back to article So much for green Google ... Emissions up 48% since 2019

With six years left for Google to meet its 2030 "net zero" climate commitment, the web giant has admitted its carbon emissions are rising. In an environmental report [PDF] published on Tuesday, Google admitted that its greenhouse gas emissions rose 48 percent since 2019. In 2023 alone, the search giant's carbon footprint …

  1. cornetman Silver badge

    Unless I'm missing something, it is entirely possible for emissions to go up, while efficiency *also* goes up, if total consumption is increasing.

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Of course

      You're not missing anything. Emissions are going up, making the goal of net zero harder, tho Google reckons the increases will be offset by greater efficiencies driven by AI. As the report states:

      "As we further integrate AI into our products, reducing emissions may be challenging due to increasing energy demands from the greater intensity of AI compute"

      C.

      1. cornetman Silver badge

        Re: Of course

        Did you change the text of the article? I'm sure there was quite a bit of mention of "efficiency" whereas I can find nothing now.

        Perhaps I misread it? It's not unlikely: I'm just recovering from a nasty virus and delusion can't be ruled out. :(

        1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

          You may have misread

          We haven't changed the text - the only mention of efficiencies is specifically this part: "generating more efficient routes for automobiles."

          There wasn't any chunk of the story talking about changes in overall efficiency of Google's DC estate.

          C.

          1. LybsterRoy Silver badge

            Re: You may have misread

            "generating more efficient routes for automobiles."

            Not sure how that's going to work unless all automobiles are FSD or we have a computer on board checking the route every few hundred yards and recalculating to see if there's a better one. I wonder how many will drive into the nearest river rather than following an inefficient route that leads to a bridge? Or "this is the most efficient route, please ignore the 27 mile tailback"

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: You may have misread

              but, but, but AI...

            2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

              Re: You may have misread

              To counter that statement... the truth is people are actually driving MORE as they find MORE destinations after looking at MAPSs.

        2. Mage Silver badge
          Flame

          Re: Of course

          The fad for rather useless "AI" that only gives good results when basically plagiarising (A search engine that gives no sources or source links) may soon peak and decline. I hope so.

          People seem to have totally unrealistic ideas as to how it produces useful content. When the public and "investors"* are educated the big guys will mostly ditch it. See Google Graveyard.

          Icon, because it's vanity that should go on a bonfire.

          [* What's the difference between a real investor and speculator?]

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Classic Jeavons paradox. As engines get more efficient, consumption increases, because so does demand.

      Google is no different.

  2. Sora2566 Silver badge

    After Bitcoin mining rigs, I would have thought we'd have learned our lessons about giant power-hogs that add nothing of value to the world...

    1. LybsterRoy Silver badge

      I'm torn between up and down voting. I agree with the sentiment but the concept that "lessons have been learned" so often espoused by politicians ,,,,,

    2. Like a badger

      I would have thought we'd have learned our lessons about giant power-hogs that add nothing of value to the world...

      Google has learned its lesson, that greater power use equates to greater revenues to Google.

      Google sells advertising placement to other companies, and all those emissions are down to the tools by which Google persuades companies that it understands and can identify potential end customers. Curiously, since economic growth has been very poor in most developed nations, it's quite clear that Google (and digital advertising in general) isn't creating value for those companies who pay for it, merely consuming a marketing budget that has to be spent.

      The companies who pay Google get their money from the public, so AI and big data are merely a wealth transfer tool from our pocket to Google, yet without the helpful side effect of either reducing business costs or supporting economic growth, and at the same time undermining potentially useful services (such as local news) that relied upon advertising.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        ... greater power use equates to greater revenues to Google

        I am afraid that may not even be true at the moment with AI. They may be running AI services at a loss, just so they don't get left behind by the others also running at a loss.

    3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      It's a false equivalence: the efficiency of cryptomining must decrease over time as the complexity increases.

      Here, hardware efficiency is increasing but consumption is increasing faster. We don't have numbers for the article, but I'd expect YouTube alone to be driving much of the consumption as video resolutions have increased a lot since 2019. Fortunately for Google, it's able to offload costs to its customers, which makes paying for compensatory measures: certificates, investments, etc. easier. And that's the real issue: providers like Google and Microsoft are currently able to avoid proper carbon-pricing. I suspect they know change is coming and what they can't lobby against, they will prepare to deal with: they have sufficient capital to buy generation capacity outright and arrange data centres around it.

      1. Like a badger

        "I suspect they know change is coming and what they can't lobby against, they will prepare to deal with: they have sufficient capital to buy generation capacity outright and arrange data centres around it."

        That's a very expensive solution, since they'd need to be 100% self sufficient in low carbon power, and no matter how you do it that doesn't come cheap. If they are using renewables with grid top up, then the grid pricing models will brutally punish them for being out of balance because they'll struggle to forecast their grid demand. As most developed nations double down on their net zero hobby horse regardless of the cost implications I can't see that there's any chance Big Tech will avoid shouldering some of the cost, especially if Big Tech power demand is growing without any obvious benefits to society.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Sure, it's expensive but they're very rich which means they can probably outbid other consumers… I point to Amazon's recently announced deal for power from a nuclear plant.

      2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        Mining actually gets harder, as the prime number space gets filled with larger gaps.

