22 Dec
Are email Christmas cards better for the environment?
Posted by Martin Hill in Email
We all receive them now – e-Christmas cards from companies (and indeed we send them), but quite often there will be a claim on the bottom along the lines of ‘This year we’ve decided to help save the planet by sending you an electronic card’
This is all very well, but being a keen, yet discerning eco-warrior, it got me thinking – do we know for certain this is the case? I mean on the face of it, an email has to use less of the world’s resources than a delivered paper and ink product – it’s just a few electrons right? But does it – is it really that simple? So, being the inquisitive type, I looked into it, partly because I wanted to know, but also throw-away green claims in marketing messages really get my goat – so part of me wanted to prove them wrong!
What I found out is that, although it is virtually impossible to make a general comparison, it’s becoming increasingly clear that electronic communication is not as ‘green’ as it appears. On a simple level, you need to be running some form of computer to read an email – these not only consume power, but also require power and valuable resourses to build and transport – likewise, an email could pass through dozens of servers or nodes on the internet en-route, all requiring 24/7 energy to run them and the air conditioned buildings in which they reside. There’s the energy required to power the computer that designed and coded the email. There’s even the resources required to grow, package and transport the food used in the lunch of the web developer if you want to take it to extremes!
So could there be a chance that a posted card printed with eco-friendly ink on recycled paper is more eco efficient then an all singing all dancing email?
One fact is that the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector currently has approximately the same carbon footprint as the paper industry (2% of all energy use), but is set to double every five years. (Document where I got these figures is here).
Which makes one think…
So next time I get a nice e-card claiming to help save the planet, I might just ask them where they got their figures from!
Tags: Email Marketing
Comments
David Morris
December 22, 2009
3:19 pm
Never mind saving money or being cooler, it shows a distinct lack of effort if you can’t take the trouble to send a personal greeting once a year.
Come on Martin nshow you care.
(From your friendly neighbourhood printer with a large sharp hatchet to grind).
Sue Dorman
December 22, 2009
3:26 pm
Hi Martin We.re wioth you all the way and that’s exctly what we’ve done for the past two years. I will send you ours! But we go one step further and donate the money that would have gone on postage to charity, last year a cancer charity as a friend had just died from ovarian cancer, and this year to a local charity – the Chalfont St Giles Youth Club.
Merry Christmas !!
Martin Hill
December 22, 2009
3:38 pm
I think you definitely have a point David, and I have thought about this alot. (and we have in the past sent plenty of printed cards). I think alot depends on the creative behind either medium. We put alot of effort into our messages trying to make them relevant and original – it probably takes alot longer than it would to write and send cards, and we think people appreciate that – we certainly get much positive feedback. But I would concede that a really original and engaging printed card is a powerful and personal thing – and the post above is arguably promoting the sending of proper cards!
Fabian S-C
December 23, 2009
8:02 am
Good points Twin Man and well brought out !! I fear that global warming has melted the other four tentacles!! Cool card
Happy Xmas and a prosperous 2010
simon gresswell
December 23, 2009
8:05 am
Combine the 2? Use page-turning software to deliver an ecard, that you ‘open’ on screen and then pop-up (presume this can now be used a verb as in ‘to medal’ in the Olympics) your punters with advice that if they want the full festive message from the maestro of yuletide mirth that is, Binamo #1, then they can rest assured tht they will also be activating a donation to the Carbon Trust from said Binamo, to ease his and their eco-conscience and counter his and their dastardly ungreen deeds of sending and receiving any card in the first place. Oooh, I’m no feeling all Christmas-e.
Nina Hall
December 23, 2009
11:18 am
If the web developer wasn’t a web developer they would still have to eat so I don’t think you can include that in the equation!
Also I don’t know anyone that has gone out and brought a PC just read an e-card!! They will most likely be sitting in front of one that is already turned on (so using energy) anyway!
Martin Hill
December 23, 2009
12:30 pm
HI Nina Not strictly true about the web developer – when they are not working, they go into a semi hibernated state to conserve energy, only waking occasionally to feed on small pieces of cold pizza.
Joking of course – yes – you are absolutely right, and maybe I was stretching it a bit far.
And the PC comment is an example of why it is so difficult to compare the two mediums – too many variables. I’m sure there are plenty of people who use PCs mainly for email, in which case you could make some sort of calculation – total energy/quantity of emails, but for some it is only a fraction of usage.
But here’s a quick calculation: In less than a day, the e-Christams card we send has been opened at least 300 times. If we assume 30 seconds per view, that means 150 computer minutes have been used looking at it – 2.5 hours. The average consumption of a PC is around 150 Watts, so 150×2.5 = 375 watts used up so far reading the email. Wow – that’s quite alot really! Worse case scenario that equals 375g grammes of CO2 (if the electricity was from coal fired generators). That’s just people reading it – not the transport around the internet, or the production time….
Martin Hill
December 23, 2009
12:35 pm
By the way – I’m not suggesting that email is worse for the the environment than physical post – it’s just that the science doesn’t seem to have been proved anywhere, and I don’t think it is as clear cut as people may think…
Martin Hill
December 23, 2009
12:46 pm
I’ve just fond an article ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/04/ethicalliving.lifeandhealth1) that says the average CO2 for a posted letter in the UK 16g. Now I just need to find out how much per email.