What is Digg?291 Comments
- DemonDomen, on 01/11/2009, -24/+240Browsing the internet doesn't make CO2, making electricity does.
- chriscalifornia, on 03/31/2009, -17/+222What a load of crap. The systems in use would be running whether we made a search or not.
- squarepegs, on 01/11/2009, -4/+126It is right... I just figured out the how they came to this scientific conclusion:
How much CO2 does a google search produce? damned if i know
How much CO2 does boiling a kettle of water produce? damned if I know
Oh crap, IT'S THE SAME! - inactive, on 01/11/2009, -2/+106Save the planet; kill yourself.
- NoNamesLeft, on 01/11/2009, -2/+86This doesn't sound right to me. As a very rough calculation, consider that Google is estimated to have almost 100 million searches per day, that would make it responsible for 255 million tons of CO2 per year. A web server puts out about half a kilo per year, so this would put Google's server count at half a billion.
- z00k, on 01/11/2009, -4/+88I wonder what the Digg Effect does then.
- filipesda, on 01/11/2009, -10/+76if u digg this you'll produce more CO2. Ok, i alredy dugg. what, i'm a bad guy now.
- digitalchris, on 01/11/2009, -5/+54The point is that you can generate electricity using high carbon emitting methods, low carbon emitting methods, or non-carbon emitting methods. Switch the grid to geothermal, wind turbine, or solar, and your google searches create no carbon emissions.
But I think you already knew this and just wanted to be a contrarian douchebag. Capiche? - SebG, on 01/11/2009, -1/+49This is stupid
- hnilsen, on 01/11/2009, -21/+68Buying a car doesn't make CO2, building it does.
What's your point?
If you threw a stone at a glass window, you didn't break the glass, the stone did. Capiche? - AdrianKRAZY, on 01/11/2009, -5/+44Ok, Thanks for the info. I'll use Microsoft search now. I bet there banner ad's and 9162 links on the homepage use a whole bunch less co2.
- MaxxusFlamus, on 01/11/2009, -6/+41Hey, if you drink 5 gallons of water in 10 minutes, it's perfectly natural. Nothing bad will happen to you at all. Cuz it's water. And it's natural.
- chicken101, on 01/11/2009, -4/+38But if we don't make searches, google goes out of business. Those bulldozers that would subsequently level google's campus would also release CO2.
- Hodor, on 01/11/2009, -2/+35they wouldn't have the systems running if nobody made searches, though. it's fair to impute the fixed costs to a unitized cost like they've done here.
- gavintlgold, on 01/11/2009, -1/+32Dihydrogen monoxide is a dangerous toxin used by the Chemical Industry. It's the "enabling component" of acid rain -- in the absence of sufficient quantities of DHMO, acid rain is not a problem.
See http://www.dhmo.org/ for more information. - palehorse864, on 01/11/2009, -6/+35Umm... everything but capiche.
- pauleide, on 01/11/2009, -1/+27Google Search can boil water, is there anything Google cant do? Gotta go my tea is ready.
- laserviking, on 01/11/2009, -0/+26Your level of stoked has exceeded internet industry safety levels, please step back from the keyboard and count to 100.
- lex0nyc, on 01/11/2009, -0/+21All dogs are brown.
Spot is brown.
Spot must be a dog!
No, Spot is an earthworm.
DEATH BY LOGIC! - polypropglop, on 01/11/2009, -1/+21Burning natural gas does: C3H8 + 5O2 --> 3C02 + 4H20 + heat
- cmezak, on 01/11/2009, -0/+19Actually it doesn't. It only does if the energy used is obtained by combustion. Solar or wind power could boil water without releasing CO2. The same goes for running a data center.
- Angostura, on 01/11/2009, -6/+24Memo to Meursault, the definition of pollutant is similar to the definition of 'weed' - a plant in the wrong place. Water in your gas tank is a pollutant. Salt in a cup of tea is a pollutant, the roughly 30 billion tonnes of extra carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere annually by human activities, mainly through the burning of fossil fuels is a pollutant.
- kalvinb, on 01/11/2009, -1/+18They're probably factoring in everything between your computer and google's servers.
