Just read through your link and the journal it uses as a source. While the journal seems fine, the article itself makes claims that are not backed up by the journal and does not seem to cite any other sources for those claims. For instance, the claim that it uses 1.5L of water per 100 word reply seems to have been pulled out of thin air.
tree_frog_and_rain@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I will take a look at the original article.
But again I’m going to restate that the article you posted uses tech oligarchs as primary sources. Which just on the face of it looks like green washing.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
I’ve read through the sources and links, and there is sanity checking and 3rd party input. The numbers from Google were also published in a white paper, so there’s a reasonable level of transparency and verifiability. While they shouldn’t be taken entirely at their word, there’s currently little reason to think their figures aren’t at least in the ballpark of the actual data.