon tax? How much CO2 is produced by HUMANS?
20 Billion * (amount of CO2 per lifetime)
The mere fact that you can read this means
1. You are still alive.
2. Your computer is sucking the life out of the planet!
3. You haven’t paid your ‘birth CO2 tax’ or purchased your carbon credits from AL!
right?
STOP BREATHING MY AIR!!!
Anyone want to do the Numbers to CO2 on the server farms google and OTHER companies have??
You need to figure that between the HD/CPU/Video, your average Personal computer is like 1-2 100watt bulbs, RUNNING ALL DAY 24/7..
And the average computers in the USA SHOULD BE, counting business/schools/server farms/Home… is PROBABLY about 3-6 to EACH person IN the USA.
estimate a population of 300million times 3, works out to be 900million computers out there, at 100watts each?
At least the Google data center in The Dalles is most likely pretty green because almost all of the power in that area is hydroelectric.
And don’t whine about the fish ladder crap. That is a seperate issue.
#30, ECA,
Not quite. Your computer will use anywhere from 25 to 60 watts just sitting there. Surfing the ‘net is fairly lame for the computer and it uses very little energy to do it. Doing cycle heavy crap, such as burning a movie or rendering video does use more energy. A lot more.
Depending upon your monitor type and size, you could be using a little more but even the monitor will use a constant rate of energy.
Your HDs and optical drives don’t use energy unless they are spinning. Surfing uses almost all RAM and does very little writing.
Put your computer into sleep or hibernate, it will use maybe 5 watts and the monitor about the same.
#29, Pedro the *A*hole,
When are you going to post something of substance?