Not the main point of the article, but this struck me when reading it. I often watch shows or YouTube on my desktop computer... And I hadn't really thought about how the power consumption might...
The NRDC also notes that high-end games consoles are absolute power hogs when it comes to the simple function of playing streaming movies or TV shows. New consoles draw anywhere from 31W (for the Xbox Series S) to 70W (for the PS5) when streaming from Netflix or Amazon Prime in NRDC's testing. That's way more than the 3W or so for a dedicated streaming box like Roku or Apple TV.
Not the main point of the article, but this struck me when reading it. I often watch shows or YouTube on my desktop computer... And I hadn't really thought about how the power consumption might compare to watching on my TV (with apps), or my switch, or my tablet.
It seems bad, but like a lot of cherry-picked “this thing is destroying the environment!” (See: plastic straws) trends it seems like it misses the forest for the trees. These things are like...
It seems bad, but like a lot of cherry-picked “this thing is destroying the environment!” (See: plastic straws) trends it seems like it misses the forest for the trees. These things are like grains of sand on the beach of wasted resources.
I've met a few real environmentalists (think biologists having dedicated their life to the science and beauty of nature, no esoteric hogwash) and they can get really cynical about these things and...
I've met a few real environmentalists (think biologists having dedicated their life to the science and beauty of nature, no esoteric hogwash) and they can get really cynical about these things and I totally get their point. They tend to focus on the "big picture" view. Forests destroyed to plant crops for "biofuel", rivers turned into biologically dead wastelands to generate "green" energy from dams, some random company patting its own back for "recycling" measures while it dumps landfills worth of waste into the ocean. It's easy to turn cynical.
But I gotta say, this is a political/social issue as much as it is a biology/science one. You need to get people on board. And while a lot of these headlines might not make much of a difference, they do generate awareness, they do generate a culture. A lot of younger people are interested in protecting the environment again. A lot of this has to do with climate change and it having become a serious topic in media. Greta sailing around the world might just be a PR stunt but it makes a lot of young people aware of there being an issue, makes them read a few deeper articles and makes it a "thing".
So yea, watching Netflix on a PS5 won't affect the environment in a significant way. But 7 billion people consuming electronic entertainment probably does. This article basically says, "hey, you're a part of this and there's a cost to it!". And that's a fair message.
Maybe I'm just the person you describe, but I don't think "cynicism" is the right way to describe this—in fact I think that's a kernel of hard-to-swallow truth in an era of excessive claims of...
Forests destroyed to plant crops for "biofuel", rivers turned into biologically dead wastelands to generate "green" energy from dams, some random company patting its own back for "recycling" measures while it dumps landfills worth of waste into the ocean.
Maybe I'm just the person you describe, but I don't think "cynicism" is the right way to describe this—in fact I think that's a kernel of hard-to-swallow truth in an era of excessive claims of faux-sustainability and eco-friendliness. It's easy to turn "cynical", as you put it, because so much of it is just a fucking lie.
There's a reason "reduce" is the first and most important word in the mantra "reduce, reuse, recycle". The cleanest kWh of energy is one that's never generated, the most efficient plane in the world is one that's never flown. I think human arrogance however, and our unwillingness to make serious compromises in the name of the environment, prevent us ever considering these options as valid, even when they are.
Maybe I'm gatekeeping a bit here, but frankly I scoff at people labelling themselves as "environmentalists" while they live lavish first world lifestyles, and make token gestures of change like driving an electric car. How many of these so called "environmentalists" have ever actually volunteered and put the effort to spend a day planting trees, restoring habitat, or campaigning for actual change? These people don't hate the environment, but they certainly don't truly care for it, and definitely shouldn't be allowed to wear a badge of being an "environmentalist".
There's so much greenwashing happening these days, I think being and staying skeptical and cynical of claims of sustainability is important—call out that corporate bullshit whenever you see it, because it isn't true.
I'm absolutely with you on the facts. What I mean is that this is a game of psychological manipulation, not science. You have to psychologically manipulate people into not being dumb fucks. That...
