Scientists have developed a tool that shows how everyday internet activity impacts nature, revealing surprising environmental costs behind routine website visits. The internet is responsible for 3.7 percent of global carbon emissions, surpassing air travel. If the internet were a country, it would rank as the fourth-largest polluter in the world.

The tool, called Digital Impact for Species, was created by climate experts at the University of Exeter in partnership with Madeby.studio. It allows users to enter any website URL and see its hidden environmental footprint, including CO2 emissions, energy use, and water consumption.

“When we visit a website, we rarely think about the environmental impact,” said Dr. Marcos Oliveira Jr, project lead for Exeter’s nature and climate impact team. “But there is a high cost, from the energy consumed as the information travels from the data centre to your device, to the water used to cool servers.”

The tool translates environmental metrics into relatable natural comparisons. For example, YouTube.com, which processes billions of searches each month, is rated C, indicating room for improvement. Each page view generates 0.249 grams of CO2, consumes 0.0011 litres of water, and uses 0.62 watt-hours of energy. For every 9,000 monthly visits, the site requires 10 litres of water—enough to sustain a capuchin monkey for 77 days. CO2 emissions from that traffic would take a single Amazon rainforest tree 41 days to absorb, while the energy used is equivalent to 1,000 Anna’s hummingbirds’ daily energy consumption for 332 days.

The tool calculates these impacts using Google PageSpeed Insights to measure the size of resources loaded on a page, such as images, text, and video. It also checks whether the site is hosted on servers powered by renewable energy or fossil fuels, and applies the Sustainable Web Design Model to convert technical data into ecological terms.

Researchers said the tool is intended to raise awareness rather than criticize specific websites. Dr. Oliveira Jr explained that it encourages discussion on how to create a more sustainable internet.

Experts suggest that website operators can reduce environmental impacts by simplifying pages, using fewer images, limiting fonts, avoiding unnecessary videos, and optimizing code. Hosting sites on renewable-energy servers also lowers the ecological footprint.

Consumers can contribute by minimizing unnecessary searches, but the responsibility largely lies with website hosts and developers. By making these changes, experts say it is possible to lower the internet’s environmental impact while maintaining accessibility and usability.

Digital Impact for Species is available online, offering a way for users to better understand the hidden cost of their digital habits and prompting both individuals and organizations to consider sustainability in online activity.

The 2026 Winter Olympics in northern Italy are facing mounting criticism over the environmental impact of their sponsorship deals, with scientists and athletes warning that the Games’ carbon footprint could threaten the future of winter sports.

A report by Scientists for Global Responsibility and the New Weather Institute, titled Olympics Torched, estimates that the Games themselves will produce around 930,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions. However, just three sponsorship agreements with major corporations could add 1.3 million tonnes more, more than doubling the total impact. The sponsors identified are oil and gas company Eni, car manufacturer Stellantis, and Italy’s national airline, ITA Airways, with Eni responsible for over half of the added emissions.

The report warns that the combined emissions could result in the loss of 5.5 square kilometres of snow cover in the Dolomites, equivalent to more than 3,000 Olympic-sized ice hockey rinks. Organisers have already announced plans to produce 2.4 million cubic metres of artificial snow for the Games, requiring 948,000 cubic metres of water, as warming temperatures continue to reduce natural snow and glaciers in the region.

“Even without the growing mountain of scientific evidence on the impact of global heating on winter sports, it is plain enough to anyone visiting actual mountains that snow cover is being lost and glaciers are melting,” said Stuart Parkinson, director of Scientists for Global Responsibility. He added that winter sports contribute directly to climate change through emissions and indirectly by promoting major polluters through sponsorship.

The report calls for urgent action, urging the Winter Olympics to end partnerships with high-carbon corporations, avoid new venue construction, and reduce spectator travel by air. Swedish cross-country skier Björn Sandström said the Games’ greatest influence is the signal they send to the world. “When that signal is driven by fossil-fuel sponsorship, it directly contradicts climate science and threatens the future of winter sport,” he said.

Greenlandic biathlete Ukalew Slettermark echoed the concern, arguing that giving oil companies a platform at the Games is unjustifiable. “It’s a complete contradiction when the fossil fuel industry, the biggest contributor to climate change, is allowed to sponsor winter sports, which they are simultaneously threatening,” she said.

The report also highlights broader environmental challenges in the Alps. Italy has lost 265 ski resorts in the past five years due to rising temperatures, and recent studies show mountain regions are warming faster than lowland areas, putting winter sports at risk.

The Milan-Cortina Olympics, spread across the Dolomites, have become a focal point for debates about climate responsibility in global sporting events. Critics say sponsorship deals with polluting corporations undermine efforts to promote sustainability and could damage the credibility of winter sports in a warming world.

Euronews Green has reached out to the International Olympic Committee for comment.

European leaders signed the EU-Mercosur trade deal on Saturday with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay, aiming to strengthen the bloc’s strategic and economic position. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called the agreement “25 years in the making” and described it as an “achievement of a generation” that prioritizes long-term partnerships over tariffs.

The deal, which would create a transatlantic free-trade zone, is seen by supporters as vital for countering China’s growing influence in Latin America. EU imports from Mercosur countries have fallen behind China’s share, reversing a trend seen in 2000 when the EU’s presence was six times larger. Advocates also argue the deal will diversify EU trade amid tighter US market access and growing reliance on Chinese materials and technology.

However, the agreement has exposed deep political divisions within the EU, with France emerging as the most vocal opponent. Paris voted against the deal in a key Council vote on 9 January, despite a majority of member states backing it. Critics in France argue the deal threatens domestic agriculture, exposing farmers to competition from Latin American imports that may not meet EU production standards.

The debate has intensified ahead of the European Parliament’s ratification process, scheduled to begin Monday. Lawmakers remain divided along national lines. France, Poland, Hungary, Ireland, and Austria opposed the deal, while Belgium abstained. In France, the issue has become a political flashpoint, feeding eurosceptic sentiment and prompting far-right Rassemblement National leader Jordan Bardella to launch a no-confidence motion in both the European Parliament and the National Assembly.

Supporters of the deal counter that France’s agricultural struggles are largely home-grown and point to concessions built into the agreement, including environmental safeguards, tariff-rate quotas for sensitive products such as beef and poultry, and a €45 billion support package for EU farmers from 2028. Despite these measures, Paris remains unconvinced, with President Emmanuel Macron noting that the deal would raise EU GDP by just 0.05% by 2040 and that tariff reductions on EU cars would be phased in over 18 years.

Other EU sectors stand to benefit from the agreement, particularly services, dairy, wine, spirits, and access to public procurement markets. Spanish MEP Javier Moreno Sánchez emphasized the deal’s importance in a “geopolitical and geo-economic context,” citing the need to negotiate on equal terms amid global trade tensions. German MEP Svenja Hahn highlighted that fears of agricultural disruption may be overstated, noting low utilization of quotas in similar deals like CETA.

After 25 years of negotiations, the Mercosur deal represents one of the EU’s most ambitious trade agreements. While supporters hope to build momentum for ratification in the European Parliament, opposition in France and a broader eurosceptic wave in parts of the bloc could complicate its implementation. Analysts warn that the deal’s political fallout may last longer than its economic impact, particularly in France, where public resistance to free-trade agreements runs deep.