Can't find the posts, but the gists were that they were admonishing people against saving an excessive number of photos to their phones/computers. To be charitable to their arguments, the digital storage is not free ecologically; there are costs to producing the storage hardware, as well as electricity needed to transport and store them, as well as cloud storage and web interactivity. But I think their argument focused purely on the electricity aspect on the act of saving the file.
Several Mastodon users in the same social sphere, who had a tech background, later posted their own takes, enumerating the actual electricity cost of committing a photo to a hard drive, which was quite miniscule (I don't recall, but it was orders of magnitude below the base functions of a computer).
It is, I would say, a general trend of people who do not critically inspect the ideas they choose to promote, even though their intentions may be good.
A variant of this idea is circulating in the corporate world: the CO2 emissions of an email. A lot of people now seem to think that hitting send in Outlook causes a little puff of gas to be emitted somewhere. Their solution is to send their message via Teams instead. Have they analyzed the CO2 emissions of a Teams message? Of course not.
Indeed why is the warning necessary in the first place? I flipped away as soon as my eye saw “Palestine”. I specifically compartmentalize my consumption of political and world events as overexposure to stuff like that melts my brain.
No votes on my comment in over 1 hr, and then when I agreed with a commenter below who was critical of the author’s world view, four downvotes within five minutes. Hmmmm.
To be fair, your comment was in no way interesting. You announced that you closed the tab without reading the article, providing no value to anyone. I don't see why you're surprised about a lack of votes on your comment.
