Feeds

back to article Using Facebook causes less eco damage than farting, figures show

Free-content advertising giant Facebook has released comprehensive data on its carbon emissions, revealing that a person who uses the giant website causes rather less damage to the planetary ecosystem by doing so than he or she can expect to cause by simply farting. According to the new Facebook data, each user who is active on …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

--

EEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...........

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: --

Should give you seconds thoughts about "follow"ing anyone.

2
0
Silver badge
Headmaster

May not...

It may not cause as much damage to the environment but it causes until damage to the brain, lowering IQ levels by up to 45%

1
0
Anonymous Coward

But...

My friends don't wonder why I wouldn't want to listen to their flatulence mixed with adverts.

1
0

Why not?

I mean, it seems like a pretty obvious choice for somebody who's already trying to get you to buy their shit.

1
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

"Facebook: better than farting"

As a marketing slogan, it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi...

10
0
Pint

Re: "Facebook: better than farting"

No, rather, «Facebook : more environmentally sustainable than farting» - «better» being a subjective judgement, with which, I for one, would beg to disagree. Not sure whether that makes me a «hippy» or an «anti-hippy» in Lewis' view.....

Henri

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Not exclusive

I have been known to fart while using the internet. Does that make me doubly evil? I don't light them, either.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: Not exclusive

These numbers are meaningless without measuring the farts emitted while using Facebook.

0
0
Silver badge
Coat

The iPhone 5 is the solution

Apparently the iPhone5 will have FB integrated and it can also include the infamous "farting apps".

Therefore dear Watson:

A FB user who fires up the farting app whilst doing FB stuff on his iPhone5 will actually be doing the environment a favour by only producing virtual flatulence.

2
0
Silver badge
Flame

Get up to date, Register!

For quite some time now it has been obvious that CO2 concentration has NO detectable effect on the world's climate, and, if anything, it tends to follow temperature rather than lead it.

The last 15 years of flat/dropping temperatures while CO2 concentration goes up should make this clear to everyone. So perhaps now is the time to start mentioning this...?

1
7

Yes but

farting is much more satisfying than being poked to play a cupcake game by some dickhead that you didn't get along with at school

2
0
Silver badge
Coat

Logically impossible...

unless using Facebook prevents you from farting.

4
0
Mushroom

But farting is fart more enjoyable.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Never mind methane...

We all know about methane being a greenhouse gas, but what about H2S? Some people seem to produce a lot more of the latter than the former... is being eggy more eco-friendly?

0
0

So to be really green ...

Does this mean that if one wants to be really eco friendly, one should always ignite one's flatulence immediately after emission?

Would "Dragon's Den" be interested in funding a range of green underwear, where each garment contains a built-in igniter?

And/or, since cows generate more methane than humans, how about a device that clips on to a cow's tail that automatically ignites the animal's farts?

0
0
Happy

Re: So to be really green ...

I can see it now, after that fashionable dinner party the in-thing is to stan-up bend over and flame-off.

Works for me!

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: So to be really green ...

" how about a device that clips on to a cow's tail that automatically ignites the animal's farts?"

Ooooh, Rocket Cows!

1
0

And do they factor..

The fact that excessive fb users (i.e. those that sit in front of the computer all day eating junk food and getting no excercise) are likely to fart more?

0
0

But have you allowed for the shorter half-life?

Methane: ~10 years, by oxidation

CO2: ~100's of years, by deep ocean circulation

1
0

Re: But have you allowed for the shorter half-life?

Why? It's only the gasses recently released into the atmosphere that causes the issues.

How can CO2 re-released from oceanic absorption be classed as man made emissions?

1
0
Silver badge
Trollface

Stop !

Stop trying to bring intelligent arguments into the climate debate - you're messing up the zealot message !

0
0
Gold badge
WTF?

Yes, but.

You have no choice over whether or not to fart.

Nobody needs Facebook, so any number greater than zero is an avoidable and entirely unnecessary contribution to CO2 emissions. Presumably the Greenpeace hippies are all also Facebook addicts, which prevents them pointing out this rather obvious snag in their encomium to Facebook.

0
0
Unhappy

Re: Yes, but.

But I need Facebook, I tend to fart more than the average beer and curry male, so need to carbon offset by NOT having a Facebook account.

If Facebook is closed down (or goes under) I already offset against Twatter, so would end up having to ignite the damn things to compensate.

0
0
FAIL

No increase in concentration

Given there is no evidence of a build up of methane in the atmosphere I call BS on their CO2 equivalence calculations. Without an increase in the atmosphere there isn't any extra GHG to stop IR from escaping.

Just one more thing - surely farts are "carbon neutral" unless you eat coal and drink petrol?

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: No increase in concentration

surely farts are "carbon neutral" unless you eat coal and drink petrol?

If that were what most people who use the phrase mean by "carbon neutral", then everything we do here on Earth would be "carbon neutral", unless someone has a nifty fusion reaction producing new carbon atoms in their back yard.

Obviously we don't emit more carbon atoms than we consume. So the question of "carbon neutrality" (regardless of whether it's a useful concept) is one of the form the carbon inputs and outputs are in - typically what molecules contain those carbon atoms, and where those molecules go when they're emitted.