Not just the energy consumed by Google's computers which would be very little. - hanger69er, on 01/11/2009, -3/+20On his website, CO2stats.com, Dr Wissner-Gross wrote: "Websites are provided by servers and are viewed by visitors' computers that are connected via networks. "These servers, clients and networks all require electricity in order to run, electricity that is largely generated by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. When fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, which contribute to climate change.
If true, isn't he contributing to the emissions just as well by hosting a website? Seems a little hypocritical to me. - squafro, on 01/11/2009, -1/+18Well, aren't humans supposed to produce ~1kg of CO2 every day just from breathing? Not to mention methane.
- benologist, on 01/11/2009, -0/+17Those are some of my favorite droids!!!!!!!
- Richandler, on 01/11/2009, -7/+23This only backs up my idea that if you are green you should get off the internet. Otherwise you really aren't doing your part.
- DurtyJ, on 01/12/2009, -2/+18Here's to not giving a *****.
- gavintlgold, on 01/11/2009, -0/+15A commenter, Kiji, makes a good point, despite guffawing:
"LOL, compare a google search to the amount of CO2 produced if we all had to go to the library to look up information." - venomoushealer, on 01/11/2009, -0/+15I think his point was that he *obviously* uses electricity-free internet.
- level10, on 01/12/2009, -0/+14How big is charcoal sized?
- duckyinc, on 01/11/2009, -0/+12I dugg you and replied, oh god what have I done?!
- johnnyzero, on 01/11/2009, -0/+12http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/11/are-we-killin ...
TechCrunch puts this into perspective, a book is 2500 g of Co2 - RetroRufio, on 01/11/2009, -1/+13If you're green... you should probably go to the doctor :-\
- twishart, on 01/11/2009, -1/+12Guns don't kill people.
- farfromhere, on 01/11/2009, -2/+13Sex makes babies?!
- WhiteHamster, on 01/11/2009, -0/+11And doing 14 google searches to see if the information is accurate and how to fix it ...
- vsujohn2, on 01/11/2009, -3/+14Don't ruin the joke Zarokima
- everett3, on 01/11/2009, -1/+12{{fact}}
- evilantnie, on 01/11/2009, -0/+10What about the perceived opportunity cost associated with having to find the information you're searching for in the absence of Google's service? Driving to the library, Searching manually for other websites, buying periodicals from the store? etc.. etc.
Even though the assessment may be correct here, you also have to think about the fact that the search could actually be minimizing the C02 emissions overall. - crazyeyezkilla, on 01/12/2009, -0/+9pretty much everything we do is bad for the environment somehow.
- jobo80, on 01/11/2009, -1/+10In other news, breathing may also create CO2...
Getting out of bed is bad for the environment! - dblockint, on 01/11/2009, -3/+12this is stupid.
- avrygoodfrnd, on 01/12/2009, -0/+9All the decomposing bodies will release too much CO2, so that's not an option! :O
- sanman, on 01/11/2009, -2/+11soylent google... is people!
- mrwallace69, on 01/11/2009, -0/+9Google launched Project 10^100, a contest to find eight ideas to solve world-wide problems in health, education, energy and five other categories. Google has committed 10 million dollars to fund the winning ideas from the contest.
http://www.project10tothe100.com/
Now go find me a kettle that does that. - sk33lz, on 01/11/2009, -0/+9It probably helps because once the web server crashes or gets suspended for bandwidth, or CPU usage, less power probably gets used since the full site is not being served up :)
- anonymous1986, on 01/11/2009, -0/+8Wow you really push the limits of idiocy, too much of anything basically is harmful for you. Try staying in a closed room which contains mostly carbon dioxide and investigate the effects. In the case of global warming too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes a "stronger" greenhouse effect (which i doubt you are familiar with).
Btw how many more times do you plan to get banned from digg? - avrygoodfrnd, on 01/12/2009, -0/+8This is insanity folks, don't you see it??? What's next, huh? "New study finds dogs produce as much CO2 as a Google search" ? "Exercising restricted due to extra CO2 emissions" ? So what, are we all going to stop buying pets and exercising because it produces a tiny bit of CO2? Or having children, for that matter? No more of those, then, because they're CO2 emitting machines? So then if we really want to save the planet then, why don't we all just kill ourselves? OH *****, our bodies decomposing will create MORE CO2! Whatever will we do?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 298 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is