{"id":371770,"date":"2025-03-24T18:05:11","date_gmt":"2025-03-24T17:05:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=371770"},"modified":"2025-03-24T18:05:12","modified_gmt":"2025-03-24T17:05:12","slug":"no-the-conversation-email-signatures-arent-threatening-lives-lets-talk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=371770","title":{"rendered":"No, The Conversation, Email Signatures Aren\u2019t Threatening Lives \u2014 Let\u2019s Talk"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From ClimateRealism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Anthony Watts<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A recent article in The Conversation<\/em>, written by Joshua M. Pearce and titled, \u201cEmail signatures are harming the planet and could cost people their lives \u2014 it\u2019s time to stop using them<\/strong><\/a>,\u201d makes a bold claim; email signatures are supposedly harming the environment and even \u201ccosting lives\u201d due to their energy consumption. The claim is not just false and exaggerated\u2014it\u2019s outright ridiculous. A deeper look at the actual energy usage of emails, the infrastructure of the Internet, and the overwhelming impact of spam emails shows that the supposed climate harm from email signatures is trivial at best.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the article, the author states, \u201cIt is estimated that the average email, including all those \u2018kind regards and corporate disclaimers, releases 4g of CO\u2082 emissions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This kind of claim is a prime example of misrepresenting numbers without context. The Internet\u2019s backbone\u2014email servers, data centers, and routing infrastructure\u2014runs 24\/7\/365 regardless of how many emails are sent. Email servers are never turned off; they consume energy continuously, whether processing a single email or millions. The additional power draw from an extra email, let alone a signature, is marginal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we\u2019re genuinely concerned about email-related energy consumption, the focus should be on spam, not email signatures. Studies estimate that spam emails account for over 85% of all email traffic<\/strong><\/a>. According to a 2021 Cisco report<\/a>, spam emails make up around 122 billion of the 144 billion emails sent daily. That means legitimate emails\u2014including those with signatures\u2014are a tiny fraction of the overall email traffic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, a study from McAfee<\/a> estimated that spam emails alone are responsible for 33 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity annually<\/strong>, equivalent to the emissions of over 3.1 million cars<\/strong>. By comparison, regular email traffic, including signatures, contributes a fraction of that energy usage. If reducing email emissions was truly a priority, tackling spam filtering inefficiencies would be a far more effective approach than eliminating polite email sign-offs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How Much Energy Do Email Signatures Actually Use? Let\u2019s put the facts in perspective:<\/p>\n\n\n\n