As the article makes clear, the (admittedly silly) "fart argument" is based on our emitting methane. Since we don't absorb as much methane as we emit, we must be producing it by liberating carbon from other sources, which (the argument implies) are not greenhouse gasses. (Incidentally, this means the argument about our personal CO2 emissions in the article is bunk; we're breaking some carbon atoms off glucose molecules and whacking them onto a couple of oxygen atoms, then exhaling the resulting GHG.)

"Carbon neutral" is a misnomer. The climate-warming carbon argument (whether you buy it or not) is that converting heavier carbon-based molecules into lighter GHG ones like CO2 and CH4 is a climactic temperature pump. Carbon itself remains neutral; it's all about carbon compounds.

0
0
Bronze badge
FAIL

I get fed up with these sort of press releases.....

Unless Facebook have power stations specifically powering them - then it is simply not possible with any degree of certainty at all to state categorically where your energy comes from.

Electricity follows the path of least resistance - thus unless you have a direct connection to a power station - then your electricity in general comes from the closest power generation facility.

It does my nut in when people claim they are using "green energy" from wind farms and the like - they aren't - they are paying a premium to their electricity supplier in order to further fund R&D into renewable energy - but the actual energy flowing into their property is coming from the National Grid - and therefore from wherever the nearest power station is.

2
0
Silver badge
Holmes

Cause and Effect

It does my nut in when people claim they are using "green energy" from wind farms and the like - they aren't - they are paying a premium to their electricity supplier in order to further fund R&D into renewable energy - but the actual energy flowing into their property is coming from the National Grid - and therefore from wherever the nearest power station is.

No, they're not actually receiving and using "green" power. But they are paying green energy suppliers for the electricity. Meanwhile (let's assume their electricity actually came from a coal-based plant), the coal-based plant has given them electricity without being paid (by them, anyway) for it. So they actually lose some on that deal. Someone else, who didn't choose a green supplier but happens to live close to one, is paying the "dirty" supplier but getting "green" energy.

In this scenario, who is actually responsible for the pollution caused by the "dirty" supplier? The individual who received (through no fault of their own) that electricity or the individual who paid the supplier to generate it? Conversely, who gets credit for the renewable energy, those who happened to receive it because of the laws of physics and the layout of the grid, or those who funded the research and generation?

1
1
Bronze badge

hey, waitaminnit...

I thought using Facebook was pretty much the same as farting.

2
0
Silver badge
Joke

I visit the Register website a lot these days - partly because I am a big fan and partly because my life is really pitiful and pathetic and I am quite addicted to checking my up/down votes (get voting people!).

How many farts worth of browsing do you lot think I do? I'd quite like to know just in case farting/consumer carbon usage is ever taxed in the future as this kind of information may affect a future mortgage application or NI contributions for all we know!

3
0

Tom Sharp quote

"I fart in bed. I like to fart in bed, it is the trumpet call of the antropoid ape".

If I set light to these I'd set the bed on fire. What we need is an anal catalytic converter.

1
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: Tom Sharp quote

An analytic converter?

1
0
Bronze badge

Have they run this by the bean counters?

I don't use Facebook, but on the other hand. ...

0
0
Pint

But I thought...

I thought that using Facebook was something that CATALIZED farting, not INHIBITED farting.

0
1
Thumb Up

So...

If Facebook connected a methane gas powered generator to the required amount of farting and burping cows in a field how many users per cow would that be?

0
0
Silver badge
WTF?

However...

...this does not account for the environmental damage caused by filling your pants as a result of losing the will to live, then the subsequent death, and however long it takes for somebody to notice (all the while your computer not being on standby and the lights still on).

.

On a more serious note: So using my computer to talk to my router to talk to the phone exchange to talk to [tracert facebook.com] twelve bits of kit (possibly including satellites, uplinks, downlinks, and god only knows what) to talk to facebook, and back, numerous times for each page fetch... ...is less "damaging" than a single fart?

0
0
Bronze badge
Boffin

ignition source?

It's all very well to say that burning fart methane to CO2 reduces the greenhouse effect, but you've failed to take into account the ignition source: burning a fart involves *two* flames, one from a match or cigarette lighter (or firework if you live in Darwin) and one ex-anus. You need to factor in the greenhouse impact of producing, transporting and burning the ignition source.

0
0
Silver badge
Flame

Re: ignition source?

Use a spark from electricity generated by a wind turbine...

1
0
Flame

That's me done then

Not green here -- not on Facebook, drink a lot of coffee, and at my age, fart more than I used to.

Neverthless, not intending to employ the icon.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Erm....

...people are using Facebook in ADDITION to farting, not INSTEAD of. Therefore Facebook users are KILLING THE PLANET (my emphasis - for hysteria purposes) twice as fast as those who fart only.

0
0
Silver badge

I propose a new unit of pollution : the Facebook Fart

1 FF = 0.269g of CO2 annual

Now let's see how we can use that :)

1
0
This topic is closed for new posts.