Second Life avatars aren’t as eco-friendly / carbon neutral as first thought?

Anuradha Vittachi’s presentation at the United Nations OCHA +5 Symposium mentioned that each flight killed a child. She then went on to demonstrate the potential of Second Life to cut down on air travel by meetings in sims and showcased OneClimate Island that will have virtual events running in parallel to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, 3 – 14 December 2007. As noted here, is supported by Cisco Systems. Adrian Godfrey, Director of Corporate Affairs at Cisco, says: “We are delighted to be supporting as a global initiative that brings together Cisco’s commitment to tackle climate change and to utilising the power of the human network to make a difference.” links directly through to OneClimate Island, built by OneWorld within the 3D virtual world of Second Life.

“It will come into its own when the United Nations meets on December 3-14 to hold its Climate Summit. We will be opening a virtual window on events in Bali for anyone in the world who can access Second Life. But unlike its Real Life equivalent – and appropriately for a climate change conference – it will produce no travel-related carbon emissions.

Emphasis mine.

On the other hand, in Avatars consume as much electricity as Brazilians, Nicholas Carr writes:

So an avatar consumes 1,752 kWh per year. By comparison, the average human, on a worldwide basis, consumes 2,436 kWh per year. So there you have it: an avatar consumes a bit less energy than a real person, though they’re in the same ballpark.

Now, if we limit the comparison to developed countries, where per-capita energy consumption is 7,702 kWh a year, the avatars appear considerably less energy hungry than the humans. But if we look at developing countries, where per-capita consumption is 1,015 kWh, we find that avatars burn through considerably more electricity than people do.

More narrowly still, the average citizen of Brazil consumes 1,884 kWh, which, given the fact that my avatar estimate was rough and conservative, means that your average Second Life avatar consumes about as much electricity as your average Brazilian.

In a comment on this post, Sun’s Dave Douglas takes the calculations another step, translating electricity consumption into CO2 emissions. (Carbon dioxide, he notes, “is the most prevalent greenhouse gas from the production of electricity.”) He writes: “looking at CO2 production, 1,752 kWH/year per avatar is about 1.17 tons of CO2. That’s the equivalent of driving an SUV around 2,300 miles (or a Prius around 4,000).” 

So while Anuradha was correct to emphasise the fact that meetings in OneClimate Island in Second Life will not result in any travel related carbon emissions (which is not to be scoffed at), it also seems to be true just using Second Life has a very real environmental footprint.

Or does it?

Carr’s findings are hotly contested in the comments and read in particular the comment by Markus Breuer on May 19, 2007 at 5:49 AM.

Whatever the case, I’ve long since argued that Second Life holds great potential, in the right circumstances, for Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). If it means that in some way it’s use cuts down on carbon emissions through the reduction of air-travel, then I guess it’s all the more reason to promote it as a platform for serious work and collaboration.

3 thoughts on “Second Life avatars aren’t as eco-friendly / carbon neutral as first thought?

  1. we’re not green as we think we are!
    but our non-green-ness is much less significant than that of someone in a developed country -> like al gore, the queen of england, etc

    this whole carbon foot print / per capita energy consumption thing is just numbers
    we by cars from europe and japan…
    do we account for the carbon emissions of the steel and other materials used?
    do we do a life cycle carbon foot print on products we import?
    or the services such as the internet we’re using?

    so a persons carbon foot print or per capita energy consumption is just a number… i agree that it is SOME measure of your ‘contribution to pollution’… you can asses your carbon foot print for this year and compare it with last year… but comparing person A in europe with person B in sri lanka – that gives a wrong picture!

    about 50% of sri lanka’s primary energy consumption comes from forrest biomass (this based on the energy balance as published by the energy conservation fund ->
    so yeah… we contribute to deforestation to meet ~50% of our energy demand!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s