Looking at the OP, I wonder why this guy thinks 20% generated by the internet is unsustainable--the size of that 20% depends entirely upon the size of the whole pie. Computers don't really consume all that much energy unless they're doing something really processor-intensive, and new LCD monitors use way less energy than old CRTs. New improvements on processor and related technologies increase efficiency of those processes pretty quickly--think about how much energy each cycle of the processor uses--that number has diminished significantly in merely the last 10-15 years. (Pentium 1, about 100 W/GHz, Pentium 4, about 20-30 W/GHz, a factor of about 4)
Yet, it seems inevitable that the relative proportion of information-transfer related emissions will increase as more of the world enters the information age.
Do these estimates take into account the reduced emissions from people using the internet to go window-shopping, as compared to cars? What about the overall effects of telecommuting, or internet social networking compared to bar-hopping?
I submit that the overall carbon footprint of the internet is probably
negative. I mean, it's positive compared to sitting in a cold, dark room alone, but not compared to doing the things the internet allows one to do with relative ease.
Back-of-the envelope calculation suggests just breathing generates about 804 grams of CO2 per day. So the 100 milligrams from browsing an internet site is really miniscule.
On the other hand, since complicated Flash animations are processor-intensive, maybe this will encourage some web designers to go with a more bare-bones look, with fewer ridiculous ads.
