footprinting

This post will burn carbon and in the process, inevitably, produce carbon dioxide. The oxidized carbon atoms will rise into the atmosphere and meet up with the bazillions already hovering up there. Carbon dioxide molecules have the useful property of reflecting heat radiation, useful because otherwise it'd be too damn cold on this planet to live on. All water would be frozen and life as we know it, water-based, wouldn't be possible.

All useful things, like all good things, should be enjoyed in moderation. It seems that over the last few decades, all moderation has vanished from the journey of the carbon dioxide molecules. There are so many up in the atmosphere that the equilibrium, down on earth, between the heat gain from insolation and the heat loss into space is shifting towards the warm. The curves are quite convincing, the reasoning is it as well. Being a biochemist, I cannot judge the merit of the countless published studies but their conclusions have been in good agreement recently. Man produces CO2, the earth suffers for it, and soon man will too.

Frequently cited vehicles of this carbon dioxide production are air travel, which everyone is in favor of restriction and no one actually does; automobiles, which the car industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep motoring ahead with as much power and size as possible; and the heating of homes, most of which, at least in the less developed parts of the world - like the UK - escapes through thin walls and decrepit windows.

Less appreciated is that the writing of blogs (and immeasurable other activities performed online) produces vast quantities of carbon dioxide. A story in yesterday's Sunday Times 'reveals' (or so they claim) that server farms, data centers and the glowing screens in front of nearly everyone these days generate as much carbon dioxide as all airlines together, about 2% of the global total.

You can take this report as you like. I'd recommend taking all numbers with a grain of salt as long as it is not made transparent how they were obtained and what effects were considered. What is the cost of a search not performed, simply because the machines keep humming? If you want to take the cynic approach and say that Google is only mentioned because it's the big player who has most to lose from negative publicity, that's fine by me too. But there can be no doubt that computing devours immense resources.

It is certainly the case that a computer can be extremely energy-efficient: reading a book on the screen instead of buying and then tossing it, for example, or video-conferencing instead of flying across the Atlantic to meet collaborators. But if you just surf the web or play chess online or write a pointless blog, you're burning the world, bit by bit. My conscience is placated only mildly by the fact that I wrote this post on my Eee, which uses significantly less power than the MacBook Pro.