IT's Environmental Impact

Wonder how much a car ride to the local library generates...

Gotta keep it in perspective...

jnwdmb

SAVE THE PLANET PEOPLE!!!! GOOGLE IS EVIL!!!!!!!

Maybe Cheryl Crow will now encourage everyone to only Google once a week or something...if you don't know what I am referring to:

Sheryl Crow Proposed Limitation on How Much Toilet Paper We Use | NewsBusters.org

Sheryl Crow Proposed Limitation on How Much Toilet Paper We Use

I think I might know the reason that Karl Rove didn’t want Sheryl Crow touching him.
Apparently, Crow wants to save the Earth one toilet paper square at a time. She proposed “a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting” and perhaps “just washing that one square out.” She doesn’t seem to want to pass a law, just culturally berate us into obedience. Here is Crow’s “easy way” to be part of the solution to anthropogenic global warming:

"Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, who's judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, "how bout just washing the one square out."

Devin McCloud

jnwdmb...hilarious. Thanks I needed a good laugh. One piece of tissue paper, imagine that on sloppy Joe night! I make hundreds of google searches a day....I don't feel guilty at all.

kriscamaro68

I am curious how many google searches he did to collect all the information about this article.

jnwdmb wrote: »

SAVE THE PLANET PEOPLE!!!! GOOGLE IS EVIL!!!!!!!

Maybe Cheryl Crow will now encourage everyone to only Google once a week or something...if you don't know what I am referring to:

Sheryl Crow Proposed Limitation on How Much Toilet Paper We Use | NewsBusters.org

Sheryl Crow Proposed Limitation on How Much Toilet Paper We Use

I think I might know the reason that Karl Rove didn’t want Sheryl Crow touching him.
Apparently, Crow wants to save the Earth one toilet paper square at a time. She proposed “a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting” and perhaps “just washing that one square out.” She doesn’t seem to want to pass a law, just culturally berate us into obedience. Here is Crow’s “easy way” to be part of the solution to anthropogenic global warming:

"Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, who's judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, "how bout just washing the one square out."

Unbelievable. Most of the goods we buy involve production overseas, wasteful processes, natural asset stripping in the developing world and a ton of carbon footprint moving the raw materials to China for manufacture and then out to the developed world for consumption. Look at everything you own, everything you buy and everything you are going to buy. Massive carbon cost before you get your grubby hands on it I can assure you.

There's your carbon footprint. Use sparingly of course, unless it's paper to wipe your ass, but the footprint doesn't just amount to what you do with the things you buy. The footprint is already big by the time the stuff is finally sat on the shelves in the mall. Which amounts to a big footprint for just about everything we get our mitts on these days. Mostly likely involving raw materials, components and finished goods moved all over the globe.

Making more things in your own country would help.

ah, but that's where being an informed consumer comes in. I'm not the biggest of the tree huggers, but I was an environmental geology major in my first go at college and I've always tried to be earth friendly. Know where your stuff comes from & try to by recycled and local when possible. You do what you can to leave as small a mark on the planet as you can, but you have to know that you can't leave no mark. I think there's bigger things at stake here than how many squares used per bathroom visit!

skrpune wrote: »

ah, but that's where being an informed consumer comes in. I'm not the biggest of the tree huggers, but I was an environmental geology major in my first go at college and I've always tried to be earth friendly. Know where your stuff comes from & try to by recycled and local when possible. You do what you can to leave as small a mark on the planet as you can, but you have to know that you can't leave no mark. I think there's bigger things at stake here than how many squares used per bathroom visit!

Very true. More power to locally produced goods I say.

Surely an efficient search engine like Google would result in very low carbon usage (like I care)

Seriously, the whole carbon dioxide argument is a complete load of rubbish - so whenever anyone talks about carbon footprint and emissions, blah blah, it's all nonsense. It really is.

gorebrush wrote: »

Surely an efficient search engine like Google would result in very low carbon usage (like I care)

Seriously, the whole carbon dioxide argument is a complete load of rubbish - so whenever anyone talks about carbon footprint and emissions, blah blah, it's all nonsense. It really is.

