Some envelope math. From https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 , I get .99 pounds of CO2 per kWh. That converts to 449 grams. Splitting the difference between 1.2g and 3.6g, we get 2.4g. 2.4/449= 0.00534 or ~0.53% of 1 kWh consumed, or 5.3 watt-hours. Which does strike me as rather high.
The page took 20s to load for me. That's about 1kW to get the ~5Wh. That seems reasonable. Just my internet equipment consumes about 50W, and there are many servers involved in loading a BBC page.
Tell you what, why don't you give it a try? It should take 30 secs to disable JS on firefox, then see how it feels, re-enable it afterwards. See what a snappy web can feel like (when it doesn't break, which is ~30% of the time).
I keep saying it, strange that nobody has ever said that they tried it. There seems to be some weird mental block around trying something new, even if easy to do and with possible benefits. Why is this?
I'm going to ask again if someone would PLEASE give this a try and tell me what you think. Just 15 minutes, no more, just so we can get an unbiased opinion (ie not mine).
If it turns out to be tolerable then you've got a trivially easy way of cutting carbon use, a little.
"Beginning from Firefox version 23, Firefox web browser from Mozilla has removed the UI to disable and enable the JavaScript (JS) on web pages from “Content” tab of web browser’s Options menu."
Not the person you replied to, but to add to the subject, just uBlock Origin on Chrome and the page loads in a second or two, with 11 elements blocked. If I also disable Javascript(1), it loads even faster, but the difference between the two is on the order of half a second, so minimal in practice.
