this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
107 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

1452 readers
91 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Fad or relevant?

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 100 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Marketing bullshit that appeals to some low-information, vibes-based liberals.

[–] TakiMinase@slrpnk.net 41 points 8 months ago

Greenwashing for profit.

[–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 79 points 8 months ago

Greenwashing, can't believe this even is a question

[–] Skelectus@suppo.fi 27 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If this encourages light, fast loading pages, I'm all for it.

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The future is no JavaScript!!

[–] Skelectus@suppo.fi 3 points 8 months ago
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Lies are good if I like one of the outcomes they promote!

[–] Skelectus@suppo.fi 1 points 8 months ago

It was kind of a joke response.

[–] drathvedro@lemm.ee 20 points 8 months ago

My website is running off of spare resources on my 10w router, and yet my 30w monitor that I've been using for 10+ years still says that I've saved exactly 0.0 trees every time I turn it on. Thank you, now please fuck off with that bullshit.

[–] PlasmaDistortion@lemm.ee 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Whatever it is, it’s a joke. Things like this just take the focus off the people actually causing the problem.

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 8 months ago

Yeah, this goes into the same bin as carbon offset. Just because you had a couple trees planted in one part of the world you should not be allowed to polute the rivers in another part of the world.

[–] belated_frog_pants 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's completely negligible compared to industrial manufacturing, bitcoin mining, waste, etc.

Make a lighter website because no one gives a shit about a heavy one.

[–] MechanicalJester@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago

I recently saw it reported that Crypto was 2% of US electric use.

That's a whole lot of wasted processing, silicon, heat and energy.

[–] therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What the hell is a green website

[–] plistig@feddit.de 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Is it too difficult to post some context?

[–] federalreverse@feddit.de 4 points 8 months ago

This appears to be the calculator: https://www.websitecarbon.com/

And it only appears to check the size of downloaded assets and then whether the hosting provider is known to use renewables. Indeed not terribly exhaustive or useful.

[–] Starfighter@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Out of curiosity I've let it rate Low<-Tech Magazine, a website run on an ARM SBC powered exclusively with off-grid solar power, and that only achieves 87% / A.

Link to results

[–] jonuno@slrpnk.net 8 points 8 months ago

Eheh nice one to test! If there's a 100% it should be that one

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 14 points 8 months ago

Same as "carbon footprint" - meaningless greenwashed bullshit there to shift focus away from those responsible, and the true scale of the damage they're causing for money.

If anything - seeing that kind of certification would make me actively avoid a company because you know they're at best using it to virtue signal for profits, at worst and more likely, they're using it to cover up much much worse shit they're doing.

[–] lorty@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago

If ESG is anything to go by, just a greenwashing fad they'll drop as soon as it doesn't have the desired effect

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago

relevant if it sabotages coal mining infrastructure

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Mostly seems a bit silly but I think if people were making any sort of large decisions based on it, I would probably raise an eyebrow. But I like the idea of people considering the environmental impact of everything they do. Crypto Bros sure could’ve used that lesson.

It’s not like it’s doing any harm unless people put too much stock into it. Like the energy star rating on my HVAC unit - it’s just information to me. It’s not like I’m making major decisions based off of it or getting the feel goods. No reason this can’t be like that.

[–] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 6 points 8 months ago

Huh? 1000013622
How tf can my website produce less than 0g pf emissions? 1000013624

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 5 points 8 months ago

It is about as useful as a bullshit milkshake is to a vegan.

[–] TengoHipo@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

We are getting dumber

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

Virtue signalling at its worst. It's completely meaningless.

[–] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

HTTP, serving properly tagged semantic HTML file, with optional styling via CSS, and if you really want JavaScript for animations and live updates.

Thank you.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I've never seen an example of "properly tagged semantic HTML" or truly optional CSS outside of toy examples meant to illustrate the concept.

But it doesn't matter, because serving website content is an utterly insignificant to contributor to global warming.

[–] peter@feddit.uk 1 points 8 months ago

A lot of websites use html tags correctly, especially some of the better news websites