So, when will all the Warmists who use the Internet stop? Will they give up Youtube, Instagram, TikTok, and others? To save the planet?
Study shows the carbon footprint of popular websites
The average American spends more than 7 hours each day online, according to data from GWI. By 80 years old, that would be equivalent to 18 years of adult life looking at a screen.
As web functions become more advanced and users are spending more time scrolling, websites are becoming a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.
“If the internet was a country, it would be the fourth largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world,” said Charles Howes, CEO of Klatch, a digital marketing company.
Climate Cultists sure don’t seem to like the modern world, eh? Funny that they’re also publishing this on the Internet. Did they plant trees to offset?
Klatch analyzed more than 500 of the biggest global websites and determined carbon emissions per user.
The study found some of the top 50 websites use fossil fuels to power their servers and data centers including Bing, Yahoo, and Reddit.
“A lot of the big sites – Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, WhatsApp – if they could switch to sustainable energy and make sure that they’re looking at their carbon emissions per user, they’re going to have a huge impact on the web and its energy efficiency,” Howes said. (snip)
X, formerly Twitter, would need to plant five trees to offset the carbon generated by 10,000 pageviews, a number reached on the site every 3 seconds.
TikTok would need to plant 15 trees for the same number of views.
Whelp, kiddies, time to stop making all your stupid videos along with watching them.
Obviously, the activism shows, because, why else would they waste time and money doing this?
As we continue to rely on digital platforms for work, entertainment, and communication, it’s crucial that consumers and businesses alike, also advocate and support sustainable practices. By making conscious choices and supporting companies that prioritise the environment, we can collectively make a significant impact.
What if we do not want to do this? What if we don’t care, we just want our Internet stuff?
Oh, and stop using a black background with white letters. Damn, but I hate that. Just messes with your eyes.
They are using the wrong metric. Web-based communication sites need to capitalize on being the green alternative to information and social connection. They should get credit for all the car travel, phone calls and paper letter delivery that they are avoiding. Likewise internet based news as the green alternative to cutting down whole forests to print toxic inks onto dead tree carcasses and deliver them to your doorstep every day from the back of a carbon belching truck, only to have them go to a local landfill the next day. Web-based media should be getting carbon credits from all those other industries.
New law incoming by the leftist lunatics.
No one gets to use the internet without a carbon tax of oh lets say 50 dollars per month. This money to be used to give to poor nations whose dictator will just use the money to build him a bigger mansion and hire more hookers.
Our esteemed host wrote:
No, they like the modern world, but are appalled at what it takes to have the modern world.
It’s the same mentality that yields the notion of “free” health care for all, because health care is a “right,” don’t you know? They can’t get it through their pointy heads that someone has to pay for whatever health care, or all other government services for that matter.
leftist want a post-modern world. One where there is less food. less variety. less quality. reduced populations. Centrally managed everything to make sure the right people get enough of what they want. Less travel. Much less leisure travel. But at least Brondo will still be available in 30 flavors.
Mr Dana is concerned that in a modern, compassionate society most people consider access to healthcare a “right”, even for poor people.
Every advanced nation finds a way to give ALL their citizens access to quality healthcare for less than we spend per person.
We understand that charity to those less fortunate flies in the face of Christian belief.
Pope Elwood is at it again. The atheist/communist once again quotes the Bible that he denies. Why do you keep referring us to a book promoting a philosophy you denounce?
Face it, you only use the bible as a cudgel when it suits you not as the primer of Christian compassion it is. All us Christians know we fall short but you seem to think you’re better by pointing it out. You’re not. By far. As an atheist and a communist you don’t believe in personal giving, charity or altruism. You can’t because as a communist/socialist/democrat you believe we should all have equal finances, property and wealth so we haven’t the means for generosity. Besides the government will take care of that. It’s the governments job to steal from one and give to another. I believe you commies call it “redistribution of wealth”.
You are always busying yourselves stealing from some “oppressor’s” to give it to some “oppressed” then taking a bow like it was your money and not stolen plunder.
Just a reminder; you needn’t quote the Bible to us we already are aware. Better you internalize the parts of the Koran, Hadith or the other violent books of Islam and try and learn from them. May open your eyes to the depth of the moslim depravity.
Brother L.G.,
I absolutely do not denounce the philosophy of Jesus Christ! I try to live by it. I suggest you do the same! I am neither a communist nor an atheist, and I am continually amazed at the hypocrisy of this strain of nuConservative Christians.
Do you NOT believe Christians have obligations to the less fortunate as Jesus prescribed?
Those soft-hearted and weak-minded social liberals are always trying to redistribute resources from the more fortunate to the working class and poor. Imagine how nice it would be for working people to have help on child care and healthcare as they go off to work each day, helping the wealthy stay wealthy! Decades ago the nation elected to take care of the elderly with Social Security and Medicare.
Islam is not the threat to America that nuConservative Christianity is.
All evidence to the contrary.
Bwaha! Lolgf
William Teach: time to stop making all your stupid videos along with watching them.
No. It just means that providers need to look at their carbon footprint and consider ways to move towards sustainable energy, such as Facebook and Google Search have already done.
Why eliminate carbon? None of thedebate people ( the z people), or the other trolls have proven there case about carbon. CO2 represents only 0.04% of the atmosphere, plant life die at 0.02%. We need more CO2.
So called sustainable energy is worthless.
david7134: have proven there case about carbon.
You can find the basics in Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896. Of course, a lot has been learned over the last century, so once you are caught up, we can discuss more modern advances.
david7134: CO2 represents only 0.04% of the atmosphere, plant life die at 0.02%. We need more CO2.
Unfortunately, higher atmospheric CO2 will cause significantly warming of the Earth’s surface, and that will result in rising sea levels and significant climate change.
david7134: So called sustainable energy is worthless.
If you use Google Search, then you are using sustainable energy.