Google's Carbon Footprint

How much CO2 does a google search produce if a google search produces CO2? Well, Harvard physicist Alex Wissner-Gross did the math:

... 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. A recent report by Gartner, the industry analysts, said the global IT industry generated as much greenhouse gas as the world’s airlines - about 2% of global CO2 emissions. “Data centres are among the most energy-intensive facilities imaginable,” said Evan Mills, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. Banks of servers storing billions of web pages require power.

Link - via BuzzFeed


Thing about the displacement of CO2 emissions created by the internet ,email instead of snail mail,telecommuting. That alone offsets the CO2 emissions.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Um, isn't google's machinery turned on and emiting CO2 and such, whether or not a search is being done?

I mean, their computers are 'impacting the environemnt' no matter what... It seems odd to me that this person is trying to imply that by doing a search, you are hurting the environment.

I seriously doubt that running a search on google makes their computers fart out a little extra CO2.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I seem to believe that Google's server farms are located near hydroelectric dams, and thus have a very reliable source of power which is not contributing much to greenhouse gasses at all.

Just don't think too hard about the salmon.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
hydroelectric dams have terrible negative impacts on the ecosystem. more so than just the salmons. right now only developing countries favor such power generation. China, Chile...etc.

also, by the time I finish typing this, i will have offset that carbon offset you paid.

also, what the hell is a "developing country"?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
In reply to 'just a guy'.
All electrical/electronic devices use significantly less power in a 'quiescent' state than they do an in 'active' one.
Just think about how long your cellphone battery lasts when it isn't used to make or recieve calls, emails etc, than it does when it is being heavily used.
Same principle for computers and servers - when they are heavily used they consume much more power (up to the maximum the power supply is rated for) than when they are sitting around humming quietly to themselves.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I am with the other guy there in doubting that one google search makes them emit that much co2. I would like to see how they calculated those numbers. I hope they took into account that not all electricity on the grid is coal... also if anything google is doing more than most to fight this server farm problem.

Check this out: http://gizmodo.com/5047050/google-patents-floating-server-farm-powered-by-ocean-waves

I don't know if they actually have plans to build it, but at least they're thinking!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
You mean there are still some who remain unconvinced that the whole carbon footprint greenhouse gas offset business is a scam? "Guilt, guilt, guilt, guilt! Here's how badly you're damaging the environment; pay me a boatload of money and you'll feel better."

Bunk. Pure. And. Simple.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Such crap. So you turn off Google. Now if I want an answer I have to drive to the library to find it. How much carbon does that screw up?
And Razor, your analogy is just dumb. You can't compare transmitters and processors.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Harvard physicist Alex Wissner-Gross emits more CO2 per day.

...perhaps he should consider his own 'carbon footprint' and just eliminate himself from the planet. If all the whiners did the same it would be a much cooler - and quieter - peaceful planet.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
i know electronics don't use up as much power when they are 'sleeping', I'm just saying that I doubt tthe environmental impact is that much different then when google is running a search or not. It seems like this 'research' was done just to make people feel environmentally guilty about using google.

and I do think the carbon footprint / green thing has gone way too far.

Try to track down and watch Penn and Teller's show "Bullshit" - the episode about recycling.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I was quoted very much out of context in the Times article that you cite. That article was subsequently discredited, and they themselves backpedaled on much of what was printed in the original version.

http://eetd.lbl.gov/emills/commentary/tempest.html
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 12 comments




Email This Post to a Friend
"Google's Carbon Footprint"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More