SSDs might cause double the CO2 emissions of HDDs

Hodor

Posts: 113   +67
So funny that people are trying to reduce CO2 to save the plants. It always make me laugh.

FFS, plants live by eating CO2. Most of their dry mass is made of carbon, which came from CO2. Not from soil. Water and minerals come from the soil, but most of the tree mass (not counting water) is carbon from CO2.

Less CO2, less plants. Our planet is greener today than it was 50 years ago. Something greenies won't tell you. But NASA satellite pictures do. Why do you think trees emit oxygen? Because they "eat" CO2, splitting it to C and O2. That C is stored for energy and construction purposes, while O2 is released into the atmosphere.

It is estimated that photosynthesis stops below 0.02% of CO2. We're now at 0.04% of CO2, which means only double above the level where we lose the plants. We need to increase the CO2 levels, not decrease.

 

Watzupken

Posts: 671   +544
There are so many major contributors to pollution, global warming, etc., that this seems to be a minor issue. An issue, no doubt, but a very minor one at best ......
There are many contributors, I agree. But the root cause is actually people, not the animals, not the plants, not the environment deciding to go crazy, etc. While this may be driven by our demand for goods, ultimately, its the rich people/corporates that are abusing the resources for the sake of making more money for themselves and shareholders. To give you an example of the distractions, we’ve always been told that cows/ animals are a big contributor of methane. So what is the solution they proposed? Oh, get some processed meat that taste like the real thing right? But then again, this is a highly processed food that goes through an energy intensive process to produce. Low carbon footprint? We’ve been told that this and that are bad for the environment, yet we double down on things that appears to be carbon friendly, but is in fact, questionable. Electric cars for example are said to be environmentally friendly. But is that the case? Don’t they need power to move? Kinetic energy is renewable, while electricity is in my opinion not. Even the solar panel can convert light to power requires substantial amount of energy to produce. So we are essentially burning fossil fuel up front to produce all these sustainable energy sources. I am very keen to see if these supposed sustainable energy source can really sustain when we don’t use any fossil fuel or when it runs out. If anything, I feel solar panels are doing more harm to us than good. There is a reason why the earth is covered in dark/ black colour because while the solar panels generate electricity, they get very hot under the sun. So we are actually absorbing a lot more heat than before by “plating” the surface of the planet black.