Is that meant to illustrate the futility of combating rising water levels?

I just thought it was funny.

When it comes to environmental impact, almost nothing is free and of course when a zillion people all do the same thing, the impact can be serious. Here's an article about Netflix and wi-fi which has some uncomfortable stats about something most of us indulge in all the time I imagine:-

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45798523

Here's a very striking quote if you don't feel like reading the whole article:-

The article also talks about the energy consumption of having round-the-clock wi-fi. Do you keep the wi-fi running even when you know you'll be asleep for eight hours? In my case, guilty as charged, I'm sorry to say. :o: The only thing I can say in my defense is that I haven't downloaded the song Despacito - so that's good, right?

So whats the actual environmental impact?

We are starting a superfund cleanup project (cooking the ground for a year) on a couple acres at my job which is going to cost $15million in electricity alone and thats just phase one. I wonder How that compares.

So basically wi-fi is an environmental evil that will exist so long as it can exist cause no amount of knowledge will stop it? The internet is simply something that the human race will cling to until we simply can't through force.

The internet tubes are leaking hate mail and ****posts into the ocean.

Kiribati hates the internet and disposable diapers equally then.

Despacito is a greater weapon against mankind than brute force ever could be.

^ Every time someone downloads Despacito, a puppy-dog dies on Kiribati. :(

^ I suppose that almost all elec production damages the environment somehow, so the higher the consumption, the worse the impact.

^ Cooking the ground for a year sounds like extreme treatment - what contamination are you planning to clean up, DWV ?