Google, sex and greenhouse gas emissions
本帖最後由 kulsumkhatun997 於 2024-3-9 12:04 編輯I was not planning to dedicate an article to the topic of climate change, about which a lot is written, because writing it contributes to climate change. But in view of the great attention that is being given to it and a couple of articles that have just been published, it seems irresistible to me. I apologize in advance for contributing to global warming. I will offset my emissions. The headline of one of them says that “If you use Google, Facebook, Messenger, iPhone or Blackberry you emit CO2.” The article was published in Día Siete magazine (I give you the address so you don't have to use Google: It is based on research results by Harvard physicist Alex Wissner-Gross published in January 2009. “Every two Google searches generate the same emissions as heating water for tea.” In another article the researcher clarifies that “a search” refers to the total process, until finding what one is looking for. Obviously, Google's central servers consume energy and, like all computing, consumption is intense. The same goes for the use of Facebook and Twitter, the iPhone and any electronic instrument that uses central servers. Something new? In a way, YES. It is possible that there were many people who thought that searching on Google only consumed the energy of their computer, that the Internet is powered by air.
This research highlights that programs that operate Phone Number List outside the computer resort to central servers where the computation is done, which also consume a lot of energy. This will become even more important with the advent of cloud computing, the use of software outside your computer, stored on other servers. However, the revelation and especially the alarmist headline (to excite us to read the article) seem to induce us to stop searching. In some cases, paranoia is reaching the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. It is true that we must make every effort to avoid them, but there are ways and means and there are some behaviors that are much more effective than others. I hope that the author does not intend for us to return to the time when you had to go to the library to look for information. I don't think they pretend that going to the library produces no emissions or that printing everything on paper is more environmentally friendly, or that sending everything by regular mail is more efficient. I suppose you don't think that calling by phone doesn't contribute to emissions either. Was it possible for the researcher to do the research and the author to write the article without using Google? I couldn't do it, I had to use Google to find the magazine and to write this article. The searches, which I am sure the researcher did, have contributed to the emissions but also to raising awareness about the issue.
https://asbdirectory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/qqq.jpg
They have not been useless searches. But being one of its main costs, I do not think that this “negative” publicity will encourage Google to reduce energy consumption, beyond the economic incentives it already faces, but perhaps it will encourage them to use a greater proportion of renewable energy. , which would be a success. And obviously we can use these communication services in a much more efficient way. According to a recent study (I don't know its reliability) by Pear Analytics, on the use of Twitter in the United States, more than 40% is "useless chatter", while only 8.7% contains any "valuable information" and 3.6 % contains news. And in the case of Google searches, we all know what the most popular searches are. In part there is a problem of incentives. These search services do not have a tangible cost to the user or with a direct relationship to their use. Imagine what changes you would make in your behavior if you had to pay the cost to society of climate warming as a result of emissions. But let's put it in perspective. Each kilometer of the average consumer car is equivalent to about 30 complete searches, although Google claims that this would be the equivalent of 1,000 searches (it is possible that Google is referring to each individual search, not the process of a search until what is found is found.
頁:
[1]