Two Google searches uses up as much energy as boiling a kettle

It's amazing how you can twist findings and surveys to make them say it your way and paint a whole company as bad... I wonder if the people doing this survey searched Google for references or e-mailed their results?

well if you want me to use google less ... i am not going to.

google is the thing that runs this country, without google the world would collapse

Yes, but imagine how worse it would be if there was no Google.
People would have to go to libraries.
Transportation costs for delivering books to libraries.
Paper and ink costs.

This entire thing was a bunch of numbers twisted so much they have no meaning anymore.

And worse so, they probably used more energy just to add that to their site, and the surge of people that will look at it due to the title.
It is, quite simply, flamebait.

Google indirectly saved the world as a whole a lot.
Along with Yahoo, and to an extent, Microsoft.

shit man. bin laden, in his fabled cave, is probably the least destructive among us.

augh. this society is so frustrating. how am i supposed to participate without destroying everything in my path?

They don't even know how exactly Google makes their searches and they already can say how much electricity Google uses in each search... Yeah, right.

This article is a definate reality check. Yet I cannot help to think since they're making the billions of dollars in profit from our use (collectively) Google should be the "leading innovator" and take the necessary steps to reduce its carbon footprint without being so secretive. This is a provoking concern, and now I am just annoyed.. The informal corporate slogan Google is known for is "Don't be evil." yet 7g of C02 per search sounds kind-of semi evil or atleast, not a well thought strategy. Espically for Google... Truthfully though, Google is my #1 Internet serach tool, I doubt that will ever change reguardless of how much energy my searches use.

Lets look at this from a different direction.

Google has the right to use as much energy as they need. The energy being used just needs to from a clean source of energy. This tremendous amount of clean energy can never ever run out!

We need to tell the power companies that the only type of energy you are allowed create is clean energy, that can only be created in a way that does not harm the environment in any way!

what about, Yahoo?
What about the massive data centers the US Government run?
What about the massive data centers at research colleges?
And on and on... jeeze.
Hey, I know what, lets pick a victim and nitpick them to death and make them look as bad as we can for no good reason.
Lets all get green. Stop using technology. That'll do it.

They need to upgrade to solid state drives! No moving parts, faster access, and far more energy efficient. Only problem is that they are expensive and are limited to a few hundred GB each... but hey, Google's got oodles of money and they are supposedly interested in green technologies right??

Perhaps they should also look into installing large solar arrays to power their servers too!

i emit anywhere from 500 to 700 grams of CO2 per day breathing alone.

should i quit breathing?

I imagine that these alleged grams of carbon would be emitted whether you searched twice or not. It's not like the servers turn off when you aren't making a search.

It's worth it.

Besides, we will have all wind, geothermal, solar, and tidal power within 10 years or so, anyways.

I use BLACKLE, an energy saving search engine. I believe it is powered by Google.

This article seems to be referring more to computer and internet use instead of just Google. I think the writer, being in the media and all, used Google, a prominent company that all of us internet users are familiar with, as a way to get publicity for the article. We recognize Google in reading his article. I ask myself questions about the writer: is he writing to bring awareness to the environment? Is he writing about the environment to maintain a job? Is he using the environment to gain readers? Was he asked to report about the environment?

Most of all, if the article is about the environment and carbon footprints caused by internet use and internet searches, why is the article posted online? If it reaches multitudes of users to gain a following, is it knowingly following the theory of taking one step backwards to take two steps forward?

One more thing regarding needing to go green or getting rid of humans for nature to take its course. Destroying the atmosphere and whatnot just helps nature take it's course. As humans, we are products of nature, therefore, if we use our cognition in any sort of manner to be productive or destructive, it is technically nature taking its course. If we happen to kill our own species in the process, life will still exist in some way or another and return to how it was. Our planet is going to go through cycles of mammals, reptiles, birds, etc... and possibly other creatures that haven't even developed yet only to be destroyed. Think dinosaurs. They died somehow... comet? volcano? bacteria? all three? more than that? Life. Goes. On.

Wow, guess alot of people are in alot of hot water over this!

you could be right but then again.......

If it wasn't for Google, I wouldn't be able to watch polar ice caps melt and Brazilian rain forests disappear before my eyes on Google Earth. Not that I ever do but this thread's got me in the mood to make myself a nice cup of tea and do just that.

Watch Online Movies on http://mediapanga.com

Don't look now, but Google is just a piece of advertising. You only get what they show you.
You CANNOT find the good stuff - the stuff you are hoping for and think they are providing.
Dumb pays them money and that's what comes up.

well. what about co2 paintballing? they should all convert to compresed air or no2. make a page abotu that!