I get really annoyed by daft ‘green’ articles like this – Can I be green and surf the net?. It quotes a selection of scary figures and makes no effort to check them. On top of that it pretty much ignores the question that formed the article headline in the first place with the only ‘advice’ given on green surfing being that driving to the library generates lots of CO2 as well.
Nothing about using a low energy computer to surf the web then? Using a green electricity supplier? Holding off replacing your PC for a few years if you don’t really need to or updating components rather than the whole thing when you do? I could go on.
And the spam things – I’m farily sure I blogged about that when it first came out. They made some large assumptions on the amount of time people take deleting spam and that wasted computer time was where most of the perceived CO2 came from. Like someone spending 5 minutes a day deleting spam actually works 5 minutes later at night to make up for it.
And the other figures in the article all seem to be from the same source, this Times article. And you notice at the bottom the Dr supplying them happens to have a business selling solutions to website owners to make their sites greener and more efficient……