- Advertisement -
Most of us blame climate change on factories, airlines and cars. But global warming is also created by what you are using right now. Computers, printers and mobile phones are causing a lot of the damage.
The Economist cites a study showing that these devices account for the emission of 830 million tonnes of carbon dioxide around the world in 2007. That’s about the same as the aviation industry’s contribution.
Indeed, we have the embarrassing revelations coming out of Britain that the supercomputer created by the United Kingdom’s Met Office to track climate change is actually one of that country’s biggest polluters.
So what can be done about the problem? Actually, there is a fair bit.
The Economist argues that computers might actually reduce climate change with the introduction of smart meters. According to that argument, it might make households more aware of their electricity use, and with that, computer use. Mind you, electricity is the smallest item on the household budget so I’m not entirely sure people will be that conscientious.
Electricity retailers in Victoria tell me that business down there has had smart meters since the 90s and there has been no reduction in consumption. Still, it might just work if Governments create incentives for people to cut down on power consumption.
More businesses are also turning to "virtualisation" where they can have multiple operating systems and applications can run on the same piece of physical kit.
The greener computing blog sees green IT as a growth area. It’s about reducing waste so in this economic climate, companies will jump on to it to save money.
And what can you do about. Some tips here include adjusting the power settings so that the screen turns off after a few minutes of being idle and turning off your computer at the end of the day.
Alternatively, there is now a Zero Carbon Computer Challenge, endorsed by G Magazine, where people can calculate how much energy their computer uses and then buy the appropriate amount of carbon credits to offset the use. It comes out to roughly $10 a year.
How should we tackle the problem of computers and climate change? What are some other green IT initiatives?
Comments
Take the figures of greenhouse gas emissions as a consequence of computer use vs that produced by the airline industry with not just a grain of salt, but several tons of salt. How much fuel does one 747 going from Sydney to London burn? Many modern desktops have power supplies of 400W and smaller. The monitor in front of me (an LCD) uses 40W of power.
The average power consumption of a top 10 Supercomputer is 1.32 Mwatt - the same as 1320 kettles.
For a top 50 system it is 908 Kwatt - 908 kettles. For a top 500 system it is 257 kwatt - 257 kettles. How many of each there are in the world, I don't know, but not that many.
A 747 burns about four liters of fuel per second - 144,000 liters on a 10 hour flight. How many planes per day fly in the world? Apparently about 87,000. Granted, each 747 may carry a few hundred passengers which makes the eventual cost acceptable. However, most airliners are massively thirsty, even if they don't consume at 747 rates.
The findings are sensationalist. The Greens need to be more wary of what they publish. For example, the article referred to in the sensationalist revelation of the United Kingdom Met Office's super computer comes from a website called Technically Incorrect. This website also has an article about a dad who only talks to his son in Klingon - a language from an imaginary planet in Star Trek, Deep Space Nine, etc. The Met Office article quoted does not even tell us the power consumption of said super computer. They again refer to an article in the Daily Mail, which states that this satanic computer uses 1.2 Mwatt - nearly that of a top 10 super computer. A modern electrical railway locomotive has a power output (and therefore a power consumption of at least) 5-6MWatt. A non sequitur remains a non sequitur, even if the presentation is sensationalist and speaks directly to the emotions.
It should be stated clearly: Despite the many qualitative and sometimes quantitative agreements, there are serious gaps and shortcomings in our ability to simulate abrupt climate change. The shortcomings fall in two classes: (i) insufficiently known state of the climate system before and during these events, including forcing functions; and (ii) limited model resolution and representation of climate processes. They both need attention: first, by increasing the paleoclimatic database and aiming for high time resolution; second, by synchronizing the various records to better than 500 years; and, third, by developing an appropriate climate model hierarchy.
Can current models simulate abrupt climate change? Our answer is a partial yes. The necessary physics are in these models and allow for thresholds and switches of the THC. However, their location on the hysteresis now and in the past and the likely evolution of the THC in the future are unknown because we do not know whether there are additional stabilizing or destabilizing processes that we must take into account. Improvement is likely by the increase of grid resolution and better process representation in these models which is a natural development in step with the rise in computer power.
The lessons from the past are important for the future. Model simulations indicate the hydrological cycle gains in strength in a warmer climate. Although the large continental ice sheets have long ceased to threaten the Atlantic THC, changes in evaporation and precipitation are likely to influence the THC and may be triggers of large ocean–atmosphere reorganizations in the future without using any cash advance.