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 : Norse Myths and Tales (II)
As per usual, a single-part post just isn't going to cut it. Having ranted at considerable length against the Norse sagas (of Flame Tree...
-
I've noticed that some people care deeply about the truth, but come up with batshit crazy statements. And I've caught myself rationa...
-
Hmmm. [The comments below include a prime example of someone claiming they're interested in truth but just want higher standard, where...
-
"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