"Some companies have very efficient websites, and then there are websites like PepsiCo's," he says.
Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2025 6:19 am
It may not seem like it at first glance, but the network of networks on which we spend so much time every day is also terribly poisonous for the environment. It is not only the oil refineries and exhaust pipes that cause pollution. Tons of CO2 emissions are also emitted from seemingly harmless websites every year.
For this reason, and with the ultimate aim of shedding light on the corrosive environmental impact of online traffic (often perceived as invisible), the agency Footsprint, a subsidiary of the Labelium group, has put the websites of the 100 advertisers who invest the most in advertising in the United States under the microscope and has drawn up a ranking based on the carbon emissions produced by each page view.
There are three main polluting factors involved in the emissions generated by websites: data centres, transmission networks and hardware (mainly mobile phones and laptops).
Footsprint took these three factors into account when carrying out its ranking , which classifies brands based on the C2O emissions generated each time someone visits their website . The report undertaken by Footsprint also calculates the emissions produced each year by the websites evaluated based on the traffic they generate.
According to the methodology used in its study by Footsprint, annual CO2 emissions from online traffic are approximately 10 million tonnes. This is an amount equivalent to the emissions from the electricity needed to power all the homes in the city of Los Angeles for a period of one year.
The traffic generated by the websites of the 100 largest advertisers in the United States alone translates into 161,000 tons of CO2 emissions annually . To offset such a level of carbon emissions, more than 7 million trees would need to be planted.
PepsiCo's website is the most polluting, while Berkshire Hathaway's is the most emission-free
At the top of the Footsprint ranking is the PepsiCo website . Each visit to the website of the famous American multinational translates into 1.16 grams of CO2. PepsiCo shares the podium with the pay-TV provider Dish (0.58 grams of CO2 per visit) and the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (0.4 grams of CO2).
Rounding out the Top 10 are Samsung (0.47 grams of CO2 per visit), T-Mobile (0.46), Estée Lauder (0.45), AB InBev (0.42), Novartis (0.41), Kohl’s (0.40) and Colgate Palmolive (0.39).
These are the most polluting websites overseas in terms of the amount of emissions per visit, but if we look at total traffic (which is a very different metric), the most polluting websites are those of Google , Amazon and Meta . The websites of these three companies generate an amount of CO2 equivalent to that captured by 5 million trees in one year.
At the bottom of the list in terms of CO2 emissions are the websites of Berkshire Hathaway INC (0.006 grams of CO2 per carbon) , Intuit (0.022), Facebook (0.025), Google (0.052), Netfix (0.064), Nike (0.066), Discover (0.073), Yum (0.078), Merck (0.079) and Liberty Mutual Insurance (0.080).
The fact that the Berkshire Hathaway INC website is iceland number data the least polluting website is (at first glance) determined by the obsolete nature of the website in question. In the past, websites were paradoxically much more efficient.
"While hardware is becoming more efficient, software is becoming less efficient ," says Tom Greenwood, co-founder of Whole Grain Digital and author of Sustainable Web Design , in statements to AdWeek .
With good design, websites can significantly reduce the amount of emissions they generate. Often, solutions as simple as compressing or resizing content, using green data servers, and relying on so-called "lazy loading" (which prevents the bottom of the page from loading unless the user scrolls) are enough to clip the wings of CO2 emissions.
In a context like the current one, where there are clearly industries that are much more polluting than the digital one (agriculture and construction, to name a few), it is worth asking whether it is really worth pointing the finger at the most polluting websites. According to Juan Sotés, Impact Measurement Director of Footsprint, the environmental footprint emanating from the Internet may not seem excessively burdensome today, but it will be in the long term , when the electrification of homes, cars and many other areas of our lives will boost emissions in the digital industry and efforts will have to be made to mitigate such emissions.
«We are facing a colossal increase in electricity demand over the next 20 years. It doesn't matter whether the electricity we consume comes from our car or our laptop, but we need to limit electricity consumption in all areas ,» Sotés emphasises.
For this reason, and with the ultimate aim of shedding light on the corrosive environmental impact of online traffic (often perceived as invisible), the agency Footsprint, a subsidiary of the Labelium group, has put the websites of the 100 advertisers who invest the most in advertising in the United States under the microscope and has drawn up a ranking based on the carbon emissions produced by each page view.
There are three main polluting factors involved in the emissions generated by websites: data centres, transmission networks and hardware (mainly mobile phones and laptops).
Footsprint took these three factors into account when carrying out its ranking , which classifies brands based on the C2O emissions generated each time someone visits their website . The report undertaken by Footsprint also calculates the emissions produced each year by the websites evaluated based on the traffic they generate.
According to the methodology used in its study by Footsprint, annual CO2 emissions from online traffic are approximately 10 million tonnes. This is an amount equivalent to the emissions from the electricity needed to power all the homes in the city of Los Angeles for a period of one year.
The traffic generated by the websites of the 100 largest advertisers in the United States alone translates into 161,000 tons of CO2 emissions annually . To offset such a level of carbon emissions, more than 7 million trees would need to be planted.
PepsiCo's website is the most polluting, while Berkshire Hathaway's is the most emission-free
At the top of the Footsprint ranking is the PepsiCo website . Each visit to the website of the famous American multinational translates into 1.16 grams of CO2. PepsiCo shares the podium with the pay-TV provider Dish (0.58 grams of CO2 per visit) and the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (0.4 grams of CO2).
Rounding out the Top 10 are Samsung (0.47 grams of CO2 per visit), T-Mobile (0.46), Estée Lauder (0.45), AB InBev (0.42), Novartis (0.41), Kohl’s (0.40) and Colgate Palmolive (0.39).
These are the most polluting websites overseas in terms of the amount of emissions per visit, but if we look at total traffic (which is a very different metric), the most polluting websites are those of Google , Amazon and Meta . The websites of these three companies generate an amount of CO2 equivalent to that captured by 5 million trees in one year.
At the bottom of the list in terms of CO2 emissions are the websites of Berkshire Hathaway INC (0.006 grams of CO2 per carbon) , Intuit (0.022), Facebook (0.025), Google (0.052), Netfix (0.064), Nike (0.066), Discover (0.073), Yum (0.078), Merck (0.079) and Liberty Mutual Insurance (0.080).
The fact that the Berkshire Hathaway INC website is iceland number data the least polluting website is (at first glance) determined by the obsolete nature of the website in question. In the past, websites were paradoxically much more efficient.
"While hardware is becoming more efficient, software is becoming less efficient ," says Tom Greenwood, co-founder of Whole Grain Digital and author of Sustainable Web Design , in statements to AdWeek .
With good design, websites can significantly reduce the amount of emissions they generate. Often, solutions as simple as compressing or resizing content, using green data servers, and relying on so-called "lazy loading" (which prevents the bottom of the page from loading unless the user scrolls) are enough to clip the wings of CO2 emissions.
In a context like the current one, where there are clearly industries that are much more polluting than the digital one (agriculture and construction, to name a few), it is worth asking whether it is really worth pointing the finger at the most polluting websites. According to Juan Sotés, Impact Measurement Director of Footsprint, the environmental footprint emanating from the Internet may not seem excessively burdensome today, but it will be in the long term , when the electrification of homes, cars and many other areas of our lives will boost emissions in the digital industry and efforts will have to be made to mitigate such emissions.
«We are facing a colossal increase in electricity demand over the next 20 years. It doesn't matter whether the electricity we consume comes from our car or our laptop, but we need to limit electricity consumption in all areas ,» Sotés emphasises.