CO2 output of using Google
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:11 am
Interesting article in Sunday Times. Harvard physicist calculated that Googling twice, results in the same amount of carbon emission as boiling a pot of water. Of course, Google responds "Googling allows you to obtain knowledge without going outside. Driving a car for 1km is the same as Googling 1000 times".
The interesting thing here isn't the climate change issue. No, it's a totally different issue. When we measure activities against an absolute scale, like carbon emissions then all of a sudden we think in terms of efficiency. So, let's say Google lets you figure things out without going outside. Let's say it takes you insane amount of carbon emission to reach the top of mt everest, the bottom of the ocean, drive across the sahara, meet a friend in france for a collaborative project, take a train up to Rovaniemi in Finland to meet Santa...
This is the classic, book vs actual experience question. Same thing, just that with carbon emissions thrown into the equation, there's a concrete number to measure efficiency against. I say this is totally crap. The best answer is, for you, the user to obtain the capacity to make the most use of the info you get. Whether it's google results, or burning down a forest, the value of info is CREATED, and not inherent in the info itself.
So, going back to the Google case, let's say Googling once created 1 unit of carbon emission, and driving a car resulted in 1000 units. If you had 1000 Googles, on the word "American Idol".... that unit is much better spent on something else. The inefficient use of Google, if accrued, will become an astronomical number. Same thing for real life too, I think. Many people travel overseas, do the tourist thing, touch nothing "real", and come back not having learned a single thing, except an extravagant story to tell their friends. The biggest inefficiency is comes from people who cannot produce anything of value from their experiences. Which unfortunately amounts to a large part of the human population.
The interesting thing here isn't the climate change issue. No, it's a totally different issue. When we measure activities against an absolute scale, like carbon emissions then all of a sudden we think in terms of efficiency. So, let's say Google lets you figure things out without going outside. Let's say it takes you insane amount of carbon emission to reach the top of mt everest, the bottom of the ocean, drive across the sahara, meet a friend in france for a collaborative project, take a train up to Rovaniemi in Finland to meet Santa...
This is the classic, book vs actual experience question. Same thing, just that with carbon emissions thrown into the equation, there's a concrete number to measure efficiency against. I say this is totally crap. The best answer is, for you, the user to obtain the capacity to make the most use of the info you get. Whether it's google results, or burning down a forest, the value of info is CREATED, and not inherent in the info itself.
So, going back to the Google case, let's say Googling once created 1 unit of carbon emission, and driving a car resulted in 1000 units. If you had 1000 Googles, on the word "American Idol".... that unit is much better spent on something else. The inefficient use of Google, if accrued, will become an astronomical number. Same thing for real life too, I think. Many people travel overseas, do the tourist thing, touch nothing "real", and come back not having learned a single thing, except an extravagant story to tell their friends. The biggest inefficiency is comes from people who cannot produce anything of value from their experiences. Which unfortunately amounts to a large part of the human population.
) with a carbon rating ffs.