Google can’t help itself. It just loves to brag about how green it is, even though its data centers use up a tremendous amount of energy. Still, on a per-search basis, it is less polluting than many alternatives – a fact it likes to remind us of, especially since it was accused of being an energy hog last January. In a greener-than-thou blog post touting how energy efficient its data centers are compared to the industry norm, Google points out that it takes 850 searches to emit the same amount of CO2 as it does to produce and distribute one newspaper. I wonder which activity produces the most information.
And here I thought Google was trying to make nice with the newspaper industry. I can’t wait for a Google executive to bring up this factoid at the next Congressional hearing questioning whether Google is responsible for the demise of the newspaper industry. See, newspapers are dirty, practically evil. How do we know? Some Google engineers figured out the Co2 emissions comparisons on their computers.
Cheeseburgers are even worse than newspapers. One cheeseburger emits as much CO2 as 15,000 searches. Maybe someone should send this data over to Christine Varney at the Department of Justice. Here are a few other comparisons:
| 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 |
(Photo credit: Flickr/Lee Jordan)
How much CO2 does it take to tell adsense partners what their cut in the revenue is?
Yes exactly. If google did less penetrating of my a-hole I could buy a Prius.
not to mention that the founders own 2 G5s, a 767, and another large plane that I can’t recall. They fly one of these 3-4 planes to somewhere on vacation every weekend from what I hear.
They release full os so as to get search queries. They send “suggestions” for each letter typed in address bar if chrome. All such support services cost co2.
Whatever, net search can be made efficient whenever one likes. When it becomes significant contributor of CO2
Would be interesting to see the comparison of Google searches to newspapers WEBSITES, rather than an apples to oranges comparison.
If the information is not published by newspapers, what will Google index and retrieve?
Shh. You’re not supposed to talk about that! Get back on message. “Information should be free.” Such is the word of Sanjay.
Google is very green, people say they are not because they have ties to business’s that are affected by Googles massive success. People like to hate on others that are doing well because they cannot do it themselves. For instance, I have a small Blog with a small amount of readers, and I have received some nasty comments and emails about how they think I’m a Vanilla Ice wannabe because I like rap and I’m white. I guess the fact that I was smart enough to secure my government name as a dot-com and then build out a decent Blog on it has some people pissed off at me because the have names like ‘Jim-Bob’ or ‘Frank Smith’ and their names are already locked in on domains.
Anyway, there is nowhere to go but up for Google, the Internet, and Technology. We are just going through some growing pains as a society right now because the vast majority of people do not know how to navigate around these areas very well. I suggest everyone, including grandparents, take a course in basic computer concepts and web design. The future will be dictated heavily by this area, and all industries will be affected.
Education and knowledge as well as as open attitude, go along way these days. Having thick skin and a good sense of humor goes along way!
Best regards!
This data is worthless unless we know how many searches Google processes per second. Do we?
Of course without others producing the content and information for Google to index and monetize those searches would be worthless… so perhaps Google need to factor the additional cost of their crawlers and the original data creation into their “costs”
While I agree that the newspaper model needs to evolve I also beleive the only way to maintain real journalism is to have consumers pay for it – at direct odds to Googles belief that they should be able to make money on the back of free content…
Why should we be care about the newspaper industry?
(”Congressional hearing questioning whether Google is responsible for the demise of the newspaper industry”)
If a service no longer has a demand and gives way to a more desirable service, the government should not try and help the old stay afloat.
Why should we care about the newspaper industry? Well, let me point out a few things.
First of all, it provides jobs for thousands of people. Especially journalists. And if we have things like google, or online newspapers, giving away all of the articles for free, then the journalists who write these stories will lose their jobs.
Also, imagine there not being newspapers. Or books. How would it be if the only way to read something would be to read it off your computer? I don’t know about you, but personally, reading a book on paper is very different from reading it online. And better.
@jessica, you missed the zinger. Newspapers need to be compensated for the value that they provide (google). Let the take-down notices begin!
Does Google account for the end point and the nearly 100 network devices between me and them when I perform a search? How about YouTube, using approximately 20% of the internet? ISPs have had to build bigger and bigger pipes because of YouTube, because of Google. This is only one small piece of the story and is like measuring my greenhouse emissions based on my electric vehicle (0!) and not on the cost of creating electricity to deliver to the car and the cost of creating the car.
Who is the country’s biggest user of electricity? AT&T. Several percent of that are going to carry traffic to and from Google.
I don’t care about any ‘industry’, it’s called creative destruction and it’s a good thing.
