

Why I Canceled My CO2stats Account - epi0Bauqu
http://www.altgate.com/blog/2009/01/why-i-canceled-my-co2stats-account.html

======
pg
This is egregious linkbait. The author acts as if Alex wrote the Times
article. If he had, he would have disclosed that he was a founder of CO2Stats.
But he didn't write the article; he was just quoted in it. Anyone who's been
quoted in an article knows how little control you have in that situation. More
often than not the reporter has some agenda and all he wants is quotes to suit
it. So it is here: I happened to see Alex immediately after he talked to the
Times reporter, and he was frustrated then that the reporter hadn't wanted to
hear about anything except the carbon emissions caused by Google searches.
Which, in typical reporter fashion, he then proceeded to present in the most
simplistic and controversial way.

The author of the present article has done the same thing in the opposite
direction, replying to linkbait with linkbait. If he'd really wanted to see
what Alex had to say about these issues, he could have looked on CO2Stats'
site.

~~~
fnazeeri
PG:

(1) Linkbait? Egregious? Come on. I'm a fan (of YC) and have no need for,
interest in or motive to linkbait. Read my blog, dude.

(2) Naivete? You've given thousands of interviews. I've given hundreds.
Seriously, when did you _not_ know the angle the reporter was pursuing? I can
say zero (but then I've not been the target of 60 Minutes). At best Alex was
naive and at worst he was abetting a greenmailer.

(3) CO2stats has the right goal. I have no beef with, in fact I emphatically
support, the objective. My _job_ is to support green issues. That said, we
have to be conscious of our means and greenmail can't be one of them.

'nuf said.

~~~
pg
I don't know about you, but I find it's impossible to control the conversation
with a reporter. A professional like a PR person or a press secretary may be
able to have a whole conversation without saying anything that can be
misconstrued, but no ordinary person can-- especially not when they're excited
about an idea. You say one or two hundred sentences, and they pick the one
that, quoted in isolation, will seem the most controversial.

I was even hosed this way once by Steven Levy, who is one of my favorite
reporters. He came to several dinners during one YC cycle. I must have talked
to him for hours. I explained all the nuances of how YC works. Out of all that
he ends up quoting me as saying that someone who turned us down would be
failing an IQ test.

[And before anyone starts jumping up and down about that one again, I meant it
in the narrow sense of someone who didn't understand that all we have to do is
improve a startup's prospects by 6.4% (<http://paulgraham.com/equity.html>)
for the founders to end up net ahead.]

But you can't just blow off the press. The best you can hope for is that if
you do a lot of interviews, collectively the resulting articles will form a
sort of Giacometti drawing of the truth.

------
vaksel
The whole green thing for websites just seems extremely stupid to me. Its like
being penny wise, but pound foolish. A single Semi probably affects the
environment more than most websites(except behemoths with hundreds of
thousands of server farms)

~~~
emmett
If you run the math, you'll realize that's not even close to true.

~~~
mixmax
have you run the math? It would be interesting to see some numbers.

~~~
SwellJoe
<http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=503867>

According to this article, the IT industry matched the aviation industry for
global CO2 emissions in 2007. A regular ol' desktop PC, with regular daily
usage (9 to 5), uses about 400kwh of power per year. Servers, being
larger/louder/faster than the average PC, and running 24/7, are obviously
dramatically more consumptive.

Does that mean there aren't bigger problems that need solving? No, of course
not. Automobiles are a huge source of problems and need to be dealt with. But,
like CFLs, small changes to high quantities can make a real difference.

If we wanted to be in denial, or assume that only the biggest producers of
waste need to change, then one could just write off the carbon footprint of
your PC and servers as unimportant. I don't know enough about carbon offsets
and such to know what the right thing is here, but I think it's a novel
approach to a real problem. Companies with large data centers really are
burning a lot of coal and pumping a lot of crap into the air. Sure, their
employees are doing even worse on the drive to work...but people need to work
on all of those problems, not just the most obvious.

And, of course...before I judge someone who is working on the smaller problem
of server carbon footprint, I would have to ask myself what _I'm_ doing that's
more useful.

