> if the report is correct and HD video streaming on a phone generates about eight times more in emissions than standard definition, then it is the kind of thing that service providers should be thinking about when developing services.

Because if it contributes .01% to climate change (the number is made up since the article doesn't actually say), then you're making a relatively significant inconvenience to yourself for a benefit that is entirely dwarfed by someone taking an extra plane trip.

Someone quoted in the article says as much.

> Another co-author of the report, Prof Corinne Le Querre from the University of East Anglia, told BBC News: “To be honest, digital tech is a small fraction of your emissions compared with, say flying even once a year – but every bit of CO2 saving is significant. [emphasis added]"

This is not a rational statement in the slightest. Most religious dogma is more sensible. There exist vast swathes of "savings" that are not significant (including, IMO, watching SD video). It is in fact counterproductive if it means that people sacrifice in a variety of ways to fulfill their mythic "every bit of savings is significant" duties while taking part in behaviors that contribute to climate change. (And this ignores the central dogma that all climate change is necessarily destructive and will have no benefits to humanity or Earth whatsoever.)

My favorite nonsense recommendation in the article is to run all computing in the cloud - I guess the Google donation is paying off[1]. ARM is listed as another donor, so if Apple joins, expect buying M1 Macs to be yet another way to help the planet! Sarcasm aside, we could consider things like nuclear energy, traveling by train (it's quite affordable and enjoyable), "trillion tree initiatives," and a host of other programs that might actually make an impact assuming climate change seriously concerns you (it's only of mild concern to me).

[1]https://royalsociety.org/about-us/funding-finances/support-u...