It is trendy \u2013 and more important it is necessary – to\nreduce our carbon footprint. Let\u2019s calculate how much a bad habit of\nphotographers can pollute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I am taking in average 10 to 20 thousand images per year.\nMany pro photographers will shoot ten times more, typically above 100 thousand\nimages per year, if not more. At the same time, for different reasons, it\nhappens I am working hard at keeping only the best shots. Typically, from these\n10-20 thousand photos per year, I am storing only 1 or 2 thousand per year. And\nthere is even room for improvement. I don\u2019t think this ratio is exceptional.\nOther people report a typical ratio of 80-95% of useless images, whatever the\nreasons. However, I must confess this eradication takes me a lot of time and I\ndo understand why people don\u2019t do it \u2013 it should be somewhat automated. I was\nwondering what the impact of keeping all these useless images is. How many greenhouses\ngas does it generate per year ? Basically, I am wondering how much our useless\nimages can pollute when we don\u2019t eradicate them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Simple question, difficult answer. First and foremost, there\nare head and tail winds: Whereas 1 Gigabytes (GB) of data require less and less\nCO tons every year, images are becoming bigger and bigger as new sensors let\nyou shoot with more megapixels. Same situation for videos. It looks quite\nchallenging to anticipate the future trends but let\u2019s make the calculation as\nper today, in 2019. It is reasonable to believe head and tailwinds will not\ncompletely change the result in the next years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Let\u2019s try to calculate just a rough estimate\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this article, I don\u2019t make any calculation for videos,\njust for the still images. I will consider 3 categories of photographers: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Casual photographers only create JPG files from their photos in this exercise, with a 24 Mega pixels camera. So, each JPG file weights typically 5 Mega Bytes (MB) each. This means 5 x 5\u2019000 = 25 GB per year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Enthusiasts shoot RAW, with 36 Mega pixels camera. They convert 10% in JPG, of 7.5 MB each. This means 36 . 20\u2019000 + 7.5 . 2000 = 735 GB per year<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pros will shoot both RAW and JPG, with different cameras and\nsensor. Let\u2019s make a rough estimate at 15 MB per image. This means basically 1.5\nTB per year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To summarize, I will just consider 1 TB per year per photographer.\nThis will simplify the calculation. It will not change the whole result and it\nwill be consistent with the kind of photographer we are looking at for this effect\n(mostly enthusiasts or pros).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
All these numbers are arguable but that\u2019s a good starting\npoint for a first estimation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now the key question is how much carbon dioxide emissions for 1 TB ?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Several studies have proven that we need around 100 kg of\nCarbon dioxide emissions to store 1 TB of\ndata on the cloud (ref. [1], [2] and [3]. Again, the calculation is quite complicated,\nand the range is very broad, from typically 50 kg to 2 tons. I am considering 100\nkg as a conservative estimation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This means 1 ton per year for 10 TB, after 10 years of\nphotography as it is cumulative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a sustainable world, the average individual rate should\nbe of 3 tons of carbon dioxide per year (ref. [4]). We are far from that level now\n(US: 18-20 tons per year per person, China: 6.5 tons, \u2026) but that\u2019s where we\nare going.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is useless to say we can\u2019t use almost 1\/3rd<\/sup> of our yearly quota (in a sustainable planet) just for storing images<\/strong>. It should not be more than a couple of percents. Once again, it proves that a sustainable world will have dramatic consequences to our life. It means we should eradicate all our useless images as they represent 80-95% of this storage emission. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is time to reduce our data from images and videos. Besides storing too much and mostly useless information, it is necessary for living in a sustainable planet. Of course, one can object these data \u201cmight\u201d be useful in the future, who knows ? At the same time, it is good practice to focus at what really matters and be able to retrieve this important information later when needed. Less is sometimes better. And we always find good excuses to refuse change. But this change is needed and in the long run, inevitable. It is time to be consistent and eradicate as a “pre-post processing step” most of the useless images, whatever useless may mean.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1] \u2013 Carbon\nand the cloud<\/a>, Stanford Magazine<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2] – Trends\nin Server Efficiency and Power Usage in Data Centers<\/a>, SPEC 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n [3] – The\ncarbon footprint of a distributed cloud storage<\/a>, Cubbit<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
References<\/h1>\n\n\n\n