  3. darklord

    Please tell me we didnt see that train coming!!! oh Please Please Please Sir can have some More !!!!!!!!

    Data center's aren't green and will be placed in places which already have a low carbon emission impact next as to offset all that nasty CO2 the power consumption required to emit as Solar ,wind and other renewables cant deliver.

    Just like Ford has done and i suspect many other manufacturers rather than reduce the carbon emission's due to manufacturing processes, Data storage is a commodity whether you like it or not.

    1. VonLugersButter

      That train keeps coming though, and it's called Jevon's paradox. Have a look at Dr Peter Garraghan's talk on the matter, basically if we make systems more efficient we just fill it up or build more systems.

      The whole video is good but the reference is around the 20 minute mark...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYVb2Lo3Jtw&list=LL&index=136&t=1280s&ab_channel=LancasterUniversity

      The really depressing thing about this is that not all energy consumed is going for a greater good or scientific endeavor. A significant chunk has to be going towards the same-old thing, popping ads up in your face to make you buy something you really don't need.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        And fake porn, fake real news, bad art, cheating homework, various fraud schemes, identity theft, ..... etc

        1. VonLugersButter
  4. ChrisElvidge Silver badge

    Ask AI how to reduce emissions

    AI says "Switch us off."

    1. Badgerfruit

      Re: Ask AI how to reduce emissions

      Although a grim sounding outcome, it reminds me of bluey and the daddy robot episode.

      Playroom is always a mess?

      Solution, get rid of kids who make it a mess.

      Planet a mess?

      Solution .....

      Another poster said it (and is very much downvoted for some reason?), we are trashing the one and only planet we have in order to make rich people even richer. It is literally madness at this point but I see no end other than THE end.

      Could it be why the super rich are looking to Mars, they KNOW this planet is headed for environmental disaster the likes never seen before, and so are packing their bags? Building bunkers. Hiring security. Asking openly how to stop people turning on them in the event of the apocalypse (that they helped create).

      Ultimately, who is to profit from AI? The workers it's being trained to replace? I don't think so.

      1. StewartWhite Bronze badge
        Alien

        Re: Ask AI how to reduce emissions

        There is a solution though - just tell the Tech "Gurus" such as Musk and Thiel that we've prepared Ark B specially for them as they are so wonderful and we'll be sending them off in it to a new planet we've found named "Golgafrincham".

  5. BPontius

    How much longer is this farce going to continue? Stop this nonsense and accept the fact we live in a carbon based world, it is chemically and physically impossible to avoid carbon emissions! Mining, processing, manufacturing and producing products will generate carbon emissions and no amount of new math or fudging of the data will change that. The other insane notion is everyone can be forced into electric cars, but ignore the fact there is insufficient infrastructure and we are simply trading the exhaust of carbon emissions for the exhaust of tons more e-waste that is going to poison and pollute the planet in far worse ways than CO2, methane or water vapor. Since there are no big profits in reclamation or recycling of e-waste there is very little hope of solving the problem (we struggle to recycle more than 30% of paper and plastic), so we'll give our rose colored glasses a good polish and carry on with business as usual.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      A pile of lithium and other materials sitting in a corner awaiting appropriate re-use or recycling does not generate CO2. Leaving aside newer battery technologies being developed

      Electricity generation and distribution when gas powered is more efficient than isolating certain petrochemical fractions, driving them to various locations and then burning them with only 40% turned into motive power and the rest into heat.

      But we can reduce our reliance on conventional carbon sources, and seek to remove carbon. Net Zero is keeping carbon dioxide production and removal in balance rather than letting it run away from us because it's "too hard"

    2. graeme leggett Silver badge

      Why compare large complex items like EV batteries with plastic and paper, why not with similar uses like lead-acid batteries, or similar tech in smaller form factors such as laptops?

  6. toejam++

    If Google is using AI to enhance its search results, the results are not really showing. So I am curious if they're burning up the planet chasing a fad with marginal benefits or if it is actually resulting in a significantly better product?

    1. VonLugersButter

      This is a strange one. Energy companies are not giving Google power for free, so the ROI on ML/AI functions alone would be interesting. We'll only know in a few years if it stands alone or, in Google's case, it's propped up by their search business.

  7. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

    Like all of googles public statements, the OPPPOSITE is actually the truth.

    1. sabroni Silver badge
      WTF?

      re: the OPPPOSITE is actually the truth.

      So they have reduced their emissions by nearly 50%?

      1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        Re: re: the OPPPOSITE is actually the truth.

        G never claimed they would reduce emissions by 50% by 2024. They ONLY said they would be net zero by 2030 and thats surely not going to happen as confirmed by this new report.

  8. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "who spun it as a net positive"

    In other words : this is what we're doing now and we ain't changing anything.

    So, Google, how 'bout them FPGAs ?

  9. Pete 2 Silver badge

    It's a steel

    > the search giant's carbon footprint topped 14.3 million tons of CO2 equivalent

    So a few million tonnes of CO2 more that the Port Talbot (not really a 'bot) steel works.

    With a capacity of five million tons of steel, this amounts to up to 11 million tons of CO2 per year, almost 3% of the UK’s total emissions.

  10. RJW

    Is using the Ecosia search engine better?

    Is using the Ecosia search engine better option? I know they plant a lot of trees. But are their data centres using less carbon than Google?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like