We often hear that emptying your mailbox would be an important gesture for the planet, in order to reduce your carbon footprint. Yet sending fewer emails is an inefficient gesture for the climate. In The Conversation, 3 experts debunk this tenacious myth.
The alleged gigantic carbon footprint of emails is a topic frequently covered in the mediabut often in an exaggerated or even erroneous way.
According to them (and even according to French Minister for Energy Transition), reducing the amount of emails sent and deleting them would be important measures to reduce our carbon footprint.
The impact of digital services (streaming movies and series, listening to music, sending emails, meeting people by videoconference, etc.) has been real and growing for several years. The information and communication technologies (ICT) sector represents 2.1-3.9% of global emissions annual emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) of anthropogenic origin. However, the exaggerated carbon footprint of emails is misleading other levers of action that would substantially reduce the impact of users associated with ICT.
As researchers working on the quantification of anthropogenic GHG emissions, including those resulting from the use of ICTwe believe it is important to debunk this myth, which has persisted for several years, so that we can focus on reducing the most important sources of GHGs in the ICT sector.
The Origin of the Carbon Footprint of Email Myth
Before getting to the heart of the matter, it is worth understanding the origin of the first figures broken down by the media about the impact of emails.
The idea that sending fewer emails would reduce a significant amount of GHGs was popularized by Mike Berners-Lee in his book How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everythingpublished in 2010. For the record, the author is brother of Tim Berners-Leecreator of navigation via web addresses (www, URL) and one of the precursors of the Internet.
The figures mentioned in this book have been picked up by several media around the globe, even in Canadawhich helped to reinforce this idea.
Moreover, in a statement for the Financial Times in 2020, Mike Berners-Lee was cautious about the interpretation of his calculations. He said his estimates were useful for starting broader conversations, but it was essential to focus on bigger issues related to ICT.
Sending less or deleting emails is just a token gesture
What would happen if we decided to send significantly fewer emails or delete our emails that are no longer useful? Apart from freeing up some space in the servers that host them, there is nothing to suggest that this could significantly reduce the energy consumption of digital infrastructures. Here’s why :
1) Digital data storage and transmission systems operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with a more or less constant basic energy consumption, even when they are not in demand. Indeed, the networks are sized to meet peak demands. Whether the email is sent or not, the networks will use roughly the same amount of energy.
2) It is true that an incredible amount of spam (122 billion in 2022) and genuine emails (22 billion) are sent per day. Even if these figures seem worrying, the exchange of e-mails represents only 1% of internet traffic. By comparison, video services account for approximately 82% of internet traffic and could increase further in the years to come.
3) Knowing that 85% of e-mail traffic is actually spam, sending fewer e-mails individually has limited influence in reducing the amount of e-mail circulating on the web.
4) Whether the email is sent or not, our computers and routers will always be on. The electricity consumption associated with electronic devices will therefore be more or less always the same. It is very rare that we turn on a computer just to send an email.
5) The impact associated with the use of data centers and transmission networks is extremely low when sending emails. To get an idea, driving 1 km in a compact car emits as much GHG as the electricity used to transfer and store 3,500 5MB emails. Another example, the electricity needed to heat a cup of tea in a kettle uses as much electricity as transferring and storing 1,500 one-MB emails.
6) Depending on the time it takes to sort and delete e-mail, the carbon footprint of computer use and the impact attributed to its manufacture can be greater than what could possibly be reduced by deleting them. For example, deleting 1,000 emails would have a carbon benefit of around 5g eq. CO2. Based on the electric mix of the province of Alberta (very carbon-intensive electricity), the impact of using a laptop computer for 30 minutes emits 28 g of eq. CO2 (manufacturing + electricity). In a Quebec context (low carbon electricity), this figure drops to 5 g eq. CO2. In summary, manually deleting emails can have more impact than simply storing them, since it represents time spent in front of the computer.
So how do we reduce the carbon footprint of our emails?
To quantify the carbon footprint of an email, all the steps involved in its life cycle must be taken into account; from writing to receiving and reading emails.
The carbon footprint of emails is primarily associated with the manufacture of the electronic devices that are used to write and read them (around 70-90%). The use phase becomes more important, and may even exceed manufacturing, when the electricity used to power electronic devices is predominantly produced from fossil fuels (as in Alberta).
The best way to reduce the carbon footprint of e-mail is to extend the life of electronic devices and use those that consume less electricity.
It is therefore more judicious to focus our time and energy on actions that are truly effective in reducing our carbon footprint associated with the use of digital services (buying fewer electronic products and above all extending their lifespan) and other high-impact daily activities (transportation, eating and heating).
In short, you can delete your emails to save storage space or to find what you are looking for faster… but not necessarily to save the planet!
Luciano Rodrigues VianaPhD student in environmental sciences, Department of Basic Sciences, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi (UQAC); Jean-Francois BoucherProfessor, Eco-consulting, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi (UQAC) and Mohamed CherietFull Professor, System Engineering Department & General Director, CIRODD: Interdisciplinary Research Center on the Operationalization of Sustainability Development, School of Higher Technology (ETS)
This article is republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.
Some links in this article are affiliate. We’ll explaine everything here.