I'm absolutely with you on the facts. What I mean is that this is a game of psychological manipulation, not science. You have to psychologically manipulate people into not being dumb fucks. That means sugar-coating issues, getting celebrities involved, exaggerating the celebration of small steps, formulating things in ways that affect day-to-day comfort rather than the big picture issues happening in places that are hard to see. It's a frustrating and delicate process (that can also backfire – I'm scared that the current "environmentalist" trend will end up a fashion fad that goes "out of style" 5 years from now). But just cursing big companies won't create the very momentum needed to stop their bad practices. That's why I think there's value in articles telling you how to knit your own shopping bag out of organic wool to help the environment. It gets people involved. It makes this part of their lives, their identity, gets people talking. And, ultimately, what counts is voting for people who actually have the power to limit big corporations. It's a process.
Yeah I'm conflicted how I feel about this article. On one hand, I get that it's a simple change that will cause some amount of good, but the article itself really underscores how, well, minimal it...
Yeah I'm conflicted how I feel about this article. On one hand, I get that it's a simple change that will cause some amount of good, but the article itself really underscores how, well, minimal it is in the end
For a single console, that 9W of additional "instant on" power draw can add up to about 78 kWh in a year, or roughly $10.60 in energy costs for an average US home
It's on the order of $10 per year of difference. Me deciding it's a cold day and turning on the heat is already a bigger decision in terms of energy use.
We're so deep into the climate crisis timeline that at this point, any minor change is helpful, and any ignorance of efficiency deserves to be looked at—since it's very clear humanity is making no...
We're so deep into the climate crisis timeline that at this point, any minor change is helpful, and any ignorance of efficiency deserves to be looked at—since it's very clear humanity is making no meaningful efforts to stem this trend (I don't see anyone choosing to shiver in the cold and not run their heat), then these things do matter, since we're not making changes elsewhere.
We need big picture action. But we also need small picture action too.
True - I burnt out on my environmentalist phase about a decade ago because of that. I realized all the time and energy I was spending trying to do small things was only a drop in the ocean, and...
True - I burnt out on my environmentalist phase about a decade ago because of that. I realized all the time and energy I was spending trying to do small things was only a drop in the ocean, and that meaningful change would have to come from the top... which felt too big for me to make a difference.
But I also agree that articles such as this are helpful at changing mindsets, as @nothis says. Individuals turning off a single appliance or computer won't help much, but getting individuals thinking about it so they advocate for legal or corporate change might.
[And as for straws, I'd argue that while it was indeed a misplaced, ineffective thing to target, the main issue with that was how it affected folks who need plastic straws in order to drink.]
That’s the thing though, I’m pretty sure even en masse these small changes are meaningless to stop climate change. Slow it by a tiny handful of years? Maybe, but when we’re talking about the end...
That’s the thing though, I’m pretty sure even en masse these small changes are meaningless to stop climate change. Slow it by a tiny handful of years? Maybe, but when we’re talking about the end of the world who cares about that? It’s not good enough.
We’d need to make fundamental changes to almost every facet of modern global society at this point and probably half the world’s population disappearing to make serious change let alone reversal. Frankly, I have lost all hope because even at our best that would be a monumentally impossible task. We set things in motion too long ago things that had consequences we didn’t understand and then ignored for too long. It is what it is and the universe doesn’t give a damn. We’re a blip on the timescale.
Not the main point of the article, but this struck me when reading it. I often watch shows or YouTube on my desktop computer... And I hadn't really thought about how the power consumption might compare to watching on my TV (with apps), or my switch, or my tablet.
It seems bad, but like a lot of cherry-picked “this thing is destroying the environment!” (See: plastic straws) trends it seems like it misses the forest for the trees. These things are like grains of sand on the beach of wasted resources.
I've met a few real environmentalists (think biologists having dedicated their life to the science and beauty of nature, no esoteric hogwash) and they can get really cynical about these things and I totally get their point. They tend to focus on the "big picture" view. Forests destroyed to plant crops for "biofuel", rivers turned into biologically dead wastelands to generate "green" energy from dams, some random company patting its own back for "recycling" measures while it dumps landfills worth of waste into the ocean. It's easy to turn cynical.
But I gotta say, this is a political/social issue as much as it is a biology/science one. You need to get people on board. And while a lot of these headlines might not make much of a difference, they do generate awareness, they do generate a culture. A lot of younger people are interested in protecting the environment again. A lot of this has to do with climate change and it having become a serious topic in media. Greta sailing around the world might just be a PR stunt but it makes a lot of young people aware of there being an issue, makes them read a few deeper articles and makes it a "thing".