I personally disagree. I think the faddish terms & sayings are a bit annoying, and uber-environmentalists are even more annoying. I know it's hard to adequately PROVE that carbon dioxide levels of xyz have or would throw us into uncontrolled global warming or the next ice age, but I don't think it's nonsense to try to reduce your impact on the environment and leave less of a craphole for kids, grandkids, etc.

The very simple analogy that I use is this: the earth is a really big pool and you're just one measly little swimmer in it; sure, you can keep peeing in the pool and get by okay, but what if EVERYONE keeps peeing in the pool? Eewwwwwww...

Vogon Poet

Environmental warnings are important to keep in front of people as a reminder. But everything should be put in perspective. I can remember the talk that started in the 80s about how computers could create a more efficient, more productive, less wasteful paperless system (we will be assimilated). Offices now consume 3-4 times as much paper as they did before. Typewriters and White-Out are definitely the way to go.
In other words, the carbon footprint of a Google search is an interesting thought experiment, but cutting back won't thwart the institutional ideology of uber-consumerism, where selling more stuff means producing more stuff, thereby polluting more peoples backyards.

I liked John Dvorak's column called "Turn Off the Lights!". Good stuff. He's grumpy like me.

Turn Off the Lights! - Columns by PC Magazine

gorebrush wrote: »

Seriously, the whole carbon dioxide argument is a complete load of rubbish - so whenever anyone talks about carbon footprint and emissions, blah blah, it's all nonsense. It really is.

Well that's just where you and I disagree my friend

Vogon Poet wrote: »

Environmental warnings are important to keep in front of people as a reminder. But everything should be put in perspective. I can remember the talk that started in the 80s about how computers could create a more efficient, more productive, less wasteful paperless system (we will be assimilated). Offices now consume 3-4 times as much paper as they did before. Typewriters and White-Out are definitely the way to go.
In other words, the carbon footprint of a Google search is an interesting thought experiment, but cutting back won't thwart the institutional ideology of uber-consumerism, where selling more stuff means producing more stuff, thereby polluting more peoples backyards.

I liked John Dvorak's column called "Turn Off the Lights!". Good stuff. He's grumpy like me.

Turn Off the Lights! - Columns by PC Magazine

That's true. Usually no shortage of paper going around in the places I work.

Disappointed to see so many uninformed

gorebrush wrote: »

Disappointed to see so many uninformed

Care to elaborate or educate?

dynamik

It turned out to be fabricated: Revealed: The Times Made Up That Stuff About Google And The Tea Kettles

kalebksp

dynamik wrote: »

It turned out to be fabricated: Revealed: The Times Made Up That Stuff About Google And The Tea Kettles

I'm shocked.

snadam

HEY! there is a TE link on that page

My .02: I take the practical approach to these things; use what you feel necessary, and in moderation.

gorebrush wrote: »

Surely an efficient search engine like Google would result in very low carbon usage (like I care)

Seriously, the whole carbon dioxide argument is a complete load of rubbish - so whenever anyone talks about carbon footprint and emissions, blah blah, it's all nonsense. It really is.

All I'll say is the scientific community and the evidence is against you. If your response is it hasn't been proven, it also hasn't been disproven either, and the evidence proves it more than disproves it. And if it's true and we do nothing about it, we're in deep crap.

HeroPsycho wrote: »

All I'll say is the scientific community and the evidence is against you. If your response is it hasn't been proven, it also hasn't been disproven either, and the evidence proves it more than disproves it. And if it's true and we do nothing about it, we're in deep crap.

No, no no no no.

It is NOT the scientific community that is against me. The appointed panels of people who investigate this, are NOT scientists. They are economists. They use figures that aren't in line with how the scientists are thinking. A commision sent a report into climate change to 2000 scientists. Of the 56 that bothered to read it, almost all disagreed with it.

