fluidrazor

pg, let's ask a different question. Measurements aside, is what they are offering really reducing the carbon footprint of a website?

I would argue no, it does not. And here's why: They are buying credits which make clean energy cheaper. The trickle down effect (not a reference to Reagan) means that others will be buying cheap energy, which is good, but it does not mean you will be buying cheap energy. So I don't see this as directly translating into reducing your carbon footprint. Moreover, who actually gets the reduction in their personal carbon footprint here: the person actually using the green energy or you, who helped pay for this energy by proxy. I would argue that it is to a much greater degree the person who actually bought this energy who gets most of the benefit. You would be much better off using your time to plant trees in proportion to the amount your site uses or finding a green hosting service than use CO2Stats.

Even if CO2Stats is measuring this even remotely accurately (which they couldn't possibly be), their model of buying these renewable energy credits still translates into a very low reduction in your actual carbon footprint.

Having said that... is their service worth whatever it costs? Most likely no, since for it to work you would have to pay a disproportionate amount to get an amount that would indeed offset your footprint. Is CO2Stats capitalizing off people's supererogatory desire to do good by nature, regardless of whether there are no benefits? You bet.

Putting the global warming debate aside, I totally agree with you.

However, I don't see them being transparent. Furthermore, I think given the complexity of determining what they claim, the simplicity of their model is almost certainly not adequate.

I like your Avian Flu example. I think in that case, we would both agree that there is a point at which preparations for such an event would be almost useless when there is a certain lack of information, when what we do know and what we don't know is so muddled that we are not even sure what direction to take. Obviously doctors and scientists are not blind here and know generally what direction to take in their preparations, just not to what scale.

What I am arguing in terms of CO2Stats here is that the likely inaccuracy of their calculations just about voids what they are offering because you don't know that what you are getting is in the proper proportion or even that it actually helps to the degree that they say it does.

People pay them to offset the carbon footprint of their site. Except if they are paying them an amount based on an inaccurately calculated footprint, that's a problem.

If you wish to continue drinking the Kool-Aid, go ahead! It sure is tasty! But don't blame me when your teeth fall out.

I understand what they are trying to do. But the sheer inaccuracy of what they provide clearly negates the supposed benefits.

Would you donate to a charity that mismanaged or wasted most of your money, if only just because donating to charities is good? Or wouldn't that mismanagement negate most of what is good about donating to that particular charity.

I'm sure the people behind CO2Stats are not stupid. So they must be aware of the shortcomings and limitations of their service. Yet they continue to run the service anyways, calling it accurate. That is dishonest.

(and no, questioning CO2Stats does not make me a conspiracy theorist)

There is no way they could account for the types and brands of the monitor, the efficiency of the individual computers, etc.

They also cannot make an accurate assumption about where the power is coming from because there is such a thing as an electric grid, which draws power from a variety of sources.

Furthermore, the calculations to determine what goes in to processing a page have to be almost comical. For example, if it was Google, one search request can take thousands of machines, not to mention all the crawling required to produce those pages. Good luck getting that information.

There are so many holes that need to be filled here that their calculations cannot even be remotely accurate.

CO2Stats is bogus. I hope they don't charge anybody, because that would be fraud.

Perhaps they should publish their algorithm, to provide a little transparency and openness.