> If it is 3 billion people and we can reduce the power consumption by 25%, it would be a lot.
Honestly - not really. Yes, it's large in the abstract sense that it's a very tiny number multiplied by a large number, so it appears large compared to the original tiny number - but in terms of practical impact, it's SO VERY FAR down the list of approaches to reducing climate change.
A year's worth of smartphone usage will generate about ~5 lbs of CO2. Driving a car ~5 miles (at an average of ~21mpg, or 411 grams CO2/mile) will generate the same CO2.
The average commute in the US is 41 miles round trip - so every day, the average commuter burns 8 years worth of smartphone usage in a CO2 budget by driving their car.
This is getting really back of the napkins-esque (since not all people work/commute) but if we just assume that in general the US population is driving - at ~330 million people, times 8... we get 2.63 billion.
Basically - each day, driving in the US is generating close to the same CO2 that all 3 billion of those smartphone users will generate in a YEAR.
Looks like roughly 1/3 of US pop actually commutes, so we'll be generous and say that every 3 days, we blow through the yearly carbon generation for ALL 3 billion of those smartphone users.
It's just a really, really tiny number compared to other initiatives. You're MUCH better off tackling basically anything else. There is SO much better low hanging fruit.
A week long "don't drive" mandate in the US earns the whole world years of smart phone usage.
Go argue against "back to the office" policies instead - you'll do far more good.