~~~
dejb
> Servers, being larger/louder/faster than the average PC

I'm not sure about larger or faster. A lot of web servers are physically
smaller (i.e. they fit into 1 rack unit) and less powerful. Have a look at web
hosting options. I believe google in particular uses a large number of quite
moderately powered units.

~~~
SwellJoe
Perhaps, and graphics cards in high end boxes are power hogs (on top of the
dual and quad core CPUs...though there's a reason why dual, quad, and more,
core CPU came to the server market first, and always have...there are many
servers working today that _are_ dramatically larger and faster than even the
fastest desktop machine from Dell)...but, servers still run 24/7, while PCs
are mostly off or in low power modes for 14-16 hours out of each day. So, a
desktop machine could be chewing twice the power per hour of uptime, while
still using less overall.

And, of course, servers are a more efficient use of power. A modestly loaded
server is doing work for hundreds or thousands of users every day, while a
desktop PC is only working for one, maybe a handful if it's a communal
machine.

Anyway, I don't know the precise numbers, but I would strongly suspect that
the average server is using more power per year than the average desktop
computer. Could I be wrong about that? Sure. I don't think I am...but even if
I were, it doesn't alter the reality of environmental impact of data centers
(though I suspect the production stage may be the computer industries real
environmental shame).

------
emmett
While it would be interesting to compare online access to offline access,
CO2stats is providing a service that could really change things moving
forward. You can't buy carbon credits from Blockbuster for the total cost of
shopping there; CO2stats makes it _possible_ to move towards a completely
carbon neutral world.

Obviously they have a long way to go...sites like Animoto use much more CO2
per user than Craigslist, and that's very hard to account for in a general
way. But to complain that they don't give you credit for how bad the offline
version would be is unfair.

~~~
axod
"CO2stats makes it possible to move towards a completely carbon neutral
world."

Given the fact that there's no consensus yet as to the benefits of a carbon
neutral world, don't you think this is premature? Throwing money into a pit
that _might_ change something someday... assuming it needs changing in the
first place.

~~~
run4yourlives
Generally, a carbon neutral world would be a benefit, regardless of the
effects on climate change. We'd ensure the sustainable operation of the planet
- regardless of how many of us there are - because we'd be maintaining the
earth's resources in their current balance. Right now, we're converting a good
chuck of them from one form to another, which eventually - even if this isn't
true now - will have some sort of repercussions.

That being said, being completely carbon neutral is pretty much impossible
given the way our world is currently set up.

~~~
benzim
Why would this necessarily be a benefit? This same argument could have been
made at any time in history. For millennia humanity has benefited from
converting resources from one form to another. What has changed?

Trying to be carbon neutral would have the obvious drawback of significantly
slowing economic growth. Is there a benefit to being carbon neutral that
outweighs this cost?

~~~
axod
Call me a conspiracy theorist, _but_

1\. Rich nations see developing nations growing rapidly, relying, as the rich
nations do, on oil, coal, etc etc

2\. Rich nations start to demonize and do all they can to force developing
nations to stop using coal, gas, etc and only use renewable energy.

3\. Rich nations stay rich, poor stay poor.

That seems to be a benefit for rich nations to push such an agenda.

~~~
gravitycop
If the poor became richer, how would that hurt the rich?

~~~
axod
If the poor become richer, then you become poorer relative to them :/
Surely...

~~~
gravitycop
How could a change in mere relative level of richness hurt one?

Let us assume that richness is _freedom from need_.

~~~
axod
Well for a start, if poor nations become rich, they may not want to continue
working for a pittance to satisfy the richer nations whims. Prices may go up
pretty fast.

Also, if the poorer nations are using all the coal+oil, there's going to be
less for the rich nations... again, making prices rise.

------
ivankirigin
Even if you don't believe in climate change, I really like that CO2stats is a
distributed opt-in approach. Instead of government mandates, you have
individuals and companies taking action.

Other comments about cost-benefit analysis also miss the point to a certain
degree. Raising awareness is valuable. Feeling good is valuable. That doesn't
enter into an individual's cost benefit analysis, but it really matters.

The main critique of I have of CO2stats is that I'd like to see options
besides buying energy. I'd like to donate to research into alternative energy,
not directly buying current tech.

Donating to research also highlights that there are good options to choose
regardless of whether climate change is real.

------
DaniFong
Last I checked CO2Stats was very careful about explaining what they counted.
What I took away from their website is that if you have an account for them
you're paying for your visitor's computer power, and the slice of network in
between. That was most interesting, for me. I'm sorry the OP was under the
wrong impression.

------
shuleatt
Great points by Altgate. I have been wondering why no one mentions the
opportunity costs associated with the Internet vs. its alternatives.
Information and products need to get delivered...the web seems pretty darn
good to me as a green solution

~~~
SwellJoe
_I have been wondering why no one mentions the opportunity costs associated
with the Internet vs. its alternatives._

Isn't it irrelevant in this context? No one is saying, "Computers are bad for
the environment...so go get in your car and _drive_ everywhere for
everything!" The point of this service is to reduce the carbon footprint of
Internet services. We, as an industry, do use power (quite a bit of it), and
we do produce waste, so if someone wants to alleviate that by buying carbon
credits, for marketing or ethical reasons, it has no relation to opportunity
costs of the Internet vs. alternatives.

I don't know the answers to these problems, but it doesn't make sense to blame
CO2Stats for not solving problems that they haven't set out to solve.

