Email signatures are harming the planet and could cost people their lives — it’s time to stop using them

The Conversation ^ | 3-16-25 | Joshua M. Pearce

[dynachrome]

The use of information technology (IT) has significant environmental and social impacts, including human mortality from climate change. One striking example is the carbon emissions and impacts associated with digital communication.

To quantify the human cost of carbon-emitting technology, researchers use the 1,000-ton rule that estimates that for every 1,000 tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, one person dies prematurely.

This rule is derived from the following calculation: burning one trillion ton of fossil carbon is likely to cause 2 C of anthropogenic global warming, which in turn is likely to cause about one billion premature deaths spread over the next century.

This theory can be used as a decision-making framework for policymakers to compare the value of an activity to the cost of that activity in human lives.

It’s also what I used in my recent study that analyzed how additional information in email signatures contributes to climate-related deaths in Canada.

[Dutch Boy]

Don’t forget BitCoin mining and data farms. They use massive amounts of power.

[Alas Babylon!]

Like old time telegrams?

Saw sub, sank same

[scott7278]

You can’t give these people an inch. Everything, and I mean everything, can and will be declared impermissible by them if we allow it.

[John Milner]

For every email signature, a flower grows.

[Trinity5]

What if that 1000 tons of “additional carbon” comes from the manufacture of a life saving drug?

[Sequoyah101]

This guy is an educated fool or psycho.

[The Duke]

This is laughable - imagine the pollution saved by a single Zoom meeting that replaces what was once endless time spent flying around the world.

[alexander_busek]

To quantify the human cost of carbon-emitting technology, researchers use the 1,000-ton rule that estimates that for every 1,000 tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, one person dies prematurely.

The question is: How prematurely?

Five years earlier than he would otherwise have died?!

Five months?!

Five minutes?!

Maybe they mean that one thousand new-borns would have their remaining life-expectancy shortened by one-tenth of one percent. That would be approx. four weeks.

This is insane!

NOTE: The volanco Kīlauea, located on the Big Island of Hawai'i, emits approximately 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per day.

That means that TEN PEOPLE die every day because of that volcano!

Shouldn't the Volcano Lodge (hotel) on the lip of the crater, where tourists stay so they can gawk at the fountains of lava, be required to pay a tax? And the postcard manufacturers who sell picture postcards of the eruption? Should they have to pay a surcharge?

Regards,

[one guy in new jersey]

how adolescent lol

[Moltke]

In the neverending chain of what-ifs...what if there is a threshold, and a warming of, say, 1.7 °C instead of 2.0 °C causes NO EXCESS DEATHS AT ALL? (Just as possible as any other scenario at this point.) Are these freaks going to apologize and pay reparations for all the chaos they have caused along the way?

[crusty old prospector]

For every email signature, an angel gets its wings.