CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Energy Efficiency no spam

Published on April 20th, 2009 | by Timothy B. Hurst

3

Spam Wasted 33 Billion Kilowatt-Hours of Electricity in 2008

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

April 20th, 2009 by  

no spamConservationists have long been uncomfortable with the environmental impact of the mountains of catalogs, credit card offers, coupons, and other direct mailings that accumulate daily in their mailbox, or on the floor near the front door.

Sure, we can recycle all that junk mail, but that process creates an additional layer of energy inputs from collection, sorting, processing and repurposing, to say nothing of the energy and resources needed to make the mail in the first place. Fortunately—in the United States at least—there are several new services that allow people to take back their mailboxes by blocking catalogs and other junk mail from being delivered.

But when it comes to junk mail in your email inbox, even the best “spam” filters will let a few slip by on occasion. But not everyone uses a spam filter and the environmental impact of all that virtual junk mail is now rivaling that of its papery cousin, according to a new study by McAfee (pdf).

The study, commissioned by anti-virus software maker, McAfee, and produced by the consulting firm ICF International, found that spam emails worldwide wasted 33 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2008, an amount equivalent to the electricity used in 2.4 million American homes.

At the individual level, a single spam email emits only 0.3 grams of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but with an estimated 62 trillion spam emails sent worldwide in 2008, the cumulative emissions of spam are approximately 17 million metric tons of CO2 — a number equivalent to the emissions from approximately 1.5 million American homes.

The report attributes the vast majority of spam’s greenhouse gas emissions to energy used in the process of viewing and deleting spam or searching for legitimate email erroneously trapped in spam filters.

Obviously McAfee has a horse in this race and it would behoove them to emphasize the energy wasted by spam emails; the company’s SpamKiller software has long been a core part of their suite of security software. As such, the McAfee report finds that effective spam filtering saves 135 terawatt-hours of electricity per year.

While the McAfee report concedes that spam filters themselves account for about 16 percent of the total energy required by PCs to deal with spam, it concludes that, “compared to the energy users consume searching for false positives and viewing and deleting spam messages, the energy expenditure of spam filtering seems like a small price to pay.”

Image: hegarty_david

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , ,


About the Author

is the founder of ecopolitology and the executive editor at LiveOAK Media, a media network about the politics of energy and the environment, green business, cleantech, and green living. When not reading, writing, thinking or talking about environmental politics with anyone who will listen, Tim spends his time skiing in Colorado's high country, hiking with his dog, and getting dirty in his vegetable garden.



  • Pingback: Spammers Wasted 33 Billion Kilowatt-Hours of Electricity in 2008 | SpammyBlogger

  • russ

    Timothy this would be more meaningful if put into the context of wasted energy from other sources as well, say:

    1. hamburgers, pizzas, MacMuffins – fast food in general

    2. SMS which are just silly chat

    3. time sitting in traffic jams

    4. flying or other travel for no real reason

    5. inserts (adds) in newspapers which are normally discarded without reading

    Commercially the junk mail must be working for the parties putting it out or else they wouldn’t be. If the junk had to pay their way (full post costs) then it would go way down.

    One problem to me is that the focus of GW is often squandered with loose irrelevant tidbits – some real and some silly.

    The loose ‘facts’ and silly stuff sometimes make the concept of GW laughable to some and less important to others.

  • russ

    Timothy this would be more meaningful if put into the context of wasted energy from other sources as well, say:

    1. hamburgers, pizzas, MacMuffins – fast food in general

    2. SMS which are just silly chat

    3. time sitting in traffic jams

    4. flying or other travel for no real reason

    5. inserts (adds) in newspapers which are normally discarded without reading

    Commercially the junk mail must be working for the parties putting it out or else they wouldn’t be. If the junk had to pay their way (full post costs) then it would go way down.

    One problem to me is that the focus of GW is often squandered with loose irrelevant tidbits – some real and some silly.

    The loose ‘facts’ and silly stuff sometimes make the concept of GW laughable to some and less important to others.

Back to Top ↑