Googling Our Way to Serfdom
I was alerted this morning via a couple of sources to an article in the Times (the original one from London, not the imitator in New York) concerning the carbon impact of internet activity - especially Google searches. Reading through the comments below the article I realized than not one in ten people realized why this kind of research is being done, or the impact it's likely to have on their own lives very soon. So I thought I'd kick in a little context left out of the article.
First, let's hit the key findings the article reports.
Let's make sure we don't miss the focus here. It is not focused upon Google, the corporation. It is focused on those who use Google (or, by inference, any Internet search engine) to perform their own Internet searches, i.e. everyone. We'll get to why that matters in a moment.
But first some more examples of the kind of studies being performed to demonstrate that this is not some isolated "kook" study, or amusing aberration...
What do all these analyses have in common? They're all attempting to quantify the "cost" to the environment for individual human activities. Well what good is that, you might ask. The very act of breathing produces CO2, so what's the point of quantifying this stuff at such a minute level?
To find some evidence for that you need to understand a couple of things not present in the article: "Green" legislative initiatives, and the philosophical mindset from which such legislative action derives.
For this I'll shift the focus back to the U. S., though they are very much in parallel with similar processes in Britain and throughout the developed world.
The current front running environmental legislation on the Obama docket is to implement a cap and trade scheme on carbon emissions. But that is by no means the only option on the table. Favored by others, including Obama's new Secretary of the Treasury, is a straight tax on energy consumption. This is a view that gains favor every time the complexity of implementing a cap and trade scheme through legislation is seriously considered. One of the key differences between the two is that cap and trade effectively "hides" the regulatory burden and cost of implementing a carbon tax by leaving it up to businesses and regulators. However a straight carbon tax is more "transparent," because carbon is taxed at the individual level.
The more you read from left leaning politicians talking about taxing an individual "carbon footprint," the more you appreciate that this is not just an abstract idea, or a short term fix to an immediate problem. This is a serious attempt at social engineering at least as much as it aims at reforming industry. (Here's a taste of the comprehensive and urgent perspective on this matter within the upcoming Obama administration.)
So we'll just have to suck it up, tighten the belt, and wait for the taxes to go up while we prepare for the next election cycle eh? Well no. That brings us back to where we started. Why are people doing serious studies trying to assign carbon "costs" to the activities you and I do every day... Google searches as only one example?
Because no matter whether we start with "cap and trade," a carbon tax on fossil fuels, or some combination of the two that is not considered the final step by any means. It is not far fetched in the least to envision government regulators looking for ways to track individual behavior in order to assign a taxable "carbon footprint." Because the perspective didn't begin with the notion of global warming so that it will go away once carbon goals are achieved. The idea begins with the notion that human activity of any kind creates a "footprint" which is, by definition, harmful to nature.
As noted in a recent commentary on the seeming futility of "going green":
Be very mindful that this is the mindset from which legislation will begin to spring. No, it isn't an actual religion. It is, rather, a belief system that has sprung up in the "post-Christian" circles of the West that fills the void where religion used to sit. It is a new way to measure righteousness, and just as prone to fanaticism as any other religion.
As long as the earth falls short of Eden there will be an urge to action among those of the Green movement - and our incoming president and Congress are at least active allies of this perspective - to calculate, regulate, restrict, and tax all manner of human activity in the name of protecting nature. This is not the kind of protection we might have been accustomed to in the past. We used to learn to appreciate our impact on nature and limit the harm in broad strokes... don't litter... don't start forest fires... don't dump raw waste into the river... that kind of thing. It made great sense in the name of protecting the commons, and leaving a better world for our children.
But we'd better get ready for a far more burdensome phase in the name of environmental protection. In this phase the children themselves are part of the problem, literally the moment they draw their first carbon producing breath. And in this new phase people will be incented to count those breaths, calculating the resulting "footprint," much the same as people now seriously calculate cattle flatulence.
No one is calculating the carbon footprints for individual Google searches and web page views just for the fun of it. But from this new Green perspective it makes sense in the same way cap and trade makes sense - these studies can be leveraged to radically change behavior if seized by a government bold enough to act upon them. And the pressure to act is very present, and is only likely to grow.
Of course, for every action there must be a reaction.
First, let's hit the key findings the article reports.
Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research.
While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. “Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power,” said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon. “A Google search has a definite environmental impact.”
Let's make sure we don't miss the focus here. It is not focused upon Google, the corporation. It is focused on those who use Google (or, by inference, any Internet search engine) to perform their own Internet searches, i.e. everyone. We'll get to why that matters in a moment.
But first some more examples of the kind of studies being performed to demonstrate that this is not some isolated "kook" study, or amusing aberration...
Wissner-Gross has also calculated the CO2 emissions caused by individual use of the internet. His research indicates that viewing a simple web page generates about 0.02g of CO2 per second. This rises tenfold to about 0.2g of CO2 a second when viewing a website with complex images, animations or videos.
