The Internet is Killing the Planet

#1
MG1968

MG1968

That’s No Moon…
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
28,393
Likes
19,328
#1
Did you know that every time you update your facebook status you are dumping carbon into the atmosphere?

oh, the horrors...

Could the Net be killing the planet one web search at a time?

It's Saturday night, and you want to catch the latest summer blockbuster. You do a quick Google search to find the venue and right time, and off you go to enjoy some mindless fun.

Meanwhile, your Internet search has just helped kill the planet. Depending on how long you took and what sites you visited, your search caused the emission of one to 10 grams of carbon into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.
Click to expand...
 
#3
#3
All part of Al's master plan. Since he invented the internet and global warming he's got the market cornered.
 
#4
#4
Really? What about the fossil fuels consumed on the way to the theater? What about all the plastic wrapped concessions you buy there? What about *gasp* all the air you breathe while in the movie?
 
#6
#6
Thrasher865 said:
Really? What about the fossil fuels consumed on the way to the theater? What about all the plastic wrapped concessions you buy there? What about *gasp* all the air you breathe while in the movie?
Click to expand...

First two points are exactly right. The last about the air is not as much, IMO, due to the tighter nature of that cycle (I know you were making a joke with it, so I'm just adding this as an aside). But almost every product or task consumes something that in some way used fossil fuels or has a CO2 footprint that is notnaturally offset. You hear the Internet issue fromtime to time. Of course it generates greenhouse gases. Almost everything does given our current product economy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#7
#7
TennTradition said:
First two points are exactly right. The last about the air is not as much, IMO, due to the tighter nature of that cycle (I know you were making a joke with it, so I'm just adding this as an aside). But almost every product or task consumes something that in some way used fossil fuels or has a CO2 footprint that is notnaturally offset. You hear the Internet issue fromtime to time. Of course it generates greenhouse gases. Almost everything does given our current product economy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

wouldn't almost everything do so as long as man lives? the product economy may contribute more but even an agrarian economy would produce GHG no?
 
#10
#10
volinbham said:
wouldn't almost everything do so as long as man lives? the product economy may contribute more but even an agrarian economy would produce GHG no?
Click to expand...

Depends on where you draw the box for the life-cycle and what the time horizon is, if you're talking about net production, which I was. If your economy sequesters CO2 at the rate it is produced, then I view that as carbon neutral.

So, while I do breathe CO2 in an agrarian society, I get the carbon for that from plants that sequestered the CO2 that I had breathed out before. By eating those plants, I have made room for more That timeline is less than a year and with that box, it's basically neutral.

So, it can be debated where that box should be drawn, but I can define a reasonable box in which tasks or products would not generate greenhouse gases (because the box includes the sink).

As an aside, there will always be sinks, the question is just, will they occur at a rate that is fast enough (small enough time horizon) to lead to no net production - i.e., accumulation.

To be clearer, though, I should have said net production in my original post.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#12
#12
TennTradition said:
Depends on where you draw the box for the life-cycle and what the time horizon is, if you're talking about net production, which I was. If your economy sequesters CO2 at the rate it is produced, then I view that as carbon neutral.

So, while I do breathe CO2 in an agrarian society, I get the carbon for that from plants that sequestered the CO2 that I had breathed out before. By eating those plants, I have made room for more That timeline is less than a year and with that box, it's basically neutral.

So, it can be debated where that box should be drawn, but I can define a reasonable box in which tasks or products would not generate greenhouse gases (because the box includes the sink).

As an aside, there will always be sinks, the question is just, will they occur at a rate that is fast enough (small enough time horizon) to lead to no net production - i.e., accumulation.

To be clearer, though, I should have said net production in my original post.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

makes sense - thanks
 
#13
#13
Apparently they dont count the number of trees saved every year, now that people use email instead of mail. Go ask the U.S. postal service.
 
#14
#14
oklavol said:
Apparently they dont count the number of trees saved every year, now that people use email instead of mail. Go ask the U.S. postal service.
Click to expand...

Trees used for paper are often plantation grown and replaced, thus acting as a net carbon sink, opening up new space for tree growth without combusting much of the orginal carbon storage as plant cellulose.

So no, in some ways using less paper, while good for the environment in other ways (ecologically, hydrologically, etc.) is not helping the carbon situation.
 
#15
#15
IPorange said:
Trees used for paper are often plantation grown and replaced, thus acting as a net carbon sink, opening up new space for tree growth without combusting much of the orginal carbon storage as plant cellulose.

So no, in some ways using less paper, while good for the environment in other ways (ecologically, hydrologically, etc.) is not helping the carbon situation.
Click to expand...

Does old growth do a better job of sequestering CO2 into the soil/earth (vs. growing and sequestering it in its biomatter)? What is the breakdown on that?
 
#16
#16
TennTradition said:
Does old growth do a better job of sequestering CO2 into the soil/earth (vs. growing and sequestering it in its biomatter)? What is the breakdown on that?
Click to expand...

Once old growth is established, it is just holding the carbon stored, not sequestering any more (net).
 
#17
#17
IPorange said:
Once old growth is established, it is just holding the carbon stored, not sequestering any more (net).
Click to expand...

OK. I was thinking that the root system actually placed carbon in the soil in a more "permanent" sequestration for some reason... (I thought that it was one part of the more long-term sequestration along with bottom of the ocean.)

Maybe I am just thinking of the portion of the leaves that doesn't decompose to methane.
 
#18
#18
TennTradition said:
OK. I was thinking that the root system actually placed carbon in the soil in a more "permanent" sequestration for some reason... (I thought that it was one part of the more long-term sequestration along with bottom of the ocean.)

Maybe I am just thinking of the portion of the leaves that doesn't decompose to methane.
Click to expand...

Soil-building isn't the same as old growth forest. I mean, it takes place there, but it isn't categorized with it. I don't think it's the root systems directly, so much as a host of soil fauna (mostly microbial) that take detritus and store it. But soil itself stores gaseous CO2, so the thicker uncompressed soil layer you have, the more CO2 gas is able to be stored.
 
#19
#19
IPorange said:
Soil-building isn't the same as old growth forest. I mean, it takes place there, but it isn't categorized with it. I don't think it's the root systems directly, so much as a host of soil fauna (mostly microbial) that take detritus and store it. But soil itself stores gaseous CO2, so the thicker uncompressed soil layer you have, the more CO2 gas is able to be stored.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I've got it now.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top