FIRST OF ALL, WE WOULD LIKE OFFICIALLY INFORM 2 IMPORTANT NEWS :
1. FROM YEAR 2021 ONWARD, WE DO NOT WANT ACCEPT ANY AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED , DAILY , WEEKLY , MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FROM ANYONE .
QUARTERLY AND YEARLY NEWSLETTER IS ACCEPTABLE.
PLEASE SEND AN IMPORTANT EMAIL WITH "RIGHT " CONTENT".WE ARE ALWAYS HAPPILY TO OPEN OUR HEART TO ACCEPT ANY BUSINESS INQUIRY AND PROPOSAL.
CUSTOMERS MUST COMPLETE WITH ALL OF YOUR INQUIRY DETAILS IN AN EMAIL IN ORDER FOR US TO RESPONSE QUICKLY.
2, FROM YEAR 2021 ONWARD, WE DO NOT WANT ACCEPT ANY GREETING WISHES EMAIL IN ANY SEASON GREETING .
SAVE THE
PLANET NOT BY MOUTHED ONLY, ALL OF US MUST TAKE THE INITIATE ACTION. WE CAN
DO IT TO SAVE OUR PLANET FROM STOP SENDING AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED NEWSLETTER OR GREETING WISHES TO SAVE CARBON.
BELOW ARE TWO ARTICLES FROM BBC NEWS:
Climate change: Can
sending fewer emails really save the planet?
By David Molloy
Technology reporter
Published
19 November 2020
Are you the type of person who always says thank you? Well, if
it's by email, you should stop, according to UK officials looking at ways to
save the environment.
The
Financial Times reports that we may all soon be encouraged to send one fewer
email a day, cutting out "useless" one-line messages - such as "thanks".
Doing
so "would save a lot of carbon", one official involved in next year's
COP26 climate summit in Glasgow said.
But
would it really make a huge difference?
Why do emails produce carbon at all?
Most people tend to think of the internet as a cloud that exists
outside their computing hardware. But the reality is when you send an email -
or anything else - it goes along a chain of energy-burning electronics.
Your wi-fi router sends the signal along wires to the local
exchange - the green box on the street corner - and from there to a telecoms
company, and from there to huge data centres operated by the tech giants. Each
of those runs on electricity, and it all adds up.
But a single email's effect on such massive infrastructure is
tiny.
Are my emails a big environmental problem?
The Financial Times report says
the officials promoting this idea referred to a press
release from renewable electricity firm Ovo Energy from one year ago.
It claimed that if every
British person sent one fewer thank you email a day, it would
save 16,433 tonnes of carbon a year, equivalent to tens of thousands of flights
to Europe.
The problem, however, is that even if the sums involved roughly
worked out, it would still be a splash in the pond.
The UK's annual greenhouse gas
emissions were 435.2 million tonnes in 2019 - so the amount
in question here is about 0.0037% of the national picture. And that's if every
single British person reduced their email output.
Mike Berners-Lee, a respected professor on the topic whose
research was used in the Ovo Energy work, told the Financial Times it was
based on "back-of-the-envelope" maths from 2010 -
and while useful to start conversations, there were bigger questions.
On top of that, the estimate of how much carbon an email
generates "takes into account absolutely everything involved",
according to Chris Preist, professor of sustainability and computer systems at
the University of Bristol.
It tries to include the energy used by servers, your home wi-fi,
your laptop - even a very small share of the carbon emitted to construct the
data centre buildings.
"The reality is that a lot of the system will still have
impact, whether or not the email is sent," Prof Preist explains.
"Your laptop will still be on, your wi-fi will still be on,
your home internet connection will still be on, the wider network will still
use roughly the same amount of energy even with a reduction in volume.
"There will be a small saving in the data centre hosting
the email, particularly if it allows them to use a few less servers. But the
carbon saved will be far far less than 1g per email.
Why your internet habits are not as clean as you think
The internet allows us to send messages, share pictures, download music and stream videos at a touch of a button, but our online habits have a surprising impact on the environment.
It’s probable you’ve already replied to a couple of emails today, sent some chat messages and maybe performed a quick internet search. As the day wears on you will doubtless spend even more time browsing online, uploading images, playing music and streaming video.
Each of these activities you perform online comes with a small cost – a few grams of carbon dioxide are emitted due to the energy needed to run your devices and power the wireless networks you access. Less obvious, but perhaps even more energy intensive, are the data centres and vast servers needed to support the internet and store the content we access over it.
Although the energy needed for a single internet search or email is small, approximately 4.1 billion people, or 53.6% of the global population, now use the internet. Those scraps of energy, and the associated greenhouse gases emitted with each online activity, can add up.
The carbon footprint of our gadgets, the internet and the systems supporting them account for about 3.7% of global greenhouse emissions, according to some estimates. It is similar to the amount produced by the airline industry globally, explains Mike Hazas, a researcher at Lancaster University. And these emissions are predicted to double by 2025.
If we were to rather crudely divide the 1.7 billion tonnes (1.6 billion tons) of greenhouse gas emissions estimated to be produced in the manufacture and running of digital technologies between all internet users around the world, it means each of us is responsible for 400g (14oz) of carbon dioxide a year.
But things are not that simple – this figure can vary depending where in the world you are. Internet users in some parts of the globe will have a disproportionately large footprint. One study estimated that 10 years ago, the average Australian internet user was responsible for the equivalent of 81kg (179lbs) of carbon dioxide (CO2e) being emitted into the atmosphere. Improvements in energy efficiency, economies of scale and use of renewable energy will doubtless have reduced this, but it is clear that people in developed nations still account for the majority of the internet’s carbon footprint. (CO2e is a unit used to express the carbon footprint of all greenhouse gases together as if they were all emitted as carbon dioxide)
For some, the realisation that their online activity is harming the planet has spurred them into taking action.
“Anything we can do to reduce carbon emissions is important, no matter how small, and that includes how we behave on the internet," says Philippa Gaut, a teacher from Surrey, UK. She is one of a growing number of eco-conscious consumers trying to reduce their environmental impact online and on their phones. “If everybody made changes, it would have more impact,” she adds
One of the difficulties in working out the carbon footprint of our internet habits is that few people can agree on what they should and should not include. Should it include the emissions that come from manufacturing the computing hardware? And what about those from the staff and buildings of technology companies? Even the figures around the running of data centres are disputed – many run on renewable energy, while some companies buy “carbon off-sets” to clean up their energy use.
In the US, data centres are responsible for 2% of the country’s electricity use, while globally they account for just under 200 terawatt Hours (TWh). According to the United Nation’s International Telecommunications Union, however, this figure has flatlined in recent years despite rising internet traffic and workloads. This is largely because of improved energy efficiency and the move to centralise data centres into giant facilities.
But while many companies claim to power their data centre’s using renewable energy, in some parts of the world they are still largely powered from the burning of fossil fuels. And it can be difficult for consumers to choose which data centres they want to use. Many of the major cloud providers, however, have pledged to cut their carbon emissions, so storing photos, documents and running services off their servers where possible is one approach to take.
As an individual, simply upgrading our equipment less often is one way of cutting the carbon footprint of our digital technology. The greenhouse gases emitted while manufacturing and transporting these devices can make up a considerable portion of the lifetime emissions from a piece of electronics. One study at the University of Edinburgh found that extending the time you use a single computer and monitors from four to six years could avoid the equivalent of 190kg of carbon emissions.
Eco-messaging
We can also alter the way we use our gadgets to cut our digital carbon footprints. One of the easiest ways is to switch they way we send messages.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the footprint of an email also varies dramatically, from 0.3g CO2e for a spam email to 4g (0.14oz) CO2e for a regular email and 50g (1.7oz) CO2e for one with a photo or hefty attachment, according to Mike Berners-Lee, a fellow at Lancaster University who researches carbon footprints. These figures, however, were crunched by Berners-Lee 10 years ago. Charlotte Freitag, a carbon footprint expert at Small World Consulting, the company founded by Berners-Lee, says the impact of emailing may have gone up.
“We think the footprint per message might be higher today because of the bigger phones people are using,” she says.
Based on the older figures, some people have estimated that their own emails will generate 1.6kg (3.5lb) CO2e in a single day. Berners-Lee himself also calculated that a typical business user creates 135kg (298lbs) CO2e from sending emails every year, which is the equivalent of driving 200 miles in a family car.
But it should also be easy to cut this down. By simply stopping unnecessary niceties such as “thank you” emails we could collectively save a lot of carbon emissions. If every adult in the UK sent one less “thank you” email, it could save 16,433 tonnes of carbon a year – the equivalent to taking 3,334 diesel cars off the road, according to energy company, OVO.
“While the carbon footprint of an email isn’t huge, it’s a great illustration of the broader principle that cutting the waste out of our lives is good for our wellbeing and good for the environment,” Berners-Lee says.
Swapping email attachments for links to documents and not sending messages to multiple recipients are another easy way to reduce our digital carbon footprints, as well as unsubscribing from mailing lists we no longer read.
“I unsubscribed from automatically generated newsletters, as when I learned about the carbon footprint from emails, I was horrified,” says Gaut. “Now, I’m careful not to send out my email to new websites… it’s made me consider the impact more.”
According to estimates by antispam service Cleanfox, the average user receives 2,850 unwanted emails every year from subscriptions, which are responsible for 28.5kg (63lbs) CO2e.
Choosing to send an SMS text message is the perhaps the most environmentally-friendly alternative as a way of staying in touch because each text generates just 0.014g of CO2e. A tweet is estimated to have a footprint of 0.2g CO2e (although Twitter did not respond to requests to confirm this figure) while sending a message via a private messaging app such as WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger is estimated by Freitag to be only slightly less carbon intensive than sending an email. Again this can depend on what you are sending – gifs, emojis and images have a greater footprint than plain text.
The carbon footprint of making a one-minute mobile phone call is a little higher than sending a text, according to Freitag, but making video calls over the internet is much higher. One study from 2012 estimated that a five-hour meeting held over a video conferencing call between participants in different countries would produce between 4kg (8.8lbs) CO2e and 215kg (474lbs) CO2e.
