That's quite a lot more than I was expecting.
Originally shared by BBC Focus Magazine - science and technology
💌 | #thoughtexperiment: What is the carbon footprint of an email?
http://bit.ly/2LPlJdW
Sister blog of Physicists of the Caribbean in which I babble about non-astronomy stuff, because everyone needs a hobby
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Review : Pagan Britain
Having read a good chunk of the original stories, I turn away slightly from mythological themes and back to something more academical : the ...
-
"To claim that you are being discriminated against because you have lost your right to discriminate against others shows a gross lack o...
-
I've noticed that some people care deeply about the truth, but come up with batshit crazy statements. And I've caught myself rationa...
-
"The price quoted by Tesla does not include installation of the unit. To this needs to be added the cost of installing solar panels to ...
Considering the vast majority of emails never get opened (or even get transmitted to expected destination), I'm guessing it's a bit less than the claim.
ReplyDeleteRay Bernache Actually, that overburden increases the net cost.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius The article referenced numbers sent, while the spam is probably the biggest contributor, I wonder if they factored those unopened at emails in their equation.
ReplyDeleteRay Bernache I saw the analysis as per message. But: Jevons paradox.
ReplyDelete