←back to thread

Send: Open-source fork of Firefox Send

(send.vis.ee)
276 points leonry | 5 comments | 19 Oct 24 12:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
melicerte ◴[20 Oct 24 13:47 UTC] No.41895338[source]▶
In my opinion, the idea behind Firefox send was a real step towards a more greener IT. The elephant in the room here that no one is talking about is the impact of the email with attachment on climate change. In 2018 (that's the best I could find) nearly 600 billion emails are distributed every day around the world. Im' pretty sure this is a lot more nowadays. No matter the truth, this colossal figure is not without impact on the environment. From the PC to the data center to the small lithium battery of a smartphone, email consumes electricity and its consequences on greenhouse gas emissions are far from negligible.

Studies on the subject (very few actually, if you have intel on that matter, let me know) have already been conducted and reveal that a simple email with an attachment of 1MB produces around 15 grams of CO2[1]. Obviously, this figure increases with the size of the email. This is the case, for example, when the email includes large attachments or if the email is sent to several recipients.

With the use of the IMAP protocol, one email sent has at least 6 permanent copies (from the sent item in the sender email client to the inbox of the recipient, through sender and recipients email server which hopefully have long term archiving).

A solution like firefox send with automatic shredding of the file after an expiration period to replace email attachment would drastically reduce the consequences of email usage on greenhouse gas emissions. It would also resolve other issues related to sending files by email, but that would make this post waaaayyy to long :-)

[1] http://www.helixee.me/limpact-ecologique-des-e-mails/ (in French)

replies(3): >>41895379 #>>41895445 #>>41895548 #
jamal-kumar ◴[20 Oct 24 13:55 UTC] No.41895379[source]▶
I'm sorry but if you're bean-counting email co2 usage and coming up with a unit of like 15 grams of a physical substance per email then by that logic we should basically all go ted K luddite on our computers and phones, and simply throw them the fuck out the window right now. Imagine the pounds of CO2 I emit playing sonic the goddamn hedgehog why don't we.

I think environmentalists need to find more effective focuses than these if we want our goals to be achieved and for us to be taken remotely seriously

replies(3): >>41895415 #>>41895590 #>>41897303 #
1. beepbooptheory ◴[20 Oct 24 14:00 UTC] No.41895415[source]▶
You dont have to have the same goals, its pretty serious but also its ok in the grander scheme of things if you don't want to think about this stuff. This wasn't even about "messaging", it was just a thing with a nice environmental upshot. No reason to be defensive.

Hope you have fun playing Sonic I guess?

replies(1): >>41895437 #
2. jamal-kumar ◴[20 Oct 24 14:03 UTC] No.41895437[source]▶
Yeah he goes fast haha

No seriously, just extrapolate that for a second and try to tell me with a straight face that all the gamer kids playing with whatever it takes to render a modern game, and by the logic I'm reading from that french article those kid are basically each a victorian age factory spewing out so much carbon gunk we're going to need to bring back chimney sweeps, like yeah I don't really think that the logic of restricting emails is going to change a lot when people are literally just out there playing video games.

I'm being "defensive" because as an environmentalist I think that we need to get real and target the real emitters. It's mostly military functions, international shipping, and still going and generating power in the first place using non renewable sources that maybe we should be focusing on rather than this BP-orchestrated carbon footprint bullshit that they foisted on people as a psyop to convince us that we're the problem that need to change

replies(1): >>41895444 #
3. beepbooptheory ◴[20 Oct 24 14:05 UTC] No.41895444[source]▶
Right, but you're just offering fatalism back, right? Its fine, but that's not like an argument against it. Its just articulating the problem again but saying its impossible to solve.
replies(1): >>41895482 #
4. jamal-kumar ◴[20 Oct 24 14:09 UTC] No.41895482{3}[source]▶
No I'm offering that it's incredibly wrong to go bean counting email co2 usage when this is a dead end solution blaming end users for a problem caused by large corporations. It causes people to take environmentalism less seriously and doesn't change a thing for the greater good.

It's not letting me reply to your further comment but here's some links for you to really 'get it'

https://www.clf.org/blog/the-truth-about-carbon-footprints/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...

replies(1): >>41895511 #
5. beepbooptheory ◴[20 Oct 24 14:15 UTC] No.41895511{4}[source]▶
I'm a little confused. GP was simply pointing something out as maybe a good aspect of this kind of file transfer flow. It doesn't matter what "people think of environmentalism" in this case (and so many other cases). Environmentalism != the environment. Nobody was chastising you for having too big an email attachment.

In general I dont get this line where people think this stuff is all just a huge PR (as press relations) issue. It doesnt matter what you or I think. We are kinda way past that. There is no cultural battle to win, and even if there was, it really wouldn't matter!