by shorbaji on 4/3/10, 6:09 PM with 12 comments
by jackowayed on 4/3/10, 9:51 PM
It's a lot more efficient to make a couple Google searches than to drive to the library.
It's a lot more efficient to buy something on Amazon and have it delivered by UPS, which can combine trips like crazy, than to drive to the store--or possibly several stores--to buy it.
It's a lot more efficient that I used Campfire as an integral part of working remotely last summer rather than if I had had to fly across the country for the job.
Sure, it is still important to reduce energy consumption, and lots of computing doesn't directly replace more energy-intensive tasks (sending a tweet rather than ... driving to all of my friends' houses to tell them a very short message and then leave?), but computing has lead to lots of gains.
by jrockway on 4/4/10, 12:28 AM
But when one entity is running all the powerful computers, then shaving off a few watts makes someone a lot of money. So they'll do it.
As for the green issue... I think it's good that Greenpeace is reminding folks that just reducing the number of watts you use isn't enough. You need to get those watts from something renewable or clean; not coal. Otherwise you're still destroying the Earth... just not quite as quickly.
by eplanit on 4/4/10, 1:21 AM
The posts below bring out good points. Energy use is not in itself evil. One must consider what good was done with the energy. Watt-for-watt, those server farms are doing a huge amount of work on behalf of people.
by warfangle on 4/3/10, 10:38 PM
by lionhearted on 4/4/10, 11:55 AM
If Greenpeace and the rest of their ilk care enough, they should lead by example - announce that they'll no longer use cars, telephones, computers, heaters, air conditioners, or anything that was made by a process that also created pollution. No email, no internet, nothing more than riding on horseback to drop a letter made on hand made paper off. I think that would be good for them as an organization and good for the rest of the world.