--
EEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...........
Using Facebook causes less eco damage than farting, figures show
Free-content advertising giant Facebook has released comprehensive data on its carbon emissions, revealing that a person who uses the giant website causes rather less damage to the planetary ecosystem by doing so than he or she can expect to cause by simply farting. According to the new Facebook data, each user who is active …
-
Thursday 2nd August 2012 13:13 GMT Khaptain
The iPhone 5 is the solution
Apparently the iPhone5 will have FB integrated and it can also include the infamous "farting apps".
Therefore dear Watson:
A FB user who fires up the farting app whilst doing FB stuff on his iPhone5 will actually be doing the environment a favour by only producing virtual flatulence.
-
Thursday 2nd August 2012 13:32 GMT Dodgy Geezer
Get up to date, Register!
For quite some time now it has been obvious that CO2 concentration has NO detectable effect on the world's climate, and, if anything, it tends to follow temperature rather than lead it.
The last 15 years of flat/dropping temperatures while CO2 concentration goes up should make this clear to everyone. So perhaps now is the time to start mentioning this...?
-
Thursday 2nd August 2012 13:44 GMT madick
So to be really green ...
Does this mean that if one wants to be really eco friendly, one should always ignite one's flatulence immediately after emission?
Would "Dragon's Den" be interested in funding a range of green underwear, where each garment contains a built-in igniter?
And/or, since cows generate more methane than humans, how about a device that clips on to a cow's tail that automatically ignites the animal's farts?
-
-
Thursday 2nd August 2012 14:08 GMT TeeCee
Yes, but.
You have no choice over whether or not to fart.
Nobody needs Facebook, so any number greater than zero is an avoidable and entirely unnecessary contribution to CO2 emissions. Presumably the Greenpeace hippies are all also Facebook addicts, which prevents them pointing out this rather obvious snag in their encomium to Facebook.
-
Thursday 2nd August 2012 14:33 GMT Fading
No increase in concentration
Given there is no evidence of a build up of methane in the atmosphere I call BS on their CO2 equivalence calculations. Without an increase in the atmosphere there isn't any extra GHG to stop IR from escaping.
Just one more thing - surely farts are "carbon neutral" unless you eat coal and drink petrol?
-
Monday 6th August 2012 18:17 GMT Michael Wojcik
Re: No increase in concentration
surely farts are "carbon neutral" unless you eat coal and drink petrol?
If that were what most people who use the phrase mean by "carbon neutral", then everything we do here on Earth would be "carbon neutral", unless someone has a nifty fusion reaction producing new carbon atoms in their back yard.
Obviously we don't emit more carbon atoms than we consume. So the question of "carbon neutrality" (regardless of whether it's a useful concept) is one of the form the carbon inputs and outputs are in - typically what molecules contain those carbon atoms, and where those molecules go when they're emitted.
As the article makes clear, the (admittedly silly) "fart argument" is based on our emitting methane. Since we don't absorb as much methane as we emit, we must be producing it by liberating carbon from other sources, which (the argument implies) are not greenhouse gasses. (Incidentally, this means the argument about our personal CO2 emissions in the article is bunk; we're breaking some carbon atoms off glucose molecules and whacking them onto a couple of oxygen atoms, then exhaling the resulting GHG.)
"Carbon neutral" is a misnomer. The climate-warming carbon argument (whether you buy it or not) is that converting heavier carbon-based molecules into lighter GHG ones like CO2 and CH4 is a climactic temperature pump. Carbon itself remains neutral; it's all about carbon compounds.
-
-
Thursday 2nd August 2012 14:35 GMT Andrew Jones 2
I get fed up with these sort of press releases.....
Unless Facebook have power stations specifically powering them - then it is simply not possible with any degree of certainty at all to state categorically where your energy comes from.
Electricity follows the path of least resistance - thus unless you have a direct connection to a power station - then your electricity in general comes from the closest power generation facility.
It does my nut in when people claim they are using "green energy" from wind farms and the like - they aren't - they are paying a premium to their electricity supplier in order to further fund R&D into renewable energy - but the actual energy flowing into their property is coming from the National Grid - and therefore from wherever the nearest power station is.
-
Thursday 2nd August 2012 15:15 GMT Steve Knox
Cause and Effect
It does my nut in when people claim they are using "green energy" from wind farms and the like - they aren't - they are paying a premium to their electricity supplier in order to further fund R&D into renewable energy - but the actual energy flowing into their property is coming from the National Grid - and therefore from wherever the nearest power station is.
No, they're not actually receiving and using "green" power. But they are paying green energy suppliers for the electricity. Meanwhile (let's assume their electricity actually came from a coal-based plant), the coal-based plant has given them electricity without being paid (by them, anyway) for it. So they actually lose some on that deal. Someone else, who didn't choose a green supplier but happens to live close to one, is paying the "dirty" supplier but getting "green" energy.
In this scenario, who is actually responsible for the pollution caused by the "dirty" supplier? The individual who received (through no fault of their own) that electricity or the individual who paid the supplier to generate it? Conversely, who gets credit for the renewable energy, those who happened to receive it because of the laws of physics and the layout of the grid, or those who funded the research and generation?
-
-
Thursday 2nd August 2012 15:39 GMT LinkOfHyrule
I visit the Register website a lot these days - partly because I am a big fan and partly because my life is really pitiful and pathetic and I am quite addicted to checking my up/down votes (get voting people!).
How many farts worth of browsing do you lot think I do? I'd quite like to know just in case farting/consumer carbon usage is ever taxed in the future as this kind of information may affect a future mortgage application or NI contributions for all we know!
-
-
Thursday 2nd August 2012 20:23 GMT heyrick
However...
...this does not account for the environmental damage caused by filling your pants as a result of losing the will to live, then the subsequent death, and however long it takes for somebody to notice (all the while your computer not being on standby and the lights still on).
.
On a more serious note: So using my computer to talk to my router to talk to the phone exchange to talk to [tracert facebook.com] twelve bits of kit (possibly including satellites, uplinks, downlinks, and god only knows what) to talk to facebook, and back, numerous times for each page fetch... ...is less "damaging" than a single fart?
-
Friday 3rd August 2012 02:15 GMT Martin Budden
ignition source?
It's all very well to say that burning fart methane to CO2 reduces the greenhouse effect, but you've failed to take into account the ignition source: burning a fart involves *two* flames, one from a match or cigarette lighter (or firework if you live in Darwin) and one ex-anus. You need to factor in the greenhouse impact of producing, transporting and burning the ignition source.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
