Google's response to Sunday Times story about its search and greenhouse gases

Our sister paper the Sunday Times has caused something of a storm by publishing a story based on the research from a Harvard physicist who claimed that every Google search generates about 7g of CO2.

Here's the top of the story:

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.”

Google has been moved to respond on its official blog, saying that this estimate is *many* times too high. Here is the link to the blog. And here is the meat of the Google response:

In fact, in the time it takes to do a Google search, your own personal computer will use more energy than Google uses to answer your query.

Recently, though, others have used much higher estimates, claiming that a typical search uses "half the energy as boiling a kettle of water" and produces 7 grams of CO2. We thought it would be helpful to explain why this number is *many* times too high. Google is fast — a typical search returns results in less than 0.2 seconds. Queries vary in degree of difficulty, but for the average query, the servers it touches each work on it for just a few thousandths of a second. Together with other work performed before your search even starts (such as building the search index) this amounts to 0.0003 kWh of energy per search, or 1 kJ. For comparison, the average adult needs about 8000 kJ a day of energy from food, so a Google search uses just about the same amount of energy that your body burns in ten seconds.

In terms of greenhouse gases, one Google search is equivalent to about 0.2 grams of CO2. 

What do you think?

Comments

[Alejandro Rodriguez]

If you believe Alex Wissner-Gross, better have a tea than say nonsense on the web...

[Paul Terry]

It's long past time to stop entertaining this CO2 rubbish.
See this:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0

[James Westlake]

Why did The Times publish this without checking the facts first with Google?

Oh! I know! Controversial articles create millions of banner impressions!

In that case, what you REALLY want to publish is a scientific expose confirming the reality of UFOs. Ask the Chicago Tribune; they had the biggest online article in their history when they did it.

[donna]

Greenhouse gases? Global Warming? The REALLY smart people know better. But...if your publication is into ratings...you've got a hit on your hands! Enjoy!

[Dan Alban]

The problem with this is not the underlying story but rather how it was presented. It is a fact that Google uses huge amounts of energy. It is a fact that this would not be used if people did not do Google searches. As such it is perfectly legitimate to say that Google searches do impact on global energy consumption and ultimately on the environment. This does not mean, however, that you can then state with any degree of certainty how many grams of CO2 one search generates as there are too many variables involved such as the type of computer used, the speed of their connection, whether it is networked or a home PC, whether it was switched on for the purpose of the search or was on anyway etc etc. Simplification for consumption by the masses often results in bad science.

[John Middleton]

Quite what axe the Sunday Times has to grind with Google I'm not sure but it does appear the story was frankly garbish.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Harvard-Prof-Sets-Record-Straight-on-Internet-Carbon-Study-65794.html

[Nick Wade]

TechCrunch had a good response: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/12/revealed-the-times-made-up-that-stuff-about-google-and-the-tea-kettles/

[Layton Golding]

It sounds more than a bit one sided without consideration of what folks are doing with the information, likely saving much energy. Online activities usually replace real world ‘outdoor’ activities and therefore save much more energy than used surfing. The internet may be producing a cave dweller culture, but Googling for some info or shopping saves a few trips to the library or school or store, among other things. Extrapolating to consider a more complete disintermediation we’d see massive energy savings in construction and operation of entire facilities, shopping malls, etc. Bricks and mortar declines which is surely a double edged sword.

Consider the larger impact of Amazon for example and broader disintermediation on energy savings. With Amazon, trucking to and from a central warehouse and delivering via an efficiently distributed loop-type route to say 100 homes is far better than trucking distribution to several retail stores, and having 100 houses drive to and from said store, and building, operating, staffing and stocking stores. Jury is still out on the overall impact, good or bad in total.

[VIvian]

What about millions of old automobiles, thousands of factories,hundreds of fossil fuel powerplants that still operate? Anyone giving a thought on that at all?

I hope the professor cycles to his office! Otherwise he is polluting!

[Charly G]

"What about millions of old & new automobiles, thousands of factories, hundreds of fossil fuel powerplants that still operate? Anyone giving a thought on that at all?"

Yeap I did, my answer is unfortunately we need factories to create components for faster computers (that basically are not required), and the most important of all, is the fact that computers, video games, Ipods, cellphones, household items and all the stuff that we take for granted (cruises, airplanes, travelling..)etc., are all powered by electricity and fossil fuels.

We must keep in mind that electricity is a main component in our daily life, just think about a world without electricity. We need fossil fuels to produce electricity and keep all our gadgets operating!!!.

Other options are wind farms and nuclear. So are we ready to drop all our gadgets and change our life style? I bet 90% of world would say No.

[Paper on Research]

Many institutions limit access to their online information. Making this information available will be an asset to all.