xkforce ,

The Carbon footprint of a website is hard to determine and given the examples posted in this thread, I would not trust their conclusions.

Oha ,
@Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz avatar

Huh? 1000013622
How tf can my website produce less than 0g pf emissions?
1000013624

GiM ,

Ecosia plants trees for every search request. So technically it removes co2 every time you visit the site.

nodsocket ,

Until the tree dies and the carbon goes back into the atmosphere.

stoy ,

It is about as useful as a bullshit milkshake is to a vegan.

lorty ,
@lorty@lemmy.ml avatar

If ESG is anything to go by, just a greenwashing fad they'll drop as soon as it doesn't have the desired effect

Starfighter ,

Out of curiosity I've let it rate Low<-Tech Magazine, a website run on an ARM SBC powered exclusively with off-grid solar power, and that only achieves 87% / A.

Link to results

Patches ,

That is because they didn't pay their membership fee

jonuno OP ,

Eheh nice one to test! If there's a 100% it should be that one

rbesfe ,

Virtue signalling at its worst. It's completely meaningless.

pewgar_seemsimandroid ,

ecosia

therealjcdenton ,
@therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip avatar

What the hell is a green website

Bronco1676 ,
Patches ,

Probably a better unit of measurement than this green washed bullshit.

Omega_Haxors ,

Is it ending capitalism? If not, it's greenwashing. Any action other than stopping the one thing fucking up our planet is a distraction.

soviettaters ,

Communism will save the environment.

Omega_Haxors , (edited )

Who said anything about communism? I mean yes it's an option but I think the bigger priority is getting rid of fossil fascism.

soviettaters ,

What options are there really other than capitalism, communism, and everything that mixes the two?

Omega_Haxors ,

No, you're right. There's only two sides: the good side and the evil side. You have to pick one and if you don't you're just in between the two.

Well if you force me to choose I will go for the one that won't fucking murder the planet and everyone on it, thank you very much.

krimsonbun ,

yet you iphone venezuela 100 garillion dead!!1!1!!!!1!1!

Omega_Haxors ,

Huh, figured your instance was anticommunist after that bad experience with /196's modteam. (banned me for saying maaybe we shouldn't be quoting Keffals, an open grifter who I've now been made aware of is also an open pedophile) Pleasantly surprised to see that isn't the case.

krimsonbun ,

That's weird, this instance is pretty left leaning from my experience.

Omega_Haxors ,

Huh, guess it was just that one community.

soviettaters ,

Every instance is left leaning, it's Lemmy

krimsonbun ,

Good point

TheAnonymouseJoker ,

Meaningless bread and circus created by capitalist elites to delude people into thinking we are more responsible than them for pollution. Wonder why these BS certifications do not get created outside of West... something something manufacturing consent media literacy

guts ,

Correct, expect more carbon footprint crap in the future.

drathvedro ,

My website is running off of spare resources on my 10w router, and yet my 30w monitor that I've been using for 10+ years still says that I've saved exactly 0.0 trees every time I turn it on. Thank you, now please fuck off with that bullshit.

smileyhead ,

HTTP,
serving properly tagged semantic HTML file,
with optional styling via CSS,
and if you really want JavaScript for animations and live updates.

Thank you.

lolcatnip ,

I've never seen an example of "properly tagged semantic HTML" or truly optional CSS outside of toy examples meant to illustrate the concept.

But it doesn't matter, because serving website content is an utterly insignificant to contributor to global warming.

peter ,
@peter@feddit.uk avatar

A lot of websites use html tags correctly, especially some of the better news websites

PhilipMottershead ,

BBC is good example of semantic web

belated_frog_pants ,

It's completely negligible compared to industrial manufacturing, bitcoin mining, waste, etc.

Make a lighter website because no one gives a shit about a heavy one.

MechanicalJester ,

I recently saw it reported that Crypto was 2% of US electric use.

That's a whole lot of wasted processing, silicon, heat and energy.

ComradePupIvy ,
@ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Irelevent greenwashing, nothing will change unless we solve the systematic problems, it does not matter what one website or person is doing

While I am at it recycling is a scam, and so is the individual carbon footprint

nudnyekscentryk ,
@nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info avatar

Greenwashing, can't believe this even is a question

Carighan ,
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

Plus, it ignores that most websites couldn't reliably tell you how much carbon emissions they'd be responsible for individually. That's a super-complicated question to answer.

Droechai ,

A website managed by a person working from home are way greener than a website managed from an office, I hope they include that in their green certification

Carighan ,
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

How so?

I mean you put it as a generic thing which means it's independent of other details, including a "way" so you suggest it's a significant difference clearly. This must be based on detailed data or research, right? Care to share that?

Because otherwise, I have a few questions:

  • Is the whole supply chain included? Developer, Ops, Admin, Data Center, cabling, everything? Or just the legally mentioned admin on the page, respectively the lawyer?
  • What if the page from home (and the whole home!) is running on hardware that gets electricity from fossil fuels + cooks with gas while the office and it's page all run on renewables?
  • What if the page deployed from home is written extremely ineffective, so it uses multiple times more electricity?
  • What if the office in question is the back office of a pet shop? Or a supermarket? Or a DIY superstore? They'd heat the place either way, so why not also deploy the website from there?

And don't get me wrong, I'm a staunch supporter of closing down offices as possible. But generalizations such as these help no one, and also just like the OP completely miss the point of talking about carbin emissions and climate impacts.

drathvedro ,

I don't think anything could outweigh the carbon emissions of having to drive to the office.

Carighan ,
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah but that's making the assumption that someone drives to the office.

And also immediately points the finger at car-based single-person traffic, not office-based work. And I want offices closed down as possible, so please keep the finger on them. 😛

Droechai ,

Single car traffic is sadly intertwined with working-on-location where I live

TheAnonymouseJoker ,

Carpooling or using a bike works far better than you think, compared to an idiot driving a SUV in a city.

Droechai ,

So you have two identical websites, down to the cable materials, distance of workers and everything else. Basically a 1 to 1 clone. One website has one person not going to office to manage the site, the other website does not. Even if that person is only WFH one day a year compared to the other that is two trips not driven.

Many people here in Sweden that doesn't live in a big city has quite some distance to work with no viable mass transit options (you are no longer allowed to ride on the school busses where I live which means that the closest bus station is 18 km from me) which requires a car.

Most of our electricity comes from water with other renewables constantly developing, so I don't think the electricity source would matter much since it's not server hosting.

Edit: my first post was also in jest while agreeing with it being super complicated with an almost infinite amount of hard to measure variables to boil down to a single digit or letter

Carighan ,
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

Aaaah, yes, if we assume everything else to be equal, then of course having the admin work from home makes a positive impact.

Patches , (edited )

Personally I hope those mouth breathers save some carbon for the rest of us. Green Certification is a complete joke.

bionicjoey ,

Part of the issue is that electricity is fungible. If I consume one watt-hour from my grid, I don't get to decide where it comes from. The mix of generation is the same for everyone on that grid. Even if you segregate the grids in order to vaguely guarantee that you are only consuming green sources, you're also making the "dirty" grid cheaper and thus easier for everyone else to use, and there are plenty of ways of capitalizing on that difference that nullifies the segregation. It's a bit like arbitrage.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • asklemmy@lemmy.ml
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines