Every Google Search Uses Seven Grams of CO2
January 12th, 2009, 4:53 PM EST
You may have to start buying carbon offsets. In fact, Alex Wissner-Gross, the Harvard professor who did the study, discovered that just browsing a website uses 0.002 of CO2 per second. Google, none too happy with the report, is striking back, saying it has the most energy efficient data centers in the world and that driving a car for a kilometer, or 0.6 miles, equates with the amount of CO2 produced by a thousand Google searaches.
Alan, it’s very unfortunate to hear this news right after your last H&C show.
I love your website, but I assume you’re gonna take it down for the benefit of Mother Earth, right? Do it for HER!
January 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Of course the average human also exhales 881 – 891 grams of CO2 per day. (I goggled that) Methane is also a greenhouse gas. Guess I shouldn’t have had Mexican food last night. Don’t get me wrong I am not a global warming denier but trying to figure out all of these studies can make your head spin. One study I haven’t seen. How does the warming affect of the methane produced from all of the horses that we would be using for transportation if we didn’t have cars compare to the CO2 and CO emissions of our cars?
January 12th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Why don’t we all just crawl into a cave some where and freeze to death in the winter. Environmental wackos have gotten completely out of control.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I wonder how much Gov grant money this wasted…
January 12th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Environmental wackos have gotten completely out of control.
Who do you consider an environmental wacko? I.e. what is the entry criteria to be an environmental wacko?
January 12th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
UM CARA,
I would consider spending time and Gov money on a study like this to qualify as “wacko”
January 12th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Don’t drive unless you can plug your car in, which in turn will use more electricity which will require the use of more fossil or nuclear energy. Don’t use plastic OR paper use a bag, don’t use too much water, don’t fly, don’t surf the net, etc etc etc
Anyone read the reports that al gore’s science is WAY off base and that climate change is a myth because climate change has always occured with or without the help of mankind??
Just wondering
January 12th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I can’t find the original study online, so I’m not sure if this is just one piece out of a larger study of the carbon footprint of various ’stuff’, but my guess is he wasn’t just looking at Google, it was just the sexy part that got the press.
Also, I’m not sure where he got his grant money, where did you read it was from the government?
January 12th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Bliss,
Anyone read the reports that al gore’s science is WAY off base and that climate change is a myth because climate change has always occured
So is climate change a myth, or has it always occurred?
January 12th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
UM CARA…I was speculating, I have no proof it was a Gov Grant
January 12th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Bliss,
My personal viewpoint is that yes climate change is a natural phenomenon but we are probably accelerating it to certain degree. Regardless of this our energy and material consumption has many environmental impacts that are much less debatable. Blowing the tops off of entire mountains to harvest the coal, excessive damning of rivers, nuclear waste, just to name a few things, are all things that it would be hard to argue are good. I am not getting all preachy here as I am just as guilty as anybody else for being a part of the issue. But I do not think it is good for us to just declare it a non-issue
January 12th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
They are saying climate change, visa vie gore’s definition is myth. Climate change occurs in cycles regardless of man being present. We didn’t have factories, etc. during the last ice age.
Still looking for the research, but here is the article where gore fired a leading physicist who says they jumped the gun.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200812233092/energy-and-environment/prominent-scientist-fired-by-gore-says-global-warming-alarm-mistaken.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/19/hurricanes-to-global-warming-link-blown-away/
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/3/27/154817.shtml
January 12th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Good post PLACEFIELD – spot on.
The only difference, and it’s a biggie….that during the last cataclysmic event, when the sea level rose 50 feet in 100 years. We didn’t have 2 billion people living within a few meters of sea-level!!
We were hunter-gatherers that just ‘picked up sticks’ and moved inland.
I’d like to see the people of South Florida try that on! LOL
Amongst first people to be displaced are going to be the 200,000,000 Bangladeshies. But I think George Bush, wanting to be a humanitarian after the oval office (like Carter and Hoover) will make room on his ranch.
Besides, it ain’t gonna happen, right Brownie?
January 12th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Cara,
The criteria for being an environmental wacko? Just look up Al Gore.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Is it me, or is PLACEFIELD the most calm poster in this blog? Never seems to get rattled…
January 12th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Placefield is a very even keeled individual. It is nice to have a discussion with such a fair minked person.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
“”How does the warming affect of the methane produced from all of the horses that we would be using for transportation if we didn’t have cars compare to the CO2 and CO emissions of our cars?”"
