The Times Online reports that researchers claim that each query submitted to Google has a quantifiable impact. Specifically, two queries performed through a desktop computer generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a cup of tea. From the article: 'While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 [whereas] boiling a kettle generates about 15g.  Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its data centers. However, with more than 200m Internet searches estimated daily, the electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions caused by computers and the Internet is provoking concern. A recent report [argues that] the global IT industry generate as much greenhouse gas as the world's airlines — about 2% of global CO2 emissions.'"

Absolute rubbish. I find that hard to believe...

I know each google search goes through several different server clusters at Google's data centers to perform all the different stages of answering the query, including all the DNS', switches, routers and your computer.. All must add up to massive amounts of power, but how long does a query take? and how many queries are those servers performing at the same time?
I find it hard to believe searching something on google has the same carbon footprint as boiling a kettle..
Also, I'm sure that research is based on just boiling the kettle, not the farmers equipment, the lorry carrying the milk, the teabag companies output, the suger refineries output..

It seems everyone gears these kind of comparison on the side of shocking us into thinking it's worse than it actually is...
I'd think with all the above taken into account, it'd be more likely that the carbon footprint from one cup of tea would equal 2 or 3 days worth of googling... surely..  :-/

When, on gods earth did "the times" say that??? "The Times" are one of the more "upper class" political, intellectual papers.. a broad sheet, rather than a tabloid...
If the times said that, I'm shocked...