So yea, watching Netflix on a PS5 won't affect the environment in a significant way. But 7 billion people consuming electronic entertainment probably does. This article basically says, "hey, you're a part of this and there's a cost to it!". And that's a fair message.
Maybe I'm just the person you describe, but I don't think "cynicism" is the right way to describe this—in fact I think that's a kernel of hard-to-swallow truth in an era of excessive claims of faux-sustainability and eco-friendliness. It's easy to turn "cynical", as you put it, because so much of it is just a fucking lie.
There's a reason "reduce" is the first and most important word in the mantra "reduce, reuse, recycle". The cleanest kWh of energy is one that's never generated, the most efficient plane in the world is one that's never flown. I think human arrogance however, and our unwillingness to make serious compromises in the name of the environment, prevent us ever considering these options as valid, even when they are.
Maybe I'm gatekeeping a bit here, but frankly I scoff at people labelling themselves as "environmentalists" while they live lavish first world lifestyles, and make token gestures of change like driving an electric car. How many of these so called "environmentalists" have ever actually volunteered and put the effort to spend a day planting trees, restoring habitat, or campaigning for actual change? These people don't hate the environment, but they certainly don't truly care for it, and definitely shouldn't be allowed to wear a badge of being an "environmentalist".
There's so much greenwashing happening these days, I think being and staying skeptical and cynical of claims of sustainability is important—call out that corporate bullshit whenever you see it, because it isn't true.
I'm absolutely with you on the facts. What I mean is that this is a game of psychological manipulation, not science. You have to psychologically manipulate people into not being dumb fucks. That means sugar-coating issues, getting celebrities involved, exaggerating the celebration of small steps, formulating things in ways that affect day-to-day comfort rather than the big picture issues happening in places that are hard to see. It's a frustrating and delicate process (that can also backfire – I'm scared that the current "environmentalist" trend will end up a fashion fad that goes "out of style" 5 years from now). But just cursing big companies won't create the very momentum needed to stop their bad practices. That's why I think there's value in articles telling you how to knit your own shopping bag out of organic wool to help the environment. It gets people involved. It makes this part of their lives, their identity, gets people talking. And, ultimately, what counts is voting for people who actually have the power to limit big corporations. It's a process.
Yeah I'm conflicted how I feel about this article. On one hand, I get that it's a simple change that will cause some amount of good, but the article itself really underscores how, well, minimal it is in the end
It's on the order of $10 per year of difference. Me deciding it's a cold day and turning on the heat is already a bigger decision in terms of energy use.
We're so deep into the climate crisis timeline that at this point, any minor change is helpful, and any ignorance of efficiency deserves to be looked at—since it's very clear humanity is making no meaningful efforts to stem this trend (I don't see anyone choosing to shiver in the cold and not run their heat), then these things do matter, since we're not making changes elsewhere.
We need big picture action. But we also need small picture action too.
It's not a super important issue, but I still think it can be 'bad' to be wasteful and good to try and be more efficient/thoughtful.
True - I burnt out on my environmentalist phase about a decade ago because of that. I realized all the time and energy I was spending trying to do small things was only a drop in the ocean, and that meaningful change would have to come from the top... which felt too big for me to make a difference.
But I also agree that articles such as this are helpful at changing mindsets, as @nothis says. Individuals turning off a single appliance or computer won't help much, but getting individuals thinking about it so they advocate for legal or corporate change might.
[And as for straws, I'd argue that while it was indeed a misplaced, ineffective thing to target, the main issue with that was how it affected folks who need plastic straws in order to drink.]
That’s the thing though, I’m pretty sure even en masse these small changes are meaningless to stop climate change. Slow it by a tiny handful of years? Maybe, but when we’re talking about the end of the world who cares about that? It’s not good enough.
We’d need to make fundamental changes to almost every facet of modern global society at this point and probably half the world’s population disappearing to make serious change let alone reversal. Frankly, I have lost all hope because even at our best that would be a monumentally impossible task. We set things in motion too long ago things that had consequences we didn’t understand and then ignored for too long. It is what it is and the universe doesn’t give a damn. We’re a blip on the timescale.