LeliaThomas.Com

On Hating Immeasurable, Alarming Statistics

This “fact” recently came to my attention:

If [all 300 of this company's employees] turns off their PC for 1 night, the impact will be equivalent to planting 7 trees. Over a year this would equate to planting 2500 trees.

If anything can get me riled up, it’s mindless statistics like these. Statistics are valuable. They rarely accurately represent the whole of a situation, but they’re still valuable. Their value goes straight down the drain, though, when empty-heads take advantage of them.

Let’s look at the statistic above. Not only does it look like it comes from some second rate Internet forum signature (sadly, it does not), it is entirely impossible to measure something like that.

The Effect of Everyone Turning Off Their Computers

Firstly, this “fact” assumes that all computers use the same amount of electricity, but this varies from monitor and computer hardware setups. Obviously, different setups are not going to “destroy the earth” to the same degree as advanced ones. However, I’m feeling kindhearted, so let’s give the dense a break and go with the average power information about computer and monitors, which is somewhere around 120 watts of power, supposedly. (A slightly stronger-than-normal light bulb, in other words.)

About PCs and Trees

Comparing computers to trees is like comparing apples to oranges. In fact, apples and oranges have even more in common, since they’re both fruits. Computers and trees have pretty well nothing in common. But, again, let’s give those who buy into every statistic they read a hand and say that this proposed goodness that’s going to save Mother Earth is equivalent to planting seven trees. Here are the questions that result from that proposal.

How do you accurately and scientifically measure seemingly unrelated concepts?

Supposing you can measure this, what trees are they?

Are all trees as good for the environment as others? So, a Japanese Maple is just as good as a white oak?

Where are they planted?

What is the weather like in that region?

What is the chance that they will survive? (Some trees are harder to keep alive than others, especially if they’re more suited to a specific region.)

The questions go on, really. Simply put, when you take into account all the different models and forms of efficiency (or lack thereof) that exist among computers, and taken into account all the different species of trees that could be planted, as well as whether they would survive or not, you end up with a completely impossible thing to track without a lot of in-depth, long-term research. For some reason, I’m guessing the person who wrote this–likely on the spot–didn’t do that.

Not All Agree!

This statistic is basically saying this:

300 turned off PCs = 7 trees planted

Yet when I went on the prowl for where this statistic came from, not only could I not find any information on it, but what little I did find was conflicting. I found this PDF from Tufts University that is chock full of immeasurable and alarming statistics. One of them deals with PCs and trees. Here’s their take on it:

One computer left on 24 hours a day will cost you $115 - 160 in electricity costs a year and dump 1,500 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. A tree absorbs between 3-15 lbs of CO2 each year. That means that 100-500 trees would be needed to offset the yearly emissions of one computer left on all the time!

Okay, well, first, anyone notice how LARGE a range 100-500 is? I wish I had that sort of lenience available to me when getting grades back from university. “You made somewhere between a 0 and 100, Ms. Thomas, but either way, you’ve passed! Congrats.” It just doesn’t seem to mean much, does it?

Anyway, this one’s a bit more complex to break down, because it gives the statistic in a way that is reversed compared to the one prior, but here it goes:

1 PC turned off = 300 trees planted (as 300 is the median of 100-500)

Anyone seeing the disparity here? The only commonality between those two statistics is the 300, and that’s only because I made that range a real value. Let me put them side by side for you:

300 turned off PCs = 7 trees planted

vs

1 PC turned off = 300 trees planted

That means if the company of 300 used the second calculation, it would look like this:

If 1 PC turned off = 300 trees planted,
then 300 PCs turned off = 90,000 trees planted

Ninety thousand is slightly different from seven, isn’t it? I guess we could be nice and give them the benefit of the doubt, by thinking the company’s statistic was planting white oaks, while Tuft University believes in using Japanese Maples in a bad climate for them, but, well, I’m sick of being nice. The people who make these things up should be held accountable for what they’re saying.

It’s obvious that one group, if not both, is just spouting arbitrary statistics in hopes of making you feel like you can make some huge difference by flipping a switch. (Ah, the Western guilt trip angle and it’s associated “easy fix.”) It also seems that someone hopes you’ll be afraid that you’re killing, or annihilating the good of, that many trees–7 or 300, no one knows–so you’ll know just how real this global warming–or is it global cooling–or is it climate change–stuff is.

Whether a theory is right or not, it shouldn’t give you reason to buy into alarming, random statistics that are not scientifically measurable.

It’s Dangerous to Be Gullible

Don’t believe everything you read. You have a brain. Use it. A million things you may agree with, and a million others you may disagree with. That’s one situation. But you should never accept, at face value, a bad idea or a questionable statistic, no matter who is spouting it. It doesn’t matter if it’s coming from your friends or family members, your boss, your religious leader, a university, or your president. If it’s a bad idea or a questionable statistic, it doesn’t need to be accepted if you’re to remain an individual who thinks critically for himself. Case closed.

Comments ordered from oldest to newest.

Josh

I know what computers and trees have in common: they both have root :P

arden

wow, I guess you have to be pretty critical to investigate a survey you bumped into our of repulsion. thanks for that. I, too, am actually a very gullible person. And it really is depressing that my mind can’t be more critical of stuff, which is something I hope will be contrary once I undergo my college education. I guess gullibilty doesnt make me street wise and fit (yet) to handle the many masks and predation of the outside world.

Kav P

Who cares about trees anyway? You can’t send emails through them or anything. They’re rubbish. :|