<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Mark Samuels &#187; Email</title>
	<atom:link href="http://marksamuels.co.uk/tag/email/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://marksamuels.co.uk</link>
	<description>Media, music and moaning from an Aston Villa-supporting business technology journalist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:15:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Carbon cost of electronic Christmas cards</title>
		<link>http://marksamuels.co.uk/2009/01/carbon-cost-of-electronic-christmas-cards/</link>
		<comments>http://marksamuels.co.uk/2009/01/carbon-cost-of-electronic-christmas-cards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christmas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Email]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Green]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marksamuels.co.uk/?p=100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#8217;s been a lot of guff about the carbon cost of Google searching during the last couple of days, with the debate prompted by research from a Harvard academic, which suggests two Google searches produces the equivalent C02 as boiling a kettle. If you&#8217;ve found this post through a Google search, I hope you&#8217;re enjoying [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s been a lot of guff about the carbon cost of Google searching during the last couple of days, with the debate prompted by research from a Harvard academic, which suggests two Google searches produces the equivalent C02 as boiling a kettle. If you&#8217;ve found this post through a Google search, I hope you&#8217;re enjoying your &#8216;equivalent&#8217; of half a cup of tea.</p>
<p>The research doesn&#8217;t really tell us anything we don&#8217;t already know &#8211; in short, searching for stuff, using energy-hungry computers and data centres, eats a lot of power. So, I started thinking about stuff we&#8217;re doing that eats power &#8211; especially the stuff that is meant to be green.</p>
<p>Take Christmas cards, for example. No one posts Christmas cards anymore (except my wife and her Mum). People send emails, Facebook pokes and electronic cards &#8211; it&#8217;s meant to convey the same message and can be sent with a cheery: &#8216;I am saving the environment by not posting a paper card&#8217;.</p>
<p>Except you&#8217;re not, because all this electronic stuff eats carbon, too. And it&#8217;s rubbish anyway &#8211; cards are much nicer and much more personal. And I bet posting a card causes less of a drag on resources that all those tweets, emails and pokes. Long live the Christmas card!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://marksamuels.co.uk/2009/01/carbon-cost-of-electronic-christmas-cards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
