But I have a question that has puzzled me for some time, and which I think deserves its place in this forum, I do not think there is this subject, so I develop the title (exaggerated of course but that's how we draw the answer
:
I hear that GPS could reduce the consumption of cars considerably (Swedish study, tomtom publication ..) thanks to the analysis of the networks nests, find the right way and the most court ... in short a whole lot of tool allowing -I DO NOT doubt! - a reduction of local CO2 emission from the car on the ride as well.
However, my waning mind and the great classic of externalities force me to be skeptical: It is therefore not a question of discussing here the "is this true in this case" which seems well studied, but sooner "is this true if ":
-If we take into account the manufacture of electronic and plastic compounds, which in addition to CO2 brings a pile of pollutant
-The paths required by the components
-If we take into account the need to send satellites
The goal is to know if without this tool, the carbon footprint (to be weighted with the balance of the other pollutants) is stronger with or without GPS BUT:
So that the debate progresses, without "yes but if we get lost ... if this that"
The comparison is to do with a person with a map, compass, eyes that can look at signs, a mouth that knows how to ask and a brain that has not been gnawed by television and virtual murders (generation of which I party
and which I'm trying to heal)
For the person without GPS that I am the statistic it is 5 min maximum for any address in the world; by .... search internet, yes because I am a hybrid, so that is also to take into account: the case that goes to paris since nantes does not have a paper map of the world ... so we will leave the principle that it has a computer, and the internet, I do not think that the computer is to be taken into account because it will stay at home, or in the neighborhood if it is shared, use by others for something else. So would be to take consulting consumption (ecological cost of an internet search: 0.2g according to our researcher google and 7g according to the world and the Times that I think were exaggerated and it is necessary to add the consomation of the consultation of the computer: a British environmental expertise firm says:
"Visiting a single web page alone would consume about 0,02 grams of
carbon per second, the number being multiplied by 10 for a page enriched with images
complex or videos (0,2 grams). ").
Conversely the GPS which is private and has targeted use (well there is the 3G Iphone which is GPS ... but this technological marvel must really have a polluting balance room CO2) ...
the debate is open, the quantities of variable exceeds my only young brain, so I open a connection of reflection become all neurons connected and cut :)
The goal is not to quibble, I need arguments (or not if I'm wrong!) Not to make people accept the false need and ecological profitability of the GPS ... obviously it will serve many of undecided world on these products ...
Let's go there:
