TIC and CO2, the mail less good than the mail of La Poste?

[Christophe]

Amazing info to take with tweezers, I remain very skeptical for the moment ...

The mails sent by La Poste release in the end less CO2 (= carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide) than the mails.

Emails sent over the Internet spend a lot of CO2, not to mention spam which "pollutes" our electronic mailboxes. In addition, many of them will be printed by the recipients. But they have the advantage of being very fast and economical!

---> According to an article from the site "Agir pour la Planète" (see link below), e-mails require a very large storage on very powerful servers which spend a lot of energy!
---> According to ADEME (Agency for the Environment and Energy Management), a message sent by Mail consumes 19 grams of CO2.

For my part, when there is urgency, I send a message by fax when it is possible (I do not know the carbon footprint of the latter, I can not find any info about it).

All this leaves to think!

If you have any observations, do not hesitate to communicate them!

Source: http://www.tinkuy.fr/ecogeste_conseil_e ... nnemental_

More informations: http://www.agirpourlaplanete.com/action ... ement.html

According to Fabrice Flipo, professor and researcher at the Institut Télécom, "the environmental impact of ICTs (computers, televisions, telephones, etc.) is still largely ignored. There is a current of thought in public opinion that wants ICTs, because they are qualified as intangible, have a totally zero impact on the environment. "



A recent study by ADEME (Agency for the Environment and Energy Management) in partnership with Bio Intelligence Service shows that, on the contrary, the everyday uses of ICT are not without danger for our planet and the planet. environment! The numbers are alarming and are increasing every year.

An inventory will allow you to become aware of this situation ...

If we stick to the use of the internet tool, know that today we are 2 billion to be permanently connected to the Internet and the figure should reach the 2.6 billion in 2013.
294 billion: this is the number of emails sent per day including spam. A number that should more than double by 3 years.

The emails, which seem very harmless, have a very negative impact. Take the case of a company made up of about 100 employees who exchange by mail, and well it is 13.6 tons of CO2 which are generated just by the production of emails. To give you an idea, this represents about 10 return Paris / New York by plane!

The emails give off more CO2 than the classic mails present in our paper mailboxes! In fact, an email may at times have a carbon footprint 15 times more important than a simple mailing letter! Why ? Simply because sending an email results from a set of processes. Your email sent can end up on a server thousands of kilometers before reaching your recipient and it requires a lot of energy!

Another black spot: queries on search engines like Google or Yahoo that consume a lot of energy and release a lot of CO2.
If we take the example of France, starting from the postulate that on average a surfer realizes daily 2.6 searches is, 936 per year, that corresponds to the final 287 600 tons of CO2, about 1.5 millions of Km traveled in car !

I let you imagine these figures on a global scale and therefore their impact on our environment.

Computer manufacturers are increasingly taking these environmental issues into account in their creative process. A computer today uses 50% less energy than a few years ago. We even see Ecolabels like Energy Star and Ecololabel Européen.

You should also know that there are many companies today that are committed to recycling your old computer equipment: www.recyclez-moi.fr
Also find for free the report of Ademe below:

Here is the guide of the Ademe: Information and Communication Technologies and CO2

My 1er comment:

Frankly amazing info! Obviously spam is big ecological shit ... but there is "waste / loss" in any economic activity!

What is the CO2 number for a paper letter (everything included: paper, stamp, ink, sorting, distribution, then go to the post office to post it ...)?

What's on is that: if I sent as much paper mail as mail, it would cost me more than my emails ... gold spent and CO2 are linked. Where is the bug?

Also, we must stop with this "dictatorship of CO2" because there is not only CO2 in life ...

I will start the debate on our forums... believe that many will agree with me.

There are some big bullshit written in the 2ieme article:

Your email sent can end up on a server thousands of kilometers before reaching your recipient and it requires a lot of energy!

The guy who wrote this apparently does not know much about networking ...

Whether your server is near you or 10 000km 100 km or 30km it travels, it really does not change much to the energy consumed ... must not forget that the average load of a server is weak enough, when it is not used it consumes for nothing ...

It's like a heat engine: the best performance of a server is achieved for a certain load of use!

Also and this is where we understand that this study is not serious: we must compare to service rendered equivalent. The mail is almost instantaneous, not the paper. So if the paper went as fast as the mail (not far from the speed of light) how much energy would it consume? hihihihi

[other-energies]

I'm going to try to contradict the comments in the articles you share and with which you also seem to disagree.

The first number that made me jump to the ceiling is the CO19 2g by email sent. As I read the following, I understood that he was related to the one who allowed the study. Indeed, this one seems to be based on an average to 1mo by email. Look at your box and do the math, over the last two months, I'm around 0,2mo (and I sometimes use the email to send me photos). In the professional environment, this can not be 1mo. On the English-speaking web, we talk about 0,3g for the carbon footprint of an e-mail. It must be remembered that a so-called neutral car makes 120-140g per kilometer so even if a post office car carries 400 letters per kilometer traveled, we are still good at sending emails.

From there flows the second ineptitude of calculation. Starting from the same average, the calculation is done for 33 emails sent per day to two recipients. This represents an 1mo email every twelve minutes over seven hours of work. Knowing that a text of 100 pages without illustrations weighs something like 200ko, the person in question should not produce much unless you waste time recording everything in pdf and again ... I think of the slideshow cans, cards greeting under paint recorded in BMP but still, the average seems high to me not to say exaggerated.

I will stick to the estimate of our Anglo-Saxon friends and I totally support the idea of ​​doing less research. Not only does it reduce the impact of data centers, but it also undermines the abuse of dominance that google on the Internet.