Use Firefox, Save the Planet

By Josh Catone
We teamed up with SiteGround
To bring you the latest from the web and tried-and-true hosting, recommended for designers and developers. SitePoint Readers Get Up To 65% OFF Now

According to new research from SecTheory using Firefox in combination with popular addons like NoScript and Adblock Plus was enough to significantly reduce power consumption. Using third party and built-in monitoring tools, SecTheory took a look at the top 100 web sites according to Alexa and monitored their power consumption on the client end, as measured by amperage drawn by the CPU while visiting the site, using both Internet Explorer 7.0 and Firefox 3.0.4 on an average Windows machine. Both the browsers and the system were fully patched, and Javascript was on, Java, Flash and Silverlight were installed.

The results were rather illuminating. According to the research, the biggest drains on power were Flash and AJAX elements on pages, and Flash advertising was the worst offender. “While other technologies can and did cause power spikes, they caused issues far less often than Flash, making it the least “green” technology we came across,” according to researcher Robert Hansen. “However, JavaScript, Java, VBScript and Silverlight all easily could have caused problems, and they should not be discounted as possible culprits for power consumption.”

Based on those results, SecTheory wondered if blocking the main culprits of power waste — JavaScript and Flash advertising — might have an affect on overall power consumption. They repeated their test on the ten worst offenders out of the Alexa Top 100 using Firefox but with the NoScript and Adblock Plus plugins installed (with those ten sites whitelisted and blacklisted respectively).

The results are below.

Browser Amperage Watts
Average across entire Alexa 100 in Internet Explorer 7.0 0.414 48.852
Average across entire Alexa 100 in Firefox 3.0.4 0.406 47.908
Average for top 10 power abusers in Internet Explorer 7.0 0.474 55.932
Average for top 10 power abusers in Firefox 3.0.4 0.481 56.758
Average for top 10 power abusers in Firefox 3.0.4 with NoScript and Adblock Plus 0.382 45.076

“Given that the normal idling power consumption was between .36 and .39, the fact that Firefox with NoScript and Adblock Plus scored .382 Amps (45.076 Watts), it showed how significant dynamic client side technologies and advertisements are to overall power usage of the average consumer,” says Hansen.

While Hansen admits that this isn’t scientific research — only one computer and a limited set of web sites was used, and variance in the amperage over time makes the measurements in exact — he does feel that it provides “enough evidence to point to clear areas of power consumption in every day web applications.”

According to Hansen, there appears to be a way to surf the web more “greenly” by employing client side software meant to block the bits of web pages that consume the most power. “Reducing the amount of client side scripting that runs within the browser, returning the browser to a static page while not viewing the page or closing the browser when not in use, and using power save modes built into the operating system” are clear ways to reduce power consumption while surfing, says Hansen. Though, he reminds users that unplugging devices when not in use is the best way to conserve power.

Hansen hopes that his paper will serve as a starting point for more rigorous scientific inquiry into how to “green” web surfing.

Given Google’s commitment to the environment this could just be one more reason for adding extensions to Chrome. Google specifically tagged Adblock as one of the extensions it hopes to add to Chrome, even though it makes the majority of its revenue via ads.

(Note: though the paper didn’t specifically look at other browsers, it would follow that using JavaScript and ad blocking addons with other browsers would likely have the same effect.)

We teamed up with SiteGround
To bring you the latest from the web and tried-and-true hosting, recommended for designers and developers. SitePoint Readers Get Up To 65% OFF Now
  • xyborg

    have you tried Opera ???

  • SimonPhoto

    This is ridiculous.
    Next you’ll be telling me we should be using white-on-black for everything because it takes less energy to display a black pixel than a white one. I guess I’m ahead of the curve using Zenburn in Vi to code.
    Furthermore, even the article admits that the testing methodology is nonsense. The variance is only 10% between having the stuff active and not – but it is also about 10% variance in typical power consumption. Give me a break.

  • israelisassi

    Lies, damn lies, and statistics…

    How much could we help the environment if everyone stopped web surfing completely for a month???

  • cam

    This is soooo lame.
    Here’s a better idea, Don’t put stupid freakin christmas lights on for the next month!

  • all4nerds

    f you Josh, i like FF, i think it’s the best browser, but if you don’t know how to drive a sport car like IE <7 stay away from it.

  • djc

    You’re not kidding that it isn’t ‘scientific research’ — it’s simply a bunch of numbers with some conclusions drawn that don’t actually fit the figures. Even ignoring the glaring error of referring to a measurement in amps as ‘power consumption’ (power is measured in watts; current is measured in amps) the range for normal normal operating current of .36 to .39 gives an error margin of .03A, whereas the difference between IE and FF in both examples is well within this (.006 and .013). This implies that which comes out ‘best’ is more a matter of luck than scientific fact. And this ignores, as does the ‘article’, issues about what background or foreground processes happen to be running at the same time.

  • anon


  • Kalyan

    I would say this is not a proper comparison, you are not comparing apples to apples. Did you try IE with adblock pro / super ad blocker / IEJet – Popup Killer & Ad Stopper / Adpurger / Ad Annihilator / AdsCleaner extensions ? BTW this is not a browser to browser comparison. It is a browser + addons vs browser comparison.

    And as above people mentioned the difference you are showing is within the margin of error. And you did not describe your test machine / software used, there could be a problem in your setup itself, overall I can say your comparison is good for nothing. Good luck next time.

  • @Kalyan: It is probably important to point out a few things:

    1. I didn’t do the actual testing — Robert Hansen at SecTheory did. I merely reported on it.
    2. It is not meant to be a comparison of IE to Firefox. I think if you actually read Hansen’s article you’ll see this. Rather, Hansen was comparing power consumption of sites with heavy JavaScript or Flash components vs. power consumption on the same sites with those components blocked. His choice of Firefox for the latter part of the comparison is, I would surmise, due it probably being his browser of choice. Note that I did theorize at the end of the article that users would likely notice a similar result using advert and JavaScript blocking plugins on other browsers.

    @ Everyone else:

    3. My headline is a catchy headline, nothing more. It seems like a lot of commenters didn’t bother to read the accompanying article before leaving a comment.
    4. Nowhere did I (or Hansen for that matter) advocate one type of browsing over another. We merely reported the findings of a casual test.
    5. Chill out. Seriously.