In the past few years, media headlines have suggested that communication devices such as smartphones use as much electricity as refrigerators or that the carbon foot print of video streaming is the same as that of taking a transatlantic flight. These headlines have provoked strong responses from the communication and energy industries. Using robust academic studies, these industries have shown that the carbon footprint of communication devices is definitely not as high as suggested by the sensational headlines. The comparison between the carbon footprint of video streaming and transatlantic flights were challenged by studies (quoted by Ericsson) that concluded that a smartphone needs to be used for 50 years to cause the same level of emissions as the fuel combustion of one transatlantic return flight. The fact that information and communication technology (ICT) sector’s carbon footprint of 730 million tonnes (MT) of carbon-di-oxide equivalent (CO 2 e) is close to the 800 MT CO 2 e emissions from burning fuel across the aviation industry, 80 percent of this associated with travelling may have led to the comparison between video streaming and flying. In its rebuttal Ericsson also highlighted the fact that 70 percent of people globally use ICT, while only 10 percent of the global population use air travel, with only the wealthiest 1 percent being frequent flyers. This means that even if the footprints of the sectors were of a similar magnitude (a small percentage of global overall carbon emissions at current usage levels, as in the unbalanced comparison), the impact per user would still differ a lot. This is effectively the same as the per person argument that India uses to counter the charge of affluent countries that India’s carbon emissions are high.
- Published in
- India
