Your Google Carbon footprint

A recent feature in the Times Online (UK) called "Revealed: the environmental impact of Google searches" is claiming that every Google search is responsible for 7g of CO2 released into the environment and that in aggregate, that's a whole lotta CO2.

I'd have to request a little perspective here...a book is responsible for 2500g, a cheeseburger can be responsible for as much as 3600g and Google responded saying that they're actually closer to .2g of CO2 released per search

When I think about how many trips to libraries and book stores, etc. I've saved with Google and how much they do for the dissemination of information generally, I think they're doing a great job.

Yeah I saw that too.  I think this is a key paragraph in the article:

A separate estimate from John Buckley, managing director of carbonfootprint.com, a British environmental consultancy, puts the CO2 emissions of a Google search at between 1g and 10g, depending on whether you have to start your PC or not. Simply running a PC generates between 40g and 80g per hour, he says. of CO2 Chris Goodall, author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, estimates the carbon emissions of a Google search at 7g to 10g (assuming 15 minutes’ computer use).

So the highest carbon footprint numbers seem to be due to the computer's energy consumption rather than anything Google is doing.  So if you want to reduce your footprint, minimize computer use and/or get an energy efficient computer.  Another key point in the article:

[your Google search] may even be sent to servers thousands of miles apart. Google’s infrastructure sends you data from whichever produces the answer fastest. The system minimises delays but raises energy consumption

It's hard to blame Google for this, because it's competing with a number of other search engines, and speed is key to winning over users.  Nevertheless, they do appear to be sacrificing lower emissions for high speed results to some degree.

It would have been nice if this article had split up the 7 gram figure into how much is on Google's end and how much is on your end (computer power use).  And I don't think Google is doing anything that other search engines aren't, so it's not really fair to single out Google either (I'm sure they just chose Google because it's the most popular engine).

I do think it's a little ridiculous to frame the piece as the carbon footprint of a Google search given the computer's energy consumption has so much to do with the calculation.  Sure, it'd be nice if Google did even MORE to reduce and offset its environmental impact...but on the whole, they do a pretty good job. 

And as Deej mentioned...not only does Google reduce the need for print media, it also lets you access it without leaving your house (and we don't all live within walking distance of a library, so that helps bring down the comparative carbon emissions).

If we open up the question a little wider to consider the internet at large, I do wonder what the environmental/carbon footprint is like compared to pre-internet.  Obviously there are a lot of factors in there...but for example, with email, how much carbon dioxide/water/paper is saved compared to putting pen to paper and sending it on its way?  Or reading the paper online as opposed to getting newspapers delivered to your house?

As usual, Climate Progress is on the case.

Ignore the media hype and keep Googling — The energy impact of web searches is very LOW

Romm makes some of the same arguments which have been made here.

There are actually two mistakes in the Harvard calculation. The first, which was the focus of my research, is the big picture issue. What is the net energy consumed by the internet? I argue the internet is a net energy saver — and a big one — since it increases efficiency (especially in things like the supply chain) and dematerialization (it uses less energy to research online than in person). The fact that U.S. energy intensity (energy consumed per dollar of GDP) began dropping sharply in the mid-1990s is but one piece of evidence that internet- and IT-driven growth is less energy intensive...

The other mistake just involves the more narrow question of how much energy is consumed by Googling. Wissner-Gross says it is 7g of CO2 per search. My LBNL colleagues say that is way too high, and Google itself has rebutted that analysis with their own...

Bottom Line: Google, Youtube, blog, and flickr as much as you want. If you are worried about your carbon footprint, buy 100% green power and do an efficient retrofit on your house to cover your emissions — and let the Internet keep saving people energy and resources.

Very well put.

It turns out the Times screwed up the story anyway.

One problem: the study’s author, Harvard University physicist Alex Wissner-Gross, says he never mentions Google in the study. “For some reason, in their story on the study, the Times had an ax to grind with Google,” Wissner-Gross told TechNewsWorld. “Our work has nothing to do with Google. Our focus was exclusively on the Web overall, and we found that it takes on average about 20 milligrams of CO2 per second to visit a Web site.”

Well lets just look at the fact that the Times is one of the largest printed newspapers and google allows access to various news sources for free to everyone who can access the Internet. Many people save money and cut down on resources by no longer ordering papers. So in a way google could be seen as a major factor in any loss in readership and therefore income to the times. It may not follow that concious thought but subconciously the writer probably does have an ax to grind.

Tech Crunch published a piece about Google searches and their green factor today. It's more or less the same news though as before. While Google data centers do use up a lot of energy, it's a fraction of the carbon footprint of printing a newspaper, a glass of OJ, doing your dishes, and as we talked about before, making a cheeseburger.