Climate Change

Email

The convenience¹ of email inspires a huge bias in favor of email (and likely confirmation bias to a large extent). But if you can detach from the tyranny of convenience and look at email critically, it does not look like such an obvious best choice ecologically. Consider these inconvenient facts:

• Advertising → people needlessly buy more stuff as a result of ads that are fed by email content
• Google sells machine learning to fossil fuel corporations (see also YT videov3n8txX3144)
• Google finances climate deniers
• Apple, Amazon, Google & Microsoft have teamed up to block Right-To-Repair laws.
• Google’s Android phones (and other smart devices) are only updated for a few yrs
• Google got caught excluding climate effects except CO₂ from Google Flights search results
• Google accepted money from Bayer Monsanto to bury unfavorable news (and Bayer-Monsanto is environmentally harmful)
• War is bad for the environment and Google supports Russia’s war (but says they are scaling back)

Google’s support for fossil fuels is probably the most notable problem. Microsoft is even worse than Google (see item 11). Even if you are the rare netizen who uses an ethical email provider, probably over 95% of your email traffic is with a gmail or outlook user. Nearly all corporations and gov agencies are using Microsoft for email service but it’s masked by their vanity addresses. Of course PGP is not an option for ~95+% of your email traffic, so MS and Google profit from your traffic in both directions because it all feeds their advertising networks. From there, the ads fuel consumerism, leading to more purchases of shit that takes a toll on the environment.

So how good is email for the environment when you take all factors into account?

I restricted the dirt above to ecocide as this is a climate forum, but once you also account for non-environmental factors like privacy abuses, MS and Google are a clear non-starter.

¹ I use “convenience” more loosely than justified because email is very inconvenient for some of us, like people who run their own mail servers in order to not needlessly feed extra 3rd parties. The anti-spammers have really ruined the convenience and availability of email by going to extremes that impose colatteral damage on legit email. So it’s not really fair to call email convenient any longer.

Fax

A fax can be sent without printing. Your letter just needs to be formatted for US letter or A4 and in a raster graphic. More often than not, the receiving side is a service that attaches the letter to an email and sends it to the recipient, who likely uses Microsoft.

The pros:

• You can withhold your email address from the letter, thus preventing an email reply (which would then feed the MS ad network and lead to more purchases).
• MS must work harder to snoop and OCR the raster image. But do they? Idk. If they do, it would expend more energy. But if they don’t, the msg avoids feeding the ad network.

The cons:

• The electronic payload is more bulky, thus uses more energy per msg.

Paper letters

Paper must be used, but the paper industry has trended toward sustainabilty and some regions have a mandate on recycling paper (yes, it is illegal to toss recyclable paper in with other waste in wise parts of the world). Unprinting has made progress, which would enable you to erase toner from a page to reuse it.

When a recipient in my city uses Google or Microsoft for email and they have no fax number, I print my correspondence on paper and cycle to their mailbox. It’s a way of saying fuck you to the giant surveillance advertisers. And because all kinds of tech rights and ethics are being pissed on by Google and MS in addition to their environmental abuses, this approach is the clear winner for me.

It’s not exactly obvious which choice is the least harmful for the environment without research that really dissects it and looks at the nuts and bolts of it. But I conjecture that if enough people were to switch back to fax and paper letters and cause inconvenience for Microsoft & Google recipients, it would drive them to choose more ethical email providers in order to esacape the burden of scanning paper and then the cost of paying the postal service to carry their reply. This ultimately favors a more sustainable path even if it’s taking a step backwards in order to take more steps forwards.

The raw figures

• email (excl. indirect impacts): 0.3—50g CO₂/msg, depending on msg size
• paper (non-recycled, excl. ink): 4.29—4.74g CO₂/sheet
• envelope: 24g according to a source I don’t trust. That figure does not specify whether it refers to a windowed envelope. I have recently started saving and reusing inbound windowed envelopes by separating the side seam. LaTeX’s KOMAscript pkg has presets for standard envelopes and also gives a way to enter geometry so the address aligns with a nonstandard window.

The email figure is raw energy consumption assuming the email provider is ethical. It does not account for Google and MS’s involvement in the fossil fuel business, the extra consumption of unnecessary goods due to ads, and all the other factors mentioned. If you send a pure text email and the response comes from an org that attaches an image to every response (cosmetic stationary), it’s comparable to the footprint of a sheet of paper + envelope (still without accounting for the Google/MS factor).

It would be interesting to do for Google and Microsoft what the “Banking on Climate Chaos” paper did for banks, which was to rightfully factor all their harmful activity into their footprint.