Interesting question. My guess though is that a horse, which in itself is a carbon “sink” would compensate for its methane producing gastro-intestinal system in several ways:
1) A horse, which ’sinks’ half a tonne of carbon into it’s body would live for many years, not just be eaten and excreted like cattle.
2) Horses , unlike cattle, are not ruminates and do not produce (to my knowledge) near the amout of Methane as cattle)
3) A horse-driven economy would allow us to slow our use of artificial fertilizers, the process of making which is very distructive…although they and other advanced farming methods and technologies have allowed our species to greatly over-populate the earth!
January 12th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Raised 50 feet you say. That would come pretty close to giving me beachfront property. Maybe I am a fan of this global warming thing after all. Although my buddy on the other coast in Manhattan would probably not be happy.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Let’s all hail the great FROSTY, self-made expert on horse farts, and learned fellow on all things poop (artificial or otherwise)!
;)
January 12th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
My guess though is that a horse, which in itself is a carbon “sink”
Horses die, then decompose – releasing gas (they fart too). There are far more efficient carbon sinks than your average everyday mammal.
A horse-driven economy would allow us to slow our use of artificial fertilizers, the process of making which is very distructive…although they and other advanced farming methods and technologies have allowed our species to greatly over-populate the earth!
Hopefully we don’t have to switch to a horse-driven economy to reap the benefits of sustainable agriculture. Artificial fertilizers are killing our soil (in addition to the destructiveness of harvesting them).
January 12th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Frosty,
Thanks for your serious response to my attempt at a comedic entry. At our local farmers market the is a farmer that uses only his horses, no petrol tractors at all, to work his fields. Besides having some very good produce he seems to be connected to a way of life that we have forgot for the most part. It can make you wonder sometimes how much we have given up for this modern life of comfort.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
how much carbon is a cow fart?
January 12th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
PLACEFIELD,
the Amish can probably fill you in on what we’re missing…have you seen their fireplace commercials lately?
January 12th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
allowed our species to greatly over-populate the earth
Huh? Our species rules. We have not ‘over-populated’ the planet. It’s our time. We’ll get knocked back by war or disease soon enough, quit being such a short time thinker.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Jared/Willy,
Thanks for the kind words. My wife would disagree sometimes though, when she’s ready for a good fight my calmness does not induce the same in her. I am learning that there is a time and a place to let the emotions fly but usually I just don’t find the results worth the effort.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Jared,
I have never been to Amish country but I do find it intreging. There has to be a happy medium somewhere between I would think.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Last I heard one hour of running a lawn mower yields emissions equivalent to 13 hours of idling a car. So before we start making plans to revert to horses and buggies let’s just outlaw all the lawn mowers.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Rocky,
That would be great, one less chore I would have to do.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
“”Horses die, then decompose – releasing gas (they fart too). “”
Indeed they do. But my point was (and remains) that a horse lives for many years, doing work and turning old dead hay and grass into work. Unlike food cattle which only live a year or two, and contribute nothing but food, really…
The worst animal to raise in the post-apocalyptic US would, of course, be the pig. The fact that pigs eat the same food as humans, and are not ruminates like cows (they don’t even do the useful task of turning inedible grass to beef), nor can they do much useful work. To keep a pig alive, would actually take food away from a starving person.
In fact, interestingly, THIS is now thought by many anthro-biologists to be the reason why they were ‘banned’ from being eaten by the poor of some middle eastern areas.
“”Huh? Our species rules. We have not ‘over-populated’ the planet…”"
Erm , can someone tell me where to report to Alan.com that some religious nut has taken over the formerly sensible Avatar of ‘UM CARA’ and is now posting absolute nonsense?
January 12th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Yes but pigs taste so good.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Indeed they do. But my point was (and remains) that a horse lives for many years, doing work and turning old dead hay and grass into work. Unlike food cattle which only live a year or two, and contribute nothing but food, really…
Ah, so that was your point. I was confused because the question was about using horses instead of cars – I thought maybe you liked the taste of horse (that French influence popping up) better than car, or something.
So you think we should be vegetarians? Our bodies aren’t really wired for it, but we could get by. All that bean eating would lead to more farts though…
Because I acknowledge humans are the dominant species on earth, or because I don’t think there are too many of us? (or maybe I’m a nut just because I don’t agree with you?)
Starvation and pollution are political (and to a lesser extent technological) problems, not population problems. The basic biological drive of all critters is to reproduce – humans included. Why do you think the world is overpopulated and who would you knock off to ‘rightsize’ it?
January 12th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Wasn’t there a study released telling of a global cooling happening. Start searching more so that we won’t have another ice-age.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
“”how much carbon is a cow fart?”‘
relatively easy for me to calculate, no worries.
I will need sevral ‘assumptions’. They can be based on measured averages.
We need:
1) The duration of the flatulation (t)
2) An approximation of the volumetric size of the cows lower intestine.
3) a measurement of diameter the cow’s anus, or at least an estimate of a representative circle, averaged with geometric cross section, given that the actual shape would naturally be complex.
4) In lieu of an actual percentage (by partial pressure) of the various gasses, a quantitative experiment would need to be done, simulating the 4 stomachs of a ruminate. That would complex indeed.
If the empirical data were to show that methane made up 80 percent of the exhausted gas (the same precentage as N in air) the calculation would be easy once the total volume was measured?
Anyone?
January 12th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
“”Because I acknowledge humans are the dominant species on earth, or because I don’t think there are too many of us? (or maybe I’m a nut just because I don’t agree with you?)”"
Tsk tsk
No need for (more poor) sarcasm UM CARA, lol.
No, in fact you are not a nut for disagreeing with me.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
That wasn’t sarcasm, it was a question. You called me a religious nut, I was curious why. Was it just generic name calling?
January 12th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
You are a nut for thinking that we have not overpopulated the earth.
Clearly we have, due to our ‘mastery’ of technology.
If you choose to beleive that that makes us the
‘dominant’ species, that’s fine.
However, if you define ’success’ as the longevity and survival of our species, of our “selfish genes” if you will…
…than my money ain’t on Homo Sapiens for long-term survival…is yours?
In fact, I once heard a scientist say “If there WAS a God, and she really loved us, she’d have made us beetles…”
January 12th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Actually UC, by re-reading my post you will see that I was calling your statement that (we’re the dominant species, and haven’t overpopulated the earth)…the kind of statement that religious fundamentalists (nuts)make…
That we are somehow “Stewards of the Earth” and that we have some sort of god(s)-given right to do what we want, and to madly pro-create, consume and ultimately destroy ourselves…hopefully before destroying (too many) more species along the way…
January 12th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
FROSTY,
Yet another wildly distorted view of how Christians think…
January 12th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
…than my money ain’t on Homo Sapiens for long-term survival…is yours?
Nope, war or disease will most probably wipe us out (as I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread).
If you choose to beleive that that makes us the
‘dominant’ species, that’s fine.
Dominance and long livedness are two different things. I’m not sure by what criteria we would not be considered the dominant species, but it really isn’t that important a point to me. Let’s go w/ sharks as the dominant species. They have been around a long time, and sit in the top tier of the food chain along w/ us humans. Or no species is dominant. Whatever.
You are a nut for thinking that we have not overpopulated the earth.
Why do you think we have overpopulated the earth? Perhaps I am ignorant, and not a nut. Educate me (please). In my view we have plenty of food, and we have the technology to limit our environmental impact. We just have crappy politics that keeps the food from many of those who need it, and keep us arguing about environmental policy.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
that we are somehow “Stewards of the Earth” and that we have some sort of god(s)-given right to do what we want, and to madly pro-create, consume and ultimately destroy ourselves…hopefully before destroying (too many) more species along the way…
Ah.. No, I am an environmentalist because I think biodiversity is in our best interest for survival. Plus baby seals are cute.
If we do manage to wipe out significant numbers of other critters it will be the death of us, and nature will take care of herself. She’s bounced back from worse than what we can throw at her.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
If we were “Stewards of the Earth” wouldn’t that mean that is our responsibility to take care of it? Not take advantage of it?
January 12th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
POSTED BY WILLY
Hey Willy:
That was really funny.
Mark
January 12th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
hello…very nice post..good job
January 12th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
has anyone read the information about obama’s pick for global warming czar??????????
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/
January 12th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I don’t understand the problem with c02. My science education said plants need c02 to live.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
BLISS,
That’s a bit disconcerting…
January 12th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I had brown beans,cabbage and cornbread for supper. Up wind any1.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
given that the last theories are suggesting an Ice Age rather than Global Warming, perhaps we should all be Googling harder and faster which will, no doubt, send google shares sizzling :-)
see ya
ET
January 12th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Hey Sue , too much CO2 = Global warming ; not enough CO2= Ice age.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
OMG!
A scientist with ’socialist ties’!!
OMG, a SOCIALIST!! I think I just saw one out the window. FLEE! Run for your lives! Quick, someone sell me sumpin’!
Good grief.
Um CARA, at the risk of somehow ending up on the same side here (?!), I too consider myself an ‘environmentalist’, albeit just an amateur.
The fact that we are now nearing 8 billion in number means that we have cleared so much land, cut so many forests, hunted so many species to extiction (or the brink thereof), infringed on SO MUCH habitat…means that technology has allowed us to GREVIOSLY overpopulate our species. (and can I just remind you that by ‘technology’ I don’t mean cel phones and Macintosh computers, lol – I mean agriculture/fences/metal tools/fertilizer/smoked and preserved food/flint knapping/boats/the wheel/the plow ETC ETC) This is important.
Are you aware of how much the human population has exploded since the dawn of agriculture 10,000-12,000 years ago?!
How much eco-system we have destroyed since even just the industrial revolution!?
How you could claim that this was not true, and still say you believe in biodiversity (!?) is still a bit puzzling to me, but you are right, nature may find a way to restore balance after all.
And btw, UM CARA you are right that there IS enough food, but the way we have the world set up right now needs a tweak.
But, there’s still about 7 billion too many of us for my liking, and nature’s…
January 13th, 2009 at 1:44 am
But, there’s still about 7 billion too many of us for my liking, and nature’s…
Man is one of many critters in ‘nature’ – and nature disagrees with you, she would have wiped out those 7 billion if she were on your side.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Hey, Pierre, did you know that CO2 goes up AFTER a rise in temperature?
You should also do a Google search using the terms “800 years CO2.” After you pay your offset fee, of course.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:46 am
BM,
Um CARA, at the risk of somehow ending up on the same side here
We are often on the same side. I don’t dig your seemingly reflexive (and unoriginal, whining about US TV?) anti Americanism, or hostility towards religion (you especially seem to have a beef w/ Christians), nor do I like when you put words in my mouth, but we are prob. on the same side on 80% of the issues or so.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am
That’s better.
Now go after the bad guys, you two.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Well, the words “slanderer” (lol) were really meant to be directed at people who call Clinton a “rapist”, not so much yourself…my bad.
But this:
“”and nature disagrees with you, she would have wiped out those 7 billion if she were on your side.”"
I am not so sure. I MAY be wrong, but you youself have probably seen with your own eyes, or at least read first-hand accounts of the destruction of eco-system in Brazil. Millions of SQ Km’s of habitat destroyed…slashed and burned…to raise cattle and soya (yes, there are too many Vegans amongst us as well!)
How is this sustainable if we don’t mend our ways?
I recently read an account of what is thought to have have happened on Easter Island, after the very last tree was cut down to make fires to crack rocks to make idols to competing gods…It ain’t pretty!
January 13th, 2009 at 11:59 am
I am not so sure. I MAY be wrong, but you youself have probably seen with your own eyes, or at least read first-hand accounts of the destruction of eco-system in Brazil. Millions of SQ Km’s of habitat destroyed…slashed and burned…to raise cattle and soya (yes, there are too many Vegans amongst us as well!)
Sure, and every once in a while a big ol meteor slams into the earth and kill off 99.9% of life. Life will roll on… I just listened to a Science podcast on my way into work (can’t handle Portuguese first thing in the morning). They found a single organism ecosystem a couple miles beneath the crust of the earth (the only single organism ecosystem discovered so far). Pretty cool little critter.
Anyway, life is resilient, the Earth will survive us. I don’t like population arguments because of where they often end up. The answer is sustainable agriculture, not less people. I’ll admit it, I’m a speciest. I like humans better than any other critter.
How is this sustainable if we don’t mend our ways?
I agree on the mending ways part, I just don’t think there are too many of us humans. I do see evidence of poor agricultural and animal husbandry practices, using food as a political weapon, and suicidal environmental practices. Those are all different from over population problems.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
“”I like humans better than any other critter.”"
Not me. I like beetles.
And the fact that most beetles will undoubtably out-live us as a species lends credence to the saying:
“”If God REALLY loved us, She would have made us beetles”
;-)
January 13th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
POSTED BY BADMRFROSTY
Worked for us!
Sincerely,
Paul & Ringo
January 13th, 2009 at 8:56 pm