How to save nature using the Internet?
How much does watching one short video add to the world’s carbon footprint? How often should a comprehensive clean-up of the cloud take place, so that the servers in data centers would not be working for no reason? Is it more economical to send a text message, email, or a DM on Facebook? We do not really ponder these questions, but maybe we should.
Greenergy Data Centers facility near Tallinn. Photo by Tõnu Tunnel.
We have already written on our blog about how energy-intensive it is to maintain this digital society that we have come to love. An estimated three per cent of the annual global energy consumption is spent on data centers, where the Internet visible from our digital devices is physically located. So, even though data centers are the so-called background players that the average consumer does not come into contact with directly, every Internet user is – or, at least, could be – responsible for how much data they generate and the energy consumed in doing so.
People often have the illusion that everything that happens on the web is automatically green, because it is as though no physical footprint is left behind – or it is simply out of our sight. ‘This way of thinking is not entirely wrong, because the more we replace physical activities – for example, driving to the office or to a meeting – with various e-services, the smaller our footprint becomes. The e-world is inherently much smaller in terms of its footprint than everything we do in the physical world,’ confirms Tõnu Grünberg, CEO of Greenergy Data Centers, the largest data center in the Baltics.
‘However, the data we have generated still has a considerable ecological impact. It is predicted that data centers may already make up more than 10% of the annual global energy consumption by 2030,’ states Grünberg.
What can everyone do to reduce the footprint of our daily digital lives?
How much CO2 is generated by our usual online activities?
It is true that, on an individual level, spending time online has a relatively low impact on the world’s carbon footprint. A decade ago, it was claimed that each Google search produced as much CO2 as boiling water for half a cup of coffee – or seven grams. At the time, Google calculated that 0.2 grams of CO2 is actually produced from one Google search. That number is several times smaller than the initial claim, but it is still a bit frightening that even with such a simple activity, there is no escaping CO2.
‘According to Google’s own data, the average user – a person who performs 25 searches a day, watches YouTube, uses Gmail and some other Google services – produces less than eight grams of CO2 per day,’ adds the CEO of the greenest colocation data center in the Baltics.
In truth, there is an astonishing array of data which cannot be taken as absolute truth; however, the United Nations University magazine Our World writes that watching a video on YouTube produces 0.1 grams of CO2 per minute – meaning one gram every ten minutes. Using Gmail for a year produces about 1.2 kilos of CO2. Facebook claims that its average user has an annual carbon footprint of 269 grams of CO2 – on the same order of magnitude as the carbon footprint of a cup of coffee.
‘It is quite difficult to place small numbers in context separately. It is clear that an ordinary person spending time online cannot change the world on their own – you can format your disks yourself and disconnect the Internet cable from the wall, but five billion other people will still be using the Internet. The issue is primarily that tech giants have billions of users worldwide and the volumes are increasing rapidly. As with air travel emissions, the real problem with data is the rate at which it is growing,’ says Grünberg.
Optimistically, it can be stated that, for example, in the United States, there has been relatively little growth in the energy demand of data centers; however, there is no question that more and more data is being added all the time. The reason lies in the fact that technology is developing, which has enabled IT equipment to do more while consuming the same amount of energy. Unfortunately, technical analysts are warning that the future is no longer as bright as it once was.
There is a trend, more than half a century old, known as Moore’s Law. According to it, the number of transistors on a microchip doubles every two years. However, that trend is bound to slow down sooner or later as it is becoming increasingly difficult to physically add transistors to a chip.
What can ordinary people do?
Therefore, one way or another, energy consumption for data must be curbed. ‘Internet users who switch to greener service providers or simply reduce their data usage can also play their own role here. You can also buy green energy for your own use or put solar panels on the roof,’ recommends Tõnu Grünberg, CEO of Greenergy Data Centers.
Although it is more difficult to notice your footprint online, a simple rule applies – the more data something takes up, the more energy it uses. ‘The simple fact is that we are all users of e-services and we store all kinds of information that we will probably never need again. In fact, every bit sits in a data center somewhere and consumes electricity,’ notes Grünberg.
‘We could store as little data as possible that we do not really need. This is a very simple way for a full-fledged member of the digital society to become even more ecological,’ he adds.
Grünberg recommends storing data on passive elements, if possible. ‘Of course, it must be taken into account that if the physical medium is destroyed, then this data is gone forever,’ warns Grünberg, noting that there is no ideal solution here. It is up to everyone to decide for themselves whether they are willing, for example, to risk losing old pictures.
Tõnu Grünberg in the greenest data center of the Baltics. Photo by Andres Oolberg.
A 2019 study by energy supplier OVO Energy found that if every Briton sent one less email every day, the entire country’s CO2 emissions could be reduced by the amount emitted over 81,000 flights from London to Madrid. According to the French think tank The Shift Project, in 2018, watching online videos globally generated as much in CO2 emissions as the whole of Spain combined. So, the simple answer to reducing energy consumption – watch fewer short videos.
Of course, streaming platforms like Netflix are worse than cat videos – for the simple reason that movies and series last longer than cute clips. According to Netflix, one hour of streaming generates nearly 100 grams of CO2. Specifically, the Carbon Trust says the European average is 55–56 grams of CO2 for every hour of streaming.
We would like to reiterate that media consumption in general is not good for the environment (perhaps only if you watch a nature documentary that raises your awareness of climate issues – but even then, there is no escaping the footprint).
It is important to understand that this problem is not caused by streaming – far from it. The carbon footprint of streaming is much smaller than that of any physical format. When it comes to listening to music, which is mostly done on Spotify these days, it is estimated that the carbon footprint of one hour of media streaming is around 55 grams of CO2, while for CDs, this number is three times higher due to production-related CO2 consumption, while vinyls and cassettes emit over two kilograms (!) of CO2 per unit. However, it has been calculated that if you listen to one album more than 27 times, it would be more environmentally friendly to buy a CD instead of streaming.
Cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, and artificial intelligence are a couple of the many emerging technologies that are causing headaches for climate experts. It is feared that they could undermine efforts to combat global warming due to ever-increasing energy consumption.
Text, email, or DM?
It will probably not come as a surprise by now that sending an email, text message, or DM (i.e. a private direct message on social media such as Instagram or Messenger) has an environmental impact. But not quite the same! The thing is that those three solutions do not use quite the same technologies. While DMs and emails travel on the Internet, text messages use the channels of conventional telephone communication.
‘To ensure the most sustainable exchanging of messages, it is recommended that you use text messages – at least when you need to send short messages. For the rest, you will still have to use DMs or emails. In order to act as economically as possible, you can always send fewer pictures, videos, or other larger kinds of content. And finally, the device you use to read and send messages also plays a role. I would not want to anger ophthalmologists, but reading messages on a phone with a small screen consumes less energy than reading an email on a large computer screen,’ explains the CEO of the greenest data center in the Baltics.
There is no question that all efforts to preserve our planet and contribute to sustainable development are welcome. If you want to contribute yourself, it is worth, among other things, keeping an eye on media consumption and its methods, information exchange and its storage, and deleting unnecessary files. We are all able to make small choices each day that make our ecological footprint a little smaller. However, if enough people do it, the effect becomes noticeable.