5 Comments

  1. Andreas Nurbo

    site is hosted in is powered by renewable energy

    Stupid metric. Nuclear power is vastly superior to all other forms of electricity production. Just because its “renewable energy” does not mean it’s life cycle CO2 is low or that it has a low environmental impact. It does not also take into account any regulatory requirements such as coal powered plants or water power plants which has a huge environmental impact.
    I would say data centers that say they run on renewable energy is an environmental threat.

    Just make a plugin that says buy nuclear power electricity.

    Report

    • Ari Stathopoulos

      The energy source used is just one of the many factors. It is not the only one, nor is it the most important one.
      A website that has 10MB of images on its frontpage will produce a lot more carbon than an optimized 30kb mostly-text site – even if the 1st one is powered by solar power and the 2nd one by burning coal.
      The metric is an indication, an estimation. Nobody can accurately measure the carbon footprint of a website. The numbers are meant as a guide, not a gospel.
      If a website produces 2g/visit then it’s bad and they should do something about it ASAP. There’s lots of room of improvement there! If they do 0.1g then it’s pretty good, but I’ve managed to get as low as 0.01 on a site. There’s always something that we can do to improve things.

      Report

  2. Saji Varghese

    Renewable energy, is one among the most discussed topic recently, especially related to global warming. However, it is not 100% green, it uses pannels, batteries, other components to stabilize the energy. all these have a specific life, after that tenure tese needs to be dumped, will create a huge problem than all other forms of energy is contributing today.

    Report

  3. Csaba

    Thanks, Ari, great initiative!

    Raising awareness about the fact that the internet runs on a lot of electricity and that all that data has to be stored and transferred, seems important to me, too. Especially in these strange times, when we’re relying on the web even more. People react surprised when I tell them about the impact of the internet on climate change. 🙂

    The problem is that we create these “giant websites”, with everything and if possible even more (scripts). Then we try to optimise them. Caching and maybe some more resources, because “they are cheaper than our time to build them the right way”. But often we are spending our visitor’s time.

    Instead, we should keep website weight in mind when we build them. Weight is part of the budget, part of the quality of the result. As part of the budget, it helps us make design decision as well.

    It is obviously not that straightforward, but a lighter, well-crafted site is not only better for the environment, but also faster by design.

    Report

  4. Roger

    You try to optimize a website by few kB while much more data is transferred every hour by the constantly sharing-liking-streaming lunatic society addicted to social media and electronic entertainment. So what are we talking about here?

    Report

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: