Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 59 posts

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#11

Post by helen___keller »

erentz wrote: post #5

It’s interesting to see this article for me because it is similar to the “Bitcoin is bad because CO2” articles and arguments that arise from time to time. To which I’ve unsuccessfully attempted to argue you can’t really say Bitcoin is bad and shouldn’t be allowed to exist for that reason without also agreeing that other stupid things we do with computers should suffer the same fate. Which surprisingly attracts a fair…

The pluses about a carbon tax is that it also affects the more invisible ways that we are killing the environment - hating on big tech is cool, hating on the car you use to get to work isn't as cool. Both should be taxed relative to their emissions.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#12

Post by kordlessagain »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #4

The author doesn't mention decarbonizing electricity in the first few paragraphs. He simply claims ML is driven by fossil-fuel electricity, when in reality the electricity mix for computation is increasingly green over time. Since computers don't need anything except electrons to run, it's all about power sector emissions here, and that's a bright spot in climate relative to transportation, industry, and agriculture…

The author also doesn't mention black holes, but there's a huge one at the center of our galaxy which will gladly do away with us and all our problems.

Electron arguments aside, computers need matter and a lot of that matter in them is rare, which requires things like strip mining and other non-Earth-friendly activities. If we manage to pull off a walking/talking/joke cracking AI, it and its little AI buds will likely demand every erg of power they can get. Sorta like my dog at dinner time.

Also, the amount of compute we are creating is accelerating at a non-linear rate, which is why there was a discussion about Bitcoin using so much energy at such and such a point in time in the future.

The speed of networking is not increasing at the same rate as compute.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#13

Post by maximente »

erentz wrote: post #5

It’s interesting to see this article for me because it is similar to the “Bitcoin is bad because CO2” articles and arguments that arise from time to time. To which I’ve unsuccessfully attempted to argue you can’t really say Bitcoin is bad and shouldn’t be allowed to exist for that reason without also agreeing that other stupid things we do with computers should suffer the same fate. Which surprisingly attracts a fair…

carbon taxes are regressive insofar as the poor spend a larger % of their income on fuels than the rich and this is often not negotiable - people can't choose to e.g. not commute half an hour to work when they don't have much disposable income to start with, whereas the rich can generally pay for whatever quantity they want to consume already.

so the point of the tax (reduce consumption) unfairly hits the poor.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#14

Post by aiCeivi9 »

erentz wrote: post #3
viburnum wrote: post #2

Banning adtech would be a good start.

That sounds like a sensible way to go about it to me. Suddenly all those services that nobody would actually pay for, that are simply designed to hook people and consume their time, would go away. A whole lot of services that people would actually pay for would suddenly change in focus because now they wouldn’t be driven my ad metrics and engagement metrics. E.g. You’d be paying for email so your email provider would…

I hoped huge popularity of adblock would do the same, without the need for regulation. No need for clickbait title when visitors are only a cost.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#15

Post by KaiserPro »

Alas, the author failed to do adequate research before getting on their high horse.

Yes, cloud computing sucks power (which is then vented to the outside world, it could be recycled _and_ cut latency)

but you know what pushes out more CO2?

Poor house insulation.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#16

Post by kryogen1c »

quaquaqua1 wrote: post #10
KaiserPro wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but the masts, wifi, network and servers to support that consume a lot more than 10Wh

How much do they use compared to 24 hours of constant, valueless office lighting?

Total, all-in energy costs is actually a pretty interesting question and intellectual exercise. Paint is actually super high on the list

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#17

Post by KaiserPro »

quaquaqua1 wrote: post #10
KaiserPro wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but the masts, wifi, network and servers to support that consume a lot more than 10Wh

How much do they use compared to 24 hours of constant, valueless office lighting?

[.......]

^ this much, (not to scale.)

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#18

Post by maliker »

KaiserPro wrote: post #9
maliker wrote: post #7

My cellphone (pocket computer) needs 10 Wh to run all day. For the same amount of energy, the lights in my office will run for 6 minutes. I'm not buying this "must decomputerize" pitch.

yes, but the masts, wifi, network and servers to support that consume a lot more than 10Wh

I'd guess the energy costs would be similar since it's roughly the same hardware (CPUs, memory, radio transmitters) but minus the display.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#19

Post by xvedejas »

maximente wrote: post #13
erentz wrote: post #5

It’s interesting to see this article for me because it is similar to the “Bitcoin is bad because CO2” articles and arguments that arise from time to time. To which I’ve unsuccessfully attempted to argue you can’t really say Bitcoin is bad and shouldn’t be allowed to exist for that reason without also agreeing that other stupid things we do with computers should suffer the same fate. Which surprisingly attracts a fair…

carbon taxes are regressive insofar as the poor spend a larger % of their income on fuels than the rich and this is often not negotiable - people can't choose to e.g. not commute half an hour to work when they don't have much disposable income to start with, whereas the rich can generally pay for whatever quantity they want to consume already. so the point of the tax (reduce consumption) unfairly hits the poor.

A Carbon tax would also disproportionately help the poor, especially the global poor, so it's not fair to call it regressive without finding a way to put some numbers on both the costs and benefits. Besides, the money gained from a carbon tax isn't lost, it can be reinvested in things like public transit infrastructure.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#20

Post by saeranv »

There are a couple of different facets to this that the article ignores. The energy consumed by computers can be offset by recovering waste heat to offset space or domestic hot water heating (which is the bulk of your energy consumption in colder climates). You can do this at a building scale, and even at an urban scale with the use of district energy systems.
Post reply on HN