all 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

You do have renewable energy. Why not use it?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago
    [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Makes me wonder about all those bloom boxes they used to have.

  • source
  • 33 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 60 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    It can't go with out commenting that the current US Administration is actively and irrationally hostile to any alternative forms of energy.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    It's not irrational. They're being paid to actively denigrate and deny the benefits of clean energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I mean, Trump has a weird vendetta against wind power after some wind turbines were built near one of his golf courses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    He paid to stop the construction of a wind farm in Germany because that's what the oil execs want even if it means destroying ecosystem

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    weird vendetta against wind power

    It's not weird, it's extremely simple. He's a child. He doesn't like the look of them, so he hates them. And since he hates them, they're bad. Even if they're in the middle of nowhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago

    They’re being evil

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago
    [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (5 children)

    AI-powered searches consume roughly ten times more energy than standard Google searches.

    When you're Googling something add "-ai" (without the quotes to the end of your search string. It will skip processing the search with and AI and answer and presumably drop your Google search CO2 footprint by 90%.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Or you can reduce it by 100% by not using google at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Your search with any search engine will produce CO2.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    This is 100% green energy because they bought enough green certificates on the market.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    The US does not have a functioning certificate market, does it? And ind the EU those ultra durty gas turbines are illegal for use as power plant replacement for data centres, aren't they?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    You can cheat.

    The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is a United Nations-run carbon offset scheme allowing countries to fund greenhouse gas emissions-reducing projects in other countries and claim the saved emissions as part of their own efforts to meet international emissions targets.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Development_Mechanism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Pichai, you fucking banchode.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Here's Johnny!

  • source
  • [+] -8 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Very good, considering how much Google’s revenue has risen over that time.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Who exactly is it very good for?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Envinronment.

    Google is now able to generate 43% more value to the society (revenue) per unit of pollution. Their profits rose by 93% (market cap by 66%) adjusted to pollution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Fake money, fake tech, fake people, fake value, real consequences.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago

    You can't just call things fake.

    Money is the best thing to measure value.

    Notice how I’m not even including emissions reduced by Google claiming parts of the market (so, for example, if Bing had 20% of search engine market share and generated 2X pollution, while Google had 80% and generated 8X pollution, Google taking over the whole market wouldn’t change total pollution output, because total pollution stays at 10X).

  • source
  • parent