• keepthepace@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Individuals can make a ton of choices and impact! But don’t make them believe that some things are impactful when they are not. Changing the way you move around, insulating your home, changing your diet, improving your recycling, all these have an impact. Making your webpage 50K lighter? That’s good design sure, but not an environmental action.

    Insulate your water heater before worrying about the few mW a website could save!

    • Treevan 🇦🇺@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I get you but I’ve already done all those things.

      Ordering them by priority is fine but this is more of an ethos than a checklist. Everything that one could do could follow the same philosophy by shaving off energy usage where one can. Doesn’t matter if it’s a hot water tap, a walk to the shops instead of driving, sitting under a tree instead of aircon, or designing a website to send less data. They are all the same because the goal is use less and they all matter. Does that make sense?

      • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        At one point then the goal is not to lower your impact, it is to make it positive: don’t lower your energy use anymore, become a net producer. We just moved in a house so the insulation and switch to heat pump is our priority but at one point I want solar panels. I want guilt-free air conditioning in summer

        • Treevan 🇦🇺@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Already done. Plus all the tree planting and biochar I do.

          Perhaps your argument is a foundational one whereas other people are already chasing the diminishing returns. As an ethos, I feel that everything one should do is striving to that lower goal but there is no shame in attacking your agenda as a priority checklist, it makes sense financially.

          I still don’t know why we can’t have low energy websites as the norm but certainly there are low-hanging fruit to grab elsewhere. Definitely not denying any of that.

          Somewhat related anecdote: When I do my environmental work in the field and biomass needs to be moved, most people tend to move it downhill as that’s easier. I always move biomass uphill as I introduce energy into the system rather than the usual entropy (nutrients flow downhill). Most people don’t understand that argument, it’s beyond them, they think “it doesn’t matter”. Just like low energy websites, it’s the little things…

          • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of good reasons to do lighter websites. Environmental impact is not one of them. Either your electricity usage emits CO2, in which case you have more urgent things to do, or your electricity does not, and you don’t care about the additional microwatthour loading a js library took.

    • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Only recycle metal and electronics, plastic recycling is a scam. Best case is plastic recycling goes directly into a landfill, worst case it’s bundled and shipped half way around the world and dumped on the beach.