Claim that downloading one gigabyte uses 200 liters of water is disputed

Claim that downloading one gigabyte uses 200 liters of water is disputed

Does every gigabyte you download really consume 200 liters of water? That was the claim made on a television network, causing an uproar online. The figure has been circulating for years but resurfaced amid discussions about server cooling and CO2 emissions. As expected, industry professionals have stepped forward to debunk it.

The first issue is basic physics. A processor is essentially a resistor performing calculations: it converts between 80% and 90% of the energy it consumes into heat, not data. This is why data centers require cooling. So far, so good. The trap lies in the verb: using water and consuming it are two different things. Cooling water does not disappear; it evaporates, condenses, and returns to the cycle. As someone sarcastically noted, this is taught in primary school.

How much water do data centers actually use?

Some argue that most modern large data centers, which handle 95% of traffic, operate with closed circuits and dry coolers. In other words, water is not drained away every time you watch a video. Another matter is the indirect consumption of power plants feeding these servers, which do use water to cool their turbines. But this usage is identical to that of any other device plugged into the grid.

Others state that the 200 liters per gigabyte figure is outright false and that the original news story dates back to 2016, recycled now due to a lack of better content. Some point out that 50% of internet traffic is generated by malicious bots, not by people scrolling through recipes. A minority, more pessimistic, believes this is just the precursor to new taxes and restrictions on digital consumption.

Water is used, not consumed: a linguistic error

The most repeated argument concerns the water cycle. If you wash your car, the water goes back to the sewer and continues its course. If you cool a server, the same happens. Speaking of consumption is a misuse of language that turns any human activity into an attack on the planet. By that logic, even breathing emits CO2.

The debate quickly shifted to politics. Critics suggest the goal is to stop us looking at our phones to swallow propaganda again, or to regulate the internet. They note that those warning about TikTok's CO2 remain silent on television studio consumption. Distrust of official messages is total, not just among conspiracy theorists.

Why has this news resurfaced now?

The 200 liters per gigabyte figure is not new. It has circulated for nearly a decade and has been repeatedly debunked. Its resurgence coincides with a climate favorable to environmental restrictions: city driving limits, food carbon footprints, emission quotas. The pattern repeats, and the public notices.

Meanwhile, those who truly know about this simply shrug. A well-managed data center doesn't lose a drop. And if it does, the problem is accounting, not climatic. Next time someone tells you a gigabyte costs 200 liters, ask them if their TV also uses that much when turned off.