• mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    372·
    10 months ago

    The idea of holding individuals and small organizations responsible for their carbon use is a deliberate eco-fakery invented by the fossil fuel industry. It does nothing, except in cases where it leads to purchasing “carbon offsets,” in which case it does nothing and also makes some scammer somewhere some money.

    Most big changes that need to happen are on the industrial level (switching to different sources of electrical power or changing pollution regulations). They may have some impact on the end-user consumer, but mostly not. Mostly what it would mean is that some obscenely rich person still gets to be obscenely rich but not as much as they want to be.

    (AI and cryptocurrency are rare arguable-exceptions where the power consumption is actually pretty significant and you can make a case that the individual involved in it bears some responsible for the impact. But again, the strategy should be for the individual to advocate for changing regulations, not for the individual to look inward towards themselves but turn a blind eye to everyone else who decides to murder the planet, if they want to because there’s some money in it for them.)

    • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
      31·
      10 months ago

      AI and cryptocurrency are rare arguable-exceptions

      Crypto yes, AI does not come even close to 1% of that.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        10·
        10 months ago

        Hm, I was a little bit wrong about it – you’re right, AI is basically nothing right now. Here’s a report with more.

        • All data centers put together use about 2% of global electricity demand
        • Cryptocurrency is almost a quarter of that
        • AI is basically none of that right now, but likely to rise to be competitive with cryptocurrency in the pretty near future as it gets wider and wider adoption.
        • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          6·
          10 months ago

          AI isn’t inherently more energy demanding than any other program, most crypto is designed to be as inefficient as possible.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            2·
            10 months ago

            It is, though. Most computer tasks that a company does on behalf of their customers can be done with a little handful of web servers, all the way up until you get to Google’s scale of operations or something. The reason is that the actual computation the computers are doing is measured in milliseconds on one share of the multicore CPU. AI requires dedicated computing hardware and runs for much longer than that, which means the investment in equipment and how much of it you have to have is orders of magnitude larger. And training the model often takes a whole cluster or data center if you’re going to be a serious AI company. You go from needing 10-20 computers even at Reddit’s scale or something, to needing hundreds or thousands.

            You’re right that it’s not some sort of magic computation that’s harder or more expensive than other computation, it’s just that it’s unusual (until now) to build out a whole data center that’s devoted to doing expensive pure computations on specialized hardware on behalf of your customers, and that’s gonna have an impact on how much power your operation consumes.

  • potatopotato@sh.itjust.works
    11·
    10 months ago

    From the POV of doing literally anything for the environment, yeah it’s just trash. If we’re going to bash websites for being overly complicated and costing their organizations millions a month on EC2 Bezos Bucks, making the web unusable for people with screen readers, password managers, RSS feeds, web archives etc then yeah, be my guest. Destroy it all.

    • jonuno@slrpnk.netOP
      2·
      10 months ago

      That’s a good point, usually accessibilty code and other components will make the website heavier, I suppose

      • potatopotato@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        10 months ago

        Yeah generally simper web pages are much better for people with accessibility issues. When everyone adds tons of weird JavaScript garbage on top then it’s very hard to make tools that work reliably on the pages

  • fidodo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    10 months ago

    Pretty meaningless since it doesn’t capture server side footprint which can easily be much larger

  • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
    8·
    10 months ago

    How would they even know how carbon intensive slrpnk.net is? All they can do is measure some page loading speed and maybe do some very general assumptions about how much energy the lemmy-ui needs to be rendered in a browser.

    While lightweight websites in terms of browser usage are nice for battery use on mobile devices, it says very little about the overall energy use of a website, or where that energy is sourced from (which makes a big difference for the carbon foot-print).

  • max@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    7·
    10 months ago

    i dont think it particularly effective for environment, but if helps make web lighter and more accessible thats a good things meowz

    • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
      8·
      10 months ago

      Inconvenient truth: the location of your website matters more than its content in terms of footprint. Hosting in on a VPS at Amazon probably has a lower footprint than a raspberry pi in your garage. And overall, it is really, really small.

        • Zoop@beehaw.org
          4·
          10 months ago

          Hell yes. I’m glad to see someone get it. Every little bit counts! Something is better than nothing. Even if it’s tiny. It all adds up.

          You totally rock.

        • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
          3·
          10 months ago

          Individuals can make a ton of choices and impact! But don’t make them believe that some things are impactful when they are not. Changing the way you move around, insulating your home, changing your diet, improving your recycling, all these have an impact. Making your webpage 50K lighter? That’s good design sure, but not an environmental action.

          Insulate your water heater before worrying about the few mW a website could save!

            • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
              2·
              10 months ago

              At one point then the goal is not to lower your impact, it is to make it positive: don’t lower your energy use anymore, become a net producer. We just moved in a house so the insulation and switch to heat pump is our priority but at one point I want solar panels. I want guilt-free air conditioning in summer

                • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of good reasons to do lighter websites. Environmental impact is not one of them. Either your electricity usage emits CO2, in which case you have more urgent things to do, or your electricity does not, and you don’t care about the additional microwatthour loading a js library took.

          • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            21·
            10 months ago

            Only recycle metal and electronics, plastic recycling is a scam. Best case is plastic recycling goes directly into a landfill, worst case it’s bundled and shipped half way around the world and dumped on the beach.

  • The Humanoid@slrpnk.net
    41·
    10 months ago

    I’d say just a fad, but even if it doesn’t have a significant change environmentally, it can still have other positive effects I suppose

  • Lordbaum@mander.xyz
    1·
    10 months ago

    Because of the data efficiency thing. I think even when the saved CO2 is very minimal I think it is still better for people where the infrastructure is not as good or for people who can’t access the free net. The Tor network for example is run by volunteers and is not nearly so fast nor has the same capacity than the clear net. So keeping the traffic interactions but decreasing the data needed by the websites could benefit the Network.