Save Energy, Skip the Google Search

Balderdash!!!

Here is the Sunday Times clarification

"A report about online energy consumption (Google and you'll damage the planet, Jan 11) said that "performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle" or about 7g of CO2 per search. We are happy to make clear that this does not refer to a one-hit Google search taking less than a second, which Google says produces about 0.2g of CO2, a figure we accept.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/16/carbon-sunday-times-google-clarification

So yes a few minutes of searching around and trying different search terms may end up costing that much energy, but a single Google inquiry does not...

Thank yew for the clarification! Back to my inquiries...

Balderdash is correct. Consider all the computers and servers that are connected to the web. The servers are on 24/7, and the various PCs are on at least eight hours a day. The added marginal energy of searching that web is the very definition of the term "marginal."

Not to mention that the entire man-made global warming scam has been demonstrated to be just that.

emc_c

Ok, possible but how many kettles would we boil trying to find the same info googled, by using other means?

Hmmm. Does greener means less CO2? Well, plants "love" CO2 very much. Maybe we should keep our forests, and plant some more.

Or try a pedal powered search engine.

Basically you can't save energy. Energy just transforms.

Technically the problem isn't energy or CO2. It is about NOx, SOx, and other stuff like this.

These green distractions are really damaging our right of getting informationin my opinion.

It is a remorse of individuals who could not dare to speak up the truth to their own conscience. Let us not make google search and our limited information gathering will be limited to the mass media and we will become simply more ignorant by time.

Lately, European Union forced the usage of energy efficient bulbs. In the beginning it seems very normal, why to spend more energy. But the truth behind is that these bulbs have mercury, a heavy metal which can pass through even skin directly, and since bulbs are not "yet" recycled people simply throw them away. Then in every fish you eat you will recycle it yourselves.

So try Prof. Dr. Lovelock this time for a holistic approach!

Let us stop the google and work the old fashioned way.

If the finance permits, we will buy magazines/ books, of course those papers will be extremely environment friendly.

Or drive over to nearest library (again saving some greenhouse gases).

Have some steps taken on half cooked (or to be precise more half cooked than with google ) information and thereby increasing our/our products inefficiency - again green?

And the respected Dr/ Editor of the BMJ will reduce the human population (that is of course the only positive aspect)

What about this?!

www.blackle.com/

So, get in your car and drive to the library.

Oh no, picking up your telephone and making a long distance call costs us CO2? Oh what'll I do? Goodness gracious no! I bet if we stuck sue in a box and fed her nothing but lettuce until she died and measured her CO2 'footprint' we could demonize her existance. Clearly at that point it would make wonderful sense to slaughter all the posters named Sue, right? On top of that, sue, you'd probably die of cancer since somebody, somewhere has linked lettuce to cancer, right? C'mon people... Can we use a little common sense? Seriously? Googe? You create more green house gasses in a month of farting...

Well, I'm glad the post stimulated some discussion here, and I've learned something as I always do. Which is why I'm here.

_{Side note: if you're going to stick me in a box with nothing but lettuce (no cigarettes and coffee?!), you'll have more than methane and CO2 emissions to deal with.}

lol I'll keep that in mind the next time I have to stuff you in a box... Now go enjoy life... thats what it's for...