A separate estimate from John Buckley, managing director of carbonfootprint.com, a British environmental consultancy, puts the CO2 emissions of a Google search at between 1g and 10g, depending on whether you have to start your PC or not. Simply running a PC generates between 40g and 80g per hour, he says. of CO2 Chris Goodall, author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, estimates the carbon emissions of a Google search at 7g to 10g (assuming 15 minutes’ computer use).
Nicholas Carr, author of The Big Switch, Rewiring the World, has calculated that maintaining a character (known as an avatar) in the Second Life virtual reality game, requires 1,752 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. That is almost as much used by the average Brazilian.
What do all these analyses have in common? They're all attempting to quantify the "cost" to the environment for individual human activities. Well what good is that, you might ask. The very act of breathing produces CO2, so what's the point of quantifying this stuff at such a minute level?
To find some evidence for that you need to understand a couple of things not present in the article: "Green" legislative initiatives, and the philosophical mindset from which such legislative action derives.
For this I'll shift the focus back to the U. S., though they are very much in parallel with similar processes in Britain and throughout the developed world.
The current front running environmental legislation on the Obama docket is to implement a cap and trade scheme on carbon emissions. But that is by no means the only option on the table. Favored by others, including Obama's new Secretary of the Treasury, is a straight tax on energy consumption. This is a view that gains favor every time the complexity of implementing a cap and trade scheme through legislation is seriously considered. One of the key differences between the two is that cap and trade effectively "hides" the regulatory burden and cost of implementing a carbon tax by leaving it up to businesses and regulators. However a straight carbon tax is more "transparent," because carbon is taxed at the individual level.
The more you read from left leaning politicians talking about taxing an individual "carbon footprint," the more you appreciate that this is not just an abstract idea, or a short term fix to an immediate problem. This is a serious attempt at social engineering at least as much as it aims at reforming industry. (Here's a taste of the comprehensive and urgent perspective on this matter within the upcoming Obama administration.)
So we'll just have to suck it up, tighten the belt, and wait for the taxes to go up while we prepare for the next election cycle eh? Well no. That brings us back to where we started. Why are people doing serious studies trying to assign carbon "costs" to the activities you and I do every day... Google searches as only one example?
Because no matter whether we start with "cap and trade," a carbon tax on fossil fuels, or some combination of the two that is not considered the final step by any means. It is not far fetched in the least to envision government regulators looking for ways to track individual behavior in order to assign a taxable "carbon footprint." Because the perspective didn't begin with the notion of global warming so that it will go away once carbon goals are achieved. The idea begins with the notion that human activity of any kind creates a "footprint" which is, by definition, harmful to nature.
As noted in a recent commentary on the seeming futility of "going green":
But for environmentalism, the size of your "footprint" is the measure of your guilt. Nature, according to green philosophy, is something to be left alone to be preserved untouched by human activity. Their notion of an "environmental footprint" is intended as a measure of how much you "disturb" nature, with disturbing nature viewed as a sin requiring atonement. Just as the Christian concept of original sin conveys the message that human beings are stained with evil simply for having been born, the green concept of an "environmental footprint" implies that you should feel guilty for your very existence.
It should hardly be any surprise, then, that nothing you do to try to lighten your "footprint" will ever be deemed satisfactory. So long as you are still pursuing life-sustaining activities, whatever you do to reduce your impact on nature in one respect (e.g., cloth diapers) will simply lead to other impacts in other respects (e.g., water use) like some perverse game of green whack-a-mole and will be attacked and condemned by greens outraged at whatever "footprint" remains. So long as you still have some "footprint," further penance is required; so long as you are still alive, no degree of sacrifice can erase your guilt.
Be very mindful that this is the mindset from which legislation will begin to spring. No, it isn't an actual religion. It is, rather, a belief system that has sprung up in the "post-Christian" circles of the West that fills the void where religion used to sit. It is a new way to measure righteousness, and just as prone to fanaticism as any other religion.
As long as the earth falls short of Eden there will be an urge to action among those of the Green movement - and our incoming president and Congress are at least active allies of this perspective - to calculate, regulate, restrict, and tax all manner of human activity in the name of protecting nature. This is not the kind of protection we might have been accustomed to in the past. We used to learn to appreciate our impact on nature and limit the harm in broad strokes... don't litter... don't start forest fires... don't dump raw waste into the river... that kind of thing. It made great sense in the name of protecting the commons, and leaving a better world for our children.
But we'd better get ready for a far more burdensome phase in the name of environmental protection. In this phase the children themselves are part of the problem, literally the moment they draw their first carbon producing breath. And in this new phase people will be incented to count those breaths, calculating the resulting "footprint," much the same as people now seriously calculate cattle flatulence.
No one is calculating the carbon footprints for individual Google searches and web page views just for the fun of it. But from this new Green perspective it makes sense in the same way cap and trade makes sense - these studies can be leveraged to radically change behavior if seized by a government bold enough to act upon them. And the pressure to act is very present, and is only likely to grow.
Of course, for every action there must be a reaction.
Posted by Doug Williams on
Monday January 12, 2009 at 2:07pm
