What is the alternative to searching the web? Take holiday shopping for example. Is it better to drive from mall to store to mall… to find that certain toy? Searching by PC has far less impact than searching by car. Take the homework example. Is it better for me to drive my kids to the library and search through tens of books that each required printing, distribution, selling, delivery, and filing? Wouldn’t time spent on Wikipedia and other on-line sources be more efficient and have a lower impact overall?

In my work life at Cisco Systems, I have come to heavily rely on TelePresence — our video conferencing system. I live on the east coast, but work mostly with fellow employees on the west coast. In 2007, I took about a dozen trips to the west coast for various in-person meetings at our headquarters in San Jose. In 2008, my west coast trips amounted to exactly zero. Now, does my increased use of TelePresence drive higher energy consumption and related GhG emissions by our internal systems. Surely! The networking and computing devices involved in my TelePresence sessions do work incrementally harder in support of my sessions. However, compared to the energy costs and environmental impact of plane rides and hotel accomodations and restaurant meals and airport commutes, my “virtual” meetings significantly reduce my carbon footprint.

The way I see it, it’s not that we use energy at all or that we have any carbon footprint. Rather, it’s that we use energy wisely and strive to leave the smallest footprint possible. After all, what’s the alternative to breathing?

Wow. This has the same guilt inducing effect as the statement, “Every time you download an mp3, a kitten dies!”. As a self proclaimed treehugger and organic technology consultant, I often weigh such catch 22′s as:

*Why is this organic pasta in a plastic package?
*Was this organically raised chicken’s last moments on earth peaceful as it was slaughtered?
*Why can’t I find organic batteries?

Of course, I then pat myself on the back for not driving an SUV but if Google searches become the new environmentally selfish burden to society, I’m trapped.

Earth is the same in this regard. We can’t fully understand all the ways in which we are impacting our planet. Climate change is but one aspect of how we impact Earth but our nascent understanding of this does not take anything away from the other ways we affect our planet. The bottom line is that all of the impact points are critical to understand because for Earth to maintain a relative state of homeostasis, we must understand how we affect it and learn to enjoy our lives with minimal detriment to our environment.

This doesn’t mean we have to shun buying Plasma TV’s and computers. It doesn’t mean we should stop using Google because they use a lot of electricity. It does mean that we need a full-court press of government and private investment to move our economy towards clean energy.

One final note. I know there are some folks that still present the argument that there is no solid “proof” that climate change is real. That we could all be wrong about CO2′s affect on global climate. I’m a big fan of Pascal’s Wager and this is a perfect opportunity to apply the concept. Let’s assume there is a 50/50 chance of being either right or wrong about global warming. What should we believe? Let’s suppose that climate change is a hoax and we waste billions/trillions of dollars investing in alternative energy. The worst that can happen is we burn a lot of cash and see a shift away from middle-east oil towards home-grown energy. But what if climate change is FOR REAL and we do nothing? No one really knows for sure how bad the effects might get, but we know its a lot worse than burning some cash.

For whatever reasons you did what you did, incidentally and inadvertently did good and that’s what that matters. I am not suggesting you listen to what others have to say – you do what you do, live your life and don’t deny yourself anything. What you don’t do is waste. I think that was the point of my post.

Apart from that I have really nothing to say. Congrats on the new and beautiful LED bulbs in your house.

Deepak

Last month, for example, I spent $250 replacing every 13-23 watt CFL light bulb in my house with 1.5 and 3 watt LED bulbs. 35 in total, and my entire house is now lit beautifully for less than 80 watts. Did I do this for my environment? because Katie Couric asked me to? No.

Oh, but Let’s say by some miracle I DID replace my bulbs with low-E LEDs “for the environment”, and by some miracle that it WAS because of Katie Couric. In fact, let’s imagine that Katie Couric, in one of her on-air carbon rants, managed to convince not only me but EVERY American citizen to do the same as I did last month. Mr. Malik, what do you think would be the net ecological impact?

Negative!

Because at the end of Couric’s telecast, as a result of her decision to rant for 6 valuable broadcast minutes about the dangers of CARBON DIOXIDE instead of POACHING, 65% of cat owners in this country would be emitting less harmless carbon dioxide, but meanwhile all these millions of TV viewers would STILL be unaware their outdoor cats murder BILLIONS of small mammals and birds every year, some species of which are now EXTREMELY endangered, such as the Amargosa Vole in California.

In short, Mr. Malik, it has NOT been demonstrated that man’s puny carbon dioxide emissions have ever resulted in the death of a single animal. On the other hand, we have witnessed OVER AND OVER poaching and habitat destruction result in the extirpation and EXTINCTION of species.

Do you see what is wrong here?

I’m a housing developer. WHY AM I ALLOWED to rip apart my state’s few remaining tracts of wilderness to build my housing developments, but meanwhile for god sakes I am NOT allowed to buy a high-wattage Plasma TV? THE DIRECTION THE MEDIA IS TAKING US IN IS SICK!

People would find stuff every now and then to criticize Google. They might not be perfect but they are one of the most ethical and responsible company around.

Leave them alone.