<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	 xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>KQED&#039;s Climate Watch &#187; internet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/tag/internet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch</link>
	<description>KQED&#039;s multimedia series providing in-depth coverage of climate-related science and policy issues from a California perspective.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:37:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com"/><atom:link rel="hub" href="http://kqed.superfeedr.com"/>		<item>
		<title>One More Reason to Hate Spam</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2009/04/16/one-more-reason-to-hate-spam/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2009/04/16/one-more-reason-to-hate-spam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:32:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Craig Miller</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/?p=958</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ABC has posted an interesting take on Internet junk mail and the carbon emissions associated with it. But beyond just another villification of junk email and phishing campaigns, it sort of drives home the point that everything has some kind of carbon footprint--even activities that take place entirely in the "digishpere." <a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2009/04/16/one-more-reason-to-hate-spam/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As if we didn&#8217;t have enough already. We&#8217;re talking about the Internet kind, of course, not the canned variety.</p>
<p>Drawing on a <a title="McAfee - spam study" href="http://resources.mcafee.com/content/NACarbonFootprintSpam">study from protective software maker McAfee</a>, ABC News has posted an interesting take on <a title="ABC - Spam" href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=7343518&amp;page=1">Internet junk mail and the carbon emissions</a> associated with it. The upshot is that the energy used in spewing out 62 trillion (yes, with a &#8220;t&#8221;) individual pieces of spam last year could power all Bay Area homes or some entire states.</p>
<p>But beyond just another villification of uninvited come-ons for &#8220;male enhancement&#8221; or Nigerian money schemes, it sort of drives home the point that everything seems to have some kind of carbon footprint&#8211;even activities that take place entirely in the &#8220;digishpere.&#8221;</p>
<p><a title="Tech Herald - spam" href="http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200916/3470/McAfee-Spam-Report-reveals-huge-environmental-impact">Here&#8217;s another take on the report from The Tech Herald.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2009/04/16/one-more-reason-to-hate-spam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