------
tsbardella
It is snake oil

------
invisible
The first two points are exactly what I said 4 hours earlier:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=430505>

"The doctor's report accounts for a) your computer viewing the page for X
minutes, b) the overall searches per power used by google's datacenters, and
c) some other random guessing I'm assuming."

------
rrival
Somehow no one mentioned what I've run into a lot with green initiatives:
they're treated like public goods
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good>).

i.e. "It's nice to know that someone else can solve that problem so easily and
I benefit directly regardless."

------
patrickg-zill
Interesting to note that they buy credits at $5/ton then sell them at
$200/ton.

That means that your $10/month account is really only 50 cents worth of
offsets, plus $9.50 worth of guilt.

The medieval popes are envious...

~~~
ntoshev
Where do you get these numbers from?

~~~
fnazeeri
You can find prices for carbon credits (US) on CCX here
<http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/market/data/summary.jsf> (currently trades
around $2 per metric ton). CO2 stats is buying wind energy credits which are
different than CFI traded on CCX so they could be paying a different price,
but it's unlikely to be materially different (because CFI is basically a
listed version of wind credits, bio fuels, land fill gas to energy, etc.). So
if they have enough volume, this is the price CO2stats should be able to buy
offsets.

In terms of the price at which they sell, it varies on a per ton basis because
of their fixed monthly fee structure. <http://www.co2stats.com/signup.php> $10
per month gets you 100K page views. Based on the stats from my blog, CO2stats
equates 100K page views to approximately 500 kilos of CO2. So the cheapest
they sell at is $20 per ton but the reality is that it is much higher because
most clients wouldn't have 100K page views. For example, if your site gets 10K
page views, then you'd be looking at $200 per ton.

------
rokhayakebe
It would have been best for CO2Stats to help Google to buy carbon offset and
further work with them to reduce their energy consumption etc....

But I guess not every company cares what Google thinks off them and they just
spit it like it is.

~~~
axod
Umm I think google is doing fine with renewable energy initiatives by itself
actually...

Real ones - like installing solar panels all over the roof. Instead of
imaginary "buy carbon offset" ones.

~~~
pg
CO2Stats doesn't buy carbon offsets. They buy renewable energy certificates.

~~~
axod
It just seems weird to me...

1\. I could install solar panels, wind turbines, optimize things, require less
servers, energy saving lights etc, reduce my energy bill, and save money.

2\. I could pay CO2Stats money, to buy renewable energy certificates, costing
me extra money, and not reducing energy usage.

Why would I choose 2 over 1? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

~~~
gravitycop
_I could install solar panels, wind turbines [...] and save money._

How do solar panels and wind turbines save money?

~~~
axod
I'm confused.

If you install solar panels, which generate electricity, surely you don't need
to spend so much buying electricity?

~~~
anamax
Solar panels (and windmills) aren't the cheapest way to generate electricity.
While they have 0 fuel costs, they have both maintenance and fixed costs. And
then there's that whole "night" and "no wind" thing.

------
newt0311
Cost-benifit analysis: If the green lobby knew the meaning of this phrase,
they would realize how ludicrous 90+% of their proposals sound.

~~~
harpastum
cost-benefit analysis: If anti-slavery lawyers knew the meaning of this
phrase, they would realize how ludicrous 90+% of their proposals sound.

I'm not saying that buying eco-credits is anywhere near as important as
stemming slavery, I'm just saying cost-benefit analysis ignores all
qualitative benefits--e.g. clearer skies, lower overall pollution, freedom,
etc.

Cost benefit should be considered, but it shouldn't be used to write off major
concerns.

~~~
run4yourlives
Your comparison to slavery is completely retarded, both because is a vast
overstatement, but more so because it doesn't even make sense.

If you rtfa, you'd see that the cost benefit analysis is one of the stronger
points: _How many trips were avoided, how many packages not mailed and how
many phone calls not made because of the internet?_

Trying to measure one's carbon footprint, and then lessen that footprint is
noble. Profiting through some obscure calculation that includes some things
but not others is opportunism.

~~~
river_styx
Here's a tip: if "retarded" is the best adjective you can come up with, you've
already lost the argument.

~~~
quantumhobbit
This should be codified as a named rule on the internet akin to Godwin's Law.
Ad Hominim is too general.

~~~
pg
Actually I thought that too. We should call it River's Law. (Styx's Law would
presumably be something about hair bands.)

~~~
patio11
So because I never really read usernames while reading comments, my mental
parser read this as River [Tam's] Law, which was apparently not immediately
rejected as incorrect because she is a bit different in the mental department
and would probably react... appropriately to the word "retarded".

As much as I appreciate river_styx's contribution to the development of
River's Law, I really think my mental flight of fancy is superior. Or at the
very least would make for a better motivational poster:

"Don't Say 'Retarded', Or She'll Kill You With Her Brain"

