³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

We've reported before on the green cost of online

Now a Harvard physicist, controversially claims that two search requests on Google could produce as . Google says that is ""."

also aim to be carbon neutral, and the company says "We committed to being carbon neutral back in 2007 and achieved it that year. We don't have the data in for 2008 yet." So even if the company pollutes they clean up afterwards - which is more than my kettle does.

Other companies have tried to off-set online behaviour too. Here's UK based search engine. But it's shut down.Here's that earns as a result of your search and uses it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and invests in renewable energy. Only, it too has shut down.

Better news Its planted nearly seven thousand trees throughout Australia, and there is a map of the forests they have planted on their .Good for Australia. And there others , and .

So how to best to surf and be green? Pedal-powered computing? Mice with little tiny dynamos inside? What would you do to minimise the carbon cost of browsing.

UPDATE: A blog commenter JeremyB helpfully posts that rather effectively scuppers the story. It's recommended reading. Key quote from Alex Wissner-Gross:

"Our work has nothing to do with Google. Our focus was exclusively on the Web overall, and we found that it takes on average about 20 milligrams of CO2 per second to visit a Web site." And the example involving tea kettles? "They did that. I have no idea where they got those statistics," Wissner-Gross said."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?