It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Greening the Internet: How much CO2 does this article produce?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Greening the Internet: How much CO2 does this article produce?


edition.cnn.com

"Some studies estimate the internet will be producing 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gases in a decade. That is clearly the wrong direction. That is clearly unsustainable," added St. Arnaud.

Wissner-Gross estimates every second someone spends browsing a simple web site generates roughly 20 milligrams of C02.

As millions more go online each year some researchers say the need to create a green Internet ecosystem is not only imperative but also urgent.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Is there anybody who does not believe this is a setup to add internet usage to the cap and tax movement? I think it drives TPTB nuts that they can't control all the information on the internet, and this is an excellent way to do it. curtail usage or you pay a tax.

the article says: "Anti-virus software firm McAfee reports that the electricity needed just to transmit the trillions of spam emails sent annually equals the amount required to power over two million homes in the United States while producing the same level of greenhouse gas emissions as more than three million cars." I must say I would be all too happy if they would tax the spammers or better yet, get rid of them, instead of going after people who choose their email and their browsing.

I believe this is a back-handed attack on the free interchange of information that the internet has made possible. Stop the madness that is taxing everything we do!

edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Until they measure the increase in electricity consumption from using my computer to type the reply to this post and how that information propagates throughout the Internet to all the remote locations which will view this post, I don't know.

What 'realistically' is the difference in electrical consumption between broadcasting a string of binary 0's versus broadcasting a string of the same length of binary 1's?



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I want to add, but didn't want to edit my post....

I pay for all the electricity my computers use. If there's any excessive electrical consumption it's caused by my ISP, the backbone, needlessly pinging DNS servers, and all the other networks my information has to travel through to get to the other person on the other end paying for their electrical consumption.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I'm not a genius on this kind of stuff, but from what I understand electricity consumption is constant and is only a determining a factor by how much the computer power supply uses.

If we could change the charge it takes to send information it would open the door to all kinds of nasty things. And from what I understand on how server farms are built the servers are designed to only use a certain amount of electricity. So they just add more servers when need be.

Now you take into account that technology is constantly advancing and with the advancements in computing power the amount servers needed to process the amount of information will only degrade and will eventually only be limited by the speed of the connection.

If I'm wrong about the above part please correct me.

Also 20% of the worlds CO2 is a little less than 20 times the amount of CO2 all human related activity currently emit. Then C02 only makes up 3% or so of the total greenhouse gases.

This article is more alarmist propaganda coming from the religion of AGW.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife

This article is more alarmist propaganda coming from the religion of AGW.


I so hope you're right! This article really freaked me out. Internet is the only way to choose sources of information. It would be very hard to go back to printed word only, especially since that's becoming ever less available.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I think the situation has already balanced itself nicely. All the time we're at computers our televisions aren't switched on. Myself I've spent approximately 0 hours a year for the last 9 years watching tv.

People have probably given up all kinds of carbon creating pasttimes in favour of sitting in front of computers. But that wont matter much. The neo hippies are an easy crowd to sell to. And this is just dollar signs for Obama and the rest of the elite intent on milking us dry.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
CO2 is a good thing. It helps plants grow and thus helps us to eat.

There is no anthropogenic global warming. It’s a scam that seeks more of your money and more power over you.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by resistor
 


of course it's a scam! it's a brilliant way to tax us for something new and unavoidable. and obama i believe just agreed to some new global tax. taxing is the easiest way to part you from your money without providing goods or services. and the carbon tax is very creative in that sense. why else would they have suppressed and ridiculed all the information questioning man-made global warming? because the whole thing is a scam to make a few people rich and the rest of us poorer. oding it to the internet is a new angle is all.

i am so sick of the lies and the scams. they don't even pretend to tell the truth any more. just look in the camera and lie.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join