I will need to grab a ton of links and put them here. But I assure you all, there are two basic facts.

1. Climate change is occuring. Yes, it is. I don't deny it.
2. The problem is that Climate change is a NATURALLY occuring circumstance of our planet. Carbon Dioxide production - Not related in anyway, yet this is what governments want you to think. It is the perfect stealth tax to impose on the people, when in reality it is all rubbish.

gorebrush wrote: »

No, no no no no.

It is NOT the scientific community that is against me. The appointed panels of people who investigate this, are NOT scientists. They are economists. They use figures that aren't in line with how the scientists are thinking. A commision sent a report into climate change to 2000 scientists. Of the 56 that bothered to read it, almost all disagreed with it.

I will need to grab a ton of links and put them here. But I assure you all, there are two basic facts.

1. Climate change is occuring. Yes, it is. I don't deny it.
2. The problem is that Climate change is a NATURALLY occuring circumstance of our planet. Carbon Dioxide production - Not related in anyway, yet this is what governments want you to think. It is the perfect stealth tax to impose on the people, when in reality it is all rubbish.

It would be nice if a complex issue like this could be boiled down to two simple points. This can't. I wish people would stop trying to brew up simple answers and explanations for very complex issues.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon, but can it be altered by human activity. That's the problem with your argument. You're suggesting that if it happens naturally, humans have no impact on it. Simply not true, and the best evidence suggests humans are exaggerating what is happening naturally to the point it could be destructive.

We don't know for sure, but to suggest it's rubbish ignores what most of the data suggests.

All i'm saying is that Carbon Dioxide really plays no part in it whatsoever.

Kaminsky

jnwdmb wrote: »

...
Sheryl Crow Proposed Limitation on How Much Toilet Paper We Use

" ... I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit ...

So, non law-abiding Americans and the rest of the world must just use their hands ???

Celebrities.. Just think of how much worldwide energy we'd save if we got rid of theml !

gorebrush wrote: »

All i'm saying is that Carbon Dioxide really plays no part in it whatsoever.

Melting Glacier Reveals Ancient Tree Stumps | LiveScience

Just a very basic and common story that just at least brings into question stating that CO2 emissions or human activity is playing no part in this.

I'm sorry, but retreats of glaciers past where they were for the last 7000 years (and melting is still going on beyond that) in a span of 150 years, which just oh so happens to coincide with the industrial revolution at the very least suggests you're wrong.

You can act as certain as you want, but the facts are simply stacked more against you than for you. You could be right, but you don't know that. Given the severe consequences if we are causing climate change, and given the fact that more data than not suggests we are at least exaggerating it, I side with them.

dynamik

Personally, I'm not completely sold on human actions affecting the climate. Like you said, it's a natural cycle. However, I also look at the consequences of us improving the cleanliness of our technologies vs. letting them go unrestricted. I.E. what's the worse that'll happen if we adopt green technologies vs. what will happen if we continue as we have been. To put it simply, I'd rather err on the side of caution. Plus, green technologies are obviously the way of the future. We do have finite resources of oil, coal, natural gas, etc., so it is important to advance other energy technologies. I'm not fanatical about green technologies, but what are our other options? While carbon taxes may seem to be an unnecessary source of government revenue, they also encourage advancement of other technologies.

seuss_ssues

Best
So we don't take action, nothing happens we are all good.

Worst
We don't take action and something happens we all die.

We wasted resources but will recover.
We can take action and nothing happens.

We might survive.
We take action and something does happen.

I dont like those odds for not taking action. While i wouldn't point a finger at google or any other online company because of the basic logic of it all. Its like watching a movie star order an electric car from overseas and the amount of emissions put off transporting it here far exceed the amount cut back by the car. There however are other companies and countries (china) that may deserve finger pointing.