Browse
Engage
Research
Urs Hölzle, Google Senior Vice President, Operations, writes on the Official Google Blog that although ICT (Information and communications technology) emissions are growing, ICT use actually reduces overal energy consumption.
Before he gets to that point, though, he does some interesting number-crunching, comparing the energy used by common activities to the energy used in Google searches. He says, for example, that a single newspaper emits the same amount of energy as doing 850 Google searches. Here's the information, taken straight from the Google blog:
| Activity | Google Searches |
| CO2 emissions of an average daily newspaper (PDF) (100% recycled paper) | 850 |
| A glass of orange juice | 1,050 |
| One load of dishes in an EnergyStar dishwasher (PDF) |
5,100 |
| A five mile trip in the average U.S. automobile | 10,000 |
| A cheeseburger | 15,000 |
| Electricity consumed by the average U.S. household in one month | 3,100,000 |
Hölzle goes on to say that overall, ICT emissions pay for themselves --- in other words, they're carbon neutral. Here's his reasoning:
Although the amount of energy used to power ICT is growing, it's important to measure all of the ways information technology helps us save energy too. A study by The Climate Group, in fact, shows that ICT emissions pay for themselves (PDF) (and then some) by enabling significant reductions in emissions by other sectors of the economy. After all, it's much more efficient to move electrons than to move atoms. "Virtual" tools like email, video-conferencing, and search engines replace more carbon-intensive activities like snail mail, business travel, and driving.I think he's right. And what he says holds even more true in enterprises. ICT in business is more than just carbon neutral --- it's a carbon saver. And Green IT is at the core of it.
Jevons Paradox
They're not taking into account the Jevons Paradox, which says, to paraphrase, that while reading the paper on Google might only use one fiftieth of the energy to read the news vs. paper newspapers, when Google puts the news at our fingertips 24/7 we read 100 times as much news, thereby more than wiping out the energy savings. That would be my guess, anyway.
Right idea, shame about the execution
Its true that the application of ICT can replace 'traditional' ways of doing things (for all of the teleconference, online shopping (although be careful of this one), etc. reasons mentioned).
Its also true that ICT can help drive systemic changes in the way that society operates such that we're not simply doing the same things in a different way (meeting remotely vs face-to-face), but are doing entirely new things that contribute to massive sustainability improvements across society (cash transfer over mobiles and the social empowerment and boost that gives to remote rural economies (e.g. mPesa)).
However, many of the figures quoted in the google blog are misleading and pointless in that there is no meaningful link between them. They're looking at apples and kumquats. A google search might replace the need for buying a newspaper (although note that actually reading the content is another matter and not covered in the analysis) or save you the 5 mile trip, but it isn't going to replace a cheeseburger, a glass of OJ, or a load of dishwashing. And as for the household energy consumption - running a computer to be able to perform the searching is part of this footprint, so the comparison is internally inconsistent (if you did the 3.1m searches, your energy consumption would shoot up at the same time).
So, Google are right in the gist of their message, but the very poor use of examples lets the argument down, and draws attention away from the real issues and benefits.
Why is this an interesting or relevant question?
That IT might reduce GHG emissions below where they would have been had we stopped IT development in (lets say) 1980 may well be true, but regardless, why would we care? If we decided that IT does reduce emissions, can we decide to have 2, 3, or 5 times a much IT to save that much more? No. If we believed that it doesn't reduce emissions overall, would we stop having any IT? Of course not!
So, what do we learn or know by this exercise that is useful for any decision-making?
There is nothing wrong with going through the estimations, but we should be careful about what conclusions (if any) we draw from it.
Bruce Nordman
BNordman@LBL.gov
Google should get credit (negative emissions/consumption)!
Don't forget the "negative" carbon footprint from enabling professionals to telecommute! (I'm sure someone has already mentioned this, but I save approximately 1,000 gallons of gasoline per year by working online from my home. (15mpg, 60 mi. daily commute, less 2 week vacation).
What does this mean for the environment?
Without ICT and Google, I would not be able to perform my job remotely and save time/energy/space in the office, etc.