The bad part of this story is that companies really do need to waste time on this kind of research to stay out of the crosshairs of a ridiculously authoritarian administration and congress. I’d be shining up my credentials too the way things are going.
850 searches compared to a news paper? That’s comparing grapes to apples my friends. And 850 is still a poor poor number. I would think (and hoped) it would take at least 10 times that many searches to equal the CO2 output of creating and distributing a newspaper. And think of how little you get back from Google… a list of links?
Agreed, that number is actually staggeringly low. I would have guessed at least a couple magnitudes higher. It makes news paper sound superior in the “green” initiative. Of course, Schonfeld wrote this, so the numbers could very well be totally incorrect and made up.
While Google’s environmental leadership is stellar, their analogy is only looking at the CO2 footprint of their data centers – which amount to 0.5% of the CO2 consumed in a Google search.
In other words, a Google search that include the footprint of the data center and the person doing the search is equal to 4.6 searches. http://www.phit...10/Default.aspx
The bottom line – we should focus on the tools we use online and how they can more green.
With the right information and tools, we can make better decisions to survive and thrive.
Seems like a lot of these type of numbers are pie-in-the-sky.
Just this weekend Top-Gear (good show) commented about how the Toyota Prius had a bigger environmental footprint than a LandRover. Why? The batteries are apparently terrible on the environment (both their creation and afterlife).
More pie-in-the-sky numbers from Top-Gear? Could be. But an interesting statement nonetheless.
lol. that’s so great. i didn’t see all the numbers. how many searches happen at google at any given time. sure there are many many multiples of 850.
Great….except counting CO2 emissions is complete Bullsh__!!
Can somebody please read UN Agenda 21….somebody? anybody?
Let’s learn the difference between a good environment and a bad taxation scam…of course, Agenda 21 goes way, way past that.
Referring to the tons of data produced by the various government propaganda departments during world war two to build public support for the War, Winston Churchill said that “there are lies, damed lies and statistics”. Statistics can be produced to support any given position.
Google seems to be spending a lot of time producing statistics.
I want the CO2 stats on creating the CO2 stats! It had better be on Twitter, because I can’t stand reading more than one broken sentence.
Actually that was Benjamin Disraeli. Point remains the same though.
Newspapers – FOR limiting CO2 emissions, Against Global Warming = kill a bunch of trees to print on, use a bunch of oil based ink to print with, burn a lot of fuel to deliver.
Newspapers – FOR Labor unions and their anti-capitalist/socialist cronies = labor unions demanding too much, giving too little at a time newspapers are badly in need of more operating capital.
Newspapers – FOR anti-Capitalist regulators and others who target large corporations who have managed themselves well (ie google, Wal-Mart, etc.) = don’t see how they are a monopoly unto themselves and do FAR more damage to this republic than ANY large corporation could.
etc. etc. etc. They’re nothing more than ‘holier than thou’ hypocrites.
They’re essentially so stupid that they’re killing themselves with the positions they take — so let them go under. Crash and burn and good riddance. Enterprising entrepreneurs who focus on niche reporting will take their place using a mix of online and targeted newsletters. No harm, no foul.
If you sit at a computer all day instead of get out and interview people, methane and other harmful gases accumulate and then one must ask, do Google employees fart more?
Beavis and Butthead (and ESPECIALLY CORNHOLIO) wanna know did I say fart, he heh.
What about those households that make 3 million searches in a month. They’re ruining our environment twice as fast!
Global Warming is a Joke and a Fraud.
Natural Events like Volcanoes, EarthQuakes, Fissures etc. do far more to environment than you could ever hope to do with your newspapers, and cars.
What happened to Common Sense.
Anyone know Carbon Footprint of TechCrunch?
How idiotic can we be?
Good one David. How goes this compare to TechCrunch?
Use http://www.googlelightoff.com to save energy! Mobile version doesn´t hurt your eyes and save battery on your telephone! (http://mobile.g...lelightoff.com/)
Well Google will do anything to protect its nest. They have a master plan and they’re not about to let the newspapers of cheeseburgers get in their way.
Did Google take into account that users actually have to switch on their computers etc. in order to do their Google search? That probably accounts for even more CO2 emissions than Google is considering. Secondly, as you rightly pointed out, which activity produces more information? A single newspaper publication could produce almost at least 20 times different pieces of information (news) than a single Google search (multiple variations of the same piece of information or news).
I understand Google’s position in wanting to promote its “green” mindset (it’s all about business) but maybe something more credible?