Does the Internet Help or Hurt the Environment?
A look at the pros and cons of widespread internet usage and its relation to the environment.
Internet and social media usage have skyrocketed in recent years, with the average adult spending over 2 hours a day on social media alone. Naturally, when such a large percentage of our days are spent online, discourse around current events, social crises, etcetera has moved to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.
The impact of social media on climate discourse is significant. But have you ever wondered what impact internet usage itself has on our environment? From the carbon footprint of housing servers to the monopolization of internet companies, the effect of the internet is massive.
This leads to the question at hand: is social media, and the internet as a whole, better or worse for the environment? We will dive into several case studies looking at the pros and cons of internet usage, which will hopefully lead to a better understanding of our human impact on the Earth.
The pros of the internet
Before delving into the negative impacts the internet has on our environment, it’s important to first acknowledge the benefits. The primary one is heightened awareness and education about the climate crisis.
Over 80% of the world’s population today owns a smartphone. With access to the internet increasing on a global scale, access to information has allowed previously unknown environmental crises to come to light. A primary example of this can be seen in Latin America and the threat environmentalists face on a daily basis.
Latin America is by and large one of the deadliest regions for environmental activists. In 2020, 227 environmentalists were murdered globally. Out of those homicides — 165 occurred in Latin America.
The main perpetrators of these crimes are exploitative industries such as logging or agribusiness. These companies, which often operate illegally, will hire hitmen to assassinate activists that attempt to call attention to their harmful activities. Anyone who tries to physically prevent these operations from occurring risks being brutally attacked by illegal loggers themselves. No matter the method of activism, there is extreme danger.
This leads us to one of the benefits of the internet. By spreading awareness about this issue, the possibility of achieving justice for those that were slain may improve. Which in turn might lead to a moderate level of protection for future activists. For example, the 2016 murder of environmentalist Berta Caceres received international media attention which many consider led to the perpetrators being sentenced to over 30 years in prison.
Conversely, the presence of social media does not exclusively benefit these activists. There have been many documented cases of criminals using online platforms to threaten environmentalists. At the beginning of 2021, child activist Francisco Vera, who is only 11 years old, received numerous death threats in response to his public environmentalism. Given the context, it’s safe to assume these are not all empty threats.
The cons of the internet
Now let us consider the negatives of the internet. Rather than focusing on the already well-documented negative impacts of social media and misinformation, this article will instead focus on the physical impacts of the internet as a whole.
The two biggest concerns lie in the carbon footprint of internet manufacturing and hosting, as well as the effect internet monopolies have on the environment. As astounding 3.7% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are a result of internet usage. If you couple that with the additional emissions caused by internet corporate monopolies (outside of standard manufacturing and hosting) we’re looking at a staggering impact.
First looking at the impact of global internet usage, the main key factors that eat up a lot of energy are:
a.) Manufacturing and shipping the hardware needed to create and run the internet, such as servers.
b.) Powering and cooling the hardware to continue usage.
Consider also the devices we use to access the internet. Smartphones, computers, tablets; all of this technology is not made without environmental consequences.
The exact carbon cost of internet usage is a contested fact, and many disagree as to what factors count. For the sake of this article, we will consider all factors to provide the most comprehensive picture. It is important to note, however, that numbers can differ vastly depending on the region or country. This is due to the specific energy efficiencies of that country and the level of access to technology.
A tangible impact we have documented is the carbon footprint of sending an email. According to Mike Berners-Lee, author of How Bad Are Bananas?: The carbon footprint of everything, the type of email sent dictates how much carbon is emitted. A spam email emits 0.3g of CO2, a regular text-only email 4g, and an email with a large file or image can emit up to 50g of CO2.
You might be asking yourself how exactly can a single email cause over an ounce of carbon to enter our atmosphere? The answer is two-fold, first, the electricity needed to display the email is a factor that contributes to this output. Second, and most important, is the multitude of servers that receive, host, then pass on the email en route to its final destination. While this transmission happens in a mere second or so, the cost adds up.
However, sending a paper letter instead of sending an email has a significantly higher cost. It is absolutely preferable from an environmental standpoint to send an email versus a letter. Thus, the solution to this issue lies not in switching to an alternative but practicing self-restraint when it comes to the volume of emails you send.
Emails are only a single example of how the internet impacts the environment. Next, let’s widen the scope and take a look at the internet companies that run this show.
In the United States, almost 50 million people have access to only one internet provider. Internet companies can maintain a monopoly by utilizing advanced technology to prevent competitors from entering their regions. Offering faster internet speeds, for example, than any new competitor could reasonably provide at a much lower price keeps those on top at the top.
Monopolies have been well documented as generating and maintaining negative impacts for the industries they are in, the consumers they serve, and the economy as a whole. What is often overlooked is the impact they have on the environment.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the main regulatory body of monopolies in the US. While the FTC provides regulation over aspects such as environmental marketing claims, they are not known to provide regulation or great concern for environmental impacts. It is widely accepted that many economic considerations by federal and private bodies do not take environmental concerns into the equation at all.
The EPA remains the head regulator for environmental concerns. Fortunately, corporations including monopolies are subjected to their restrictions. Unfortunately, the considerable budget cuts and deregulations that EPA underwent from 2016 to 2020 severely hindered its ability to regulate. Thus, the monopolies have been and continue to have a considerable negative impact on the environment.
This can be seen in the internet industry even in items as simple as the presence of these monopolies’ numerous office buildings, which generate significant greenhouse gas emissions. Combine that with any subsidiary locations, for example, Xfinity stores which are owned by Comcast, and the results are significant.
This is not to say that without monopolies corporations would stop harming the environment, in fact, the opposite might even be true. Rather, that the impact internet monopolies have on the environment is simultaneously noteworthy and not well-documented enough and deserves further research.
Conclusion
This article only scratches the surface of the impacts the internet has on our environment. While considering a world in which we cease using the internet is pretty much out of the question, we can still consider how we want to evolve in the future.
How we use the internet and social media has a greater effect on the natural world than we think. It is important that we fully understand that there is direct causation and adjust our practices accordingly. By doing simple things such as reducing the number of emails you might send or limiting screen time, you can have a marginal impact on the world. Then, the greatest effect comes when we as a collective decide to adjust.
