SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Shift Project has released a report pointing the finger at online video as a significant, and growing, cause of greenhouse gas emissions.
From New Scientist:
The transmission and viewing of online videos generates 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, or nearly 1 per cent of global emissions. On-demand video services such as Netflix account for a third of this, with online pornographic videos generating another third.
[...] The authors call for measures to limit the emissions from online videos, such as preventing them from autoplaying and not transmitting videos in high definition when it is unnecessary. For instance, some devices can now display higher resolutions than people can perceive. The report says regulation will be necessary.
No word on the carbon footprints of HTTPS, JavaScript, or advertising.
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Sunday July 14 2019, @04:02PM (3 children)
I agree with commenters that have already pointed out that the paper completely fails to consider what will substitute for digital entertainment. Also, what is the real cost savings associated with less consumption on the large pieces of digital infrastructure that cannot be shut off as simply as the receiving device in people's homes? Yes, I know that the growth numbers are big, but whatever is in place still has to be up and running, often by passing around idle characters, control, or other data used for status, alarms and signaling. You might save a little on power and HVAC costs at central offices that are under a lighter load, but you won’t be powering down racks of equipment just because you’re streaming less digital content. On demand or not, having overcapacity to handle the bursty nature of Internet traffic has been a fundamental aspect of network design from the beginning.
I also can’t help but feel a sense moralizing judgmentalism when I hear a term like Digital Sobriety. Why the big focus on content instead of smart scheduling algorithms and services that reduce the need for overcapacity? The content based approach could end up being the thin edge of a censorship wedge. And it seems like the authors have a hard on for citing digital pornography, which in my mind raises suspicions that there may be a hidden agenda that is not purely environmental in nature.
I’ll give them credit for raising awareness, but I’m really uncomfortable with their concept that this problem is more societal than marketing or technical.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 14 2019, @10:06PM (1 child)
It's a constant theme among the Marxist academics. "People are happy and comfortable, what can we do to stop that?"
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday July 14 2019, @11:11PM
They need to keep the struggle alive so we don't all turn into the bourgeoisie (even tho that is in reality one of the utter failures of Marxism today -- most of the people in the west are not workers anymore but middle class enemies), cause then all would be lost and there would be no workers paradise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 15 2019, @02:45PM
> what will substitute for digital entertainment.
Have we really fallen that far from grace?