How to choose a good green host

18th June 2019

Sometimes at the Green Web Foundation, people ask us what’s important to consider when looking for a green hosting. provider. In this post we outline a few criteria to help you choose, and why.

The short version – unsurprisingly, it’s not that different from regular hosting.

Support and responsiveness

You tend to notice hosting the most when things are not working, and either customers, management, coworkers (and sometimes all three) are loudly asking when things will be back to their previous, not-on-fire state.

In cases like this you’ll appreciate clear communications from a support team, and having access to people with deep expertise – if you’re hosting something for someone, and their business relies on this hosting, it’s worth remembering that the real thing your customers are usually buying, is the ability to avoid disruptive changes to how they work.

It’s worth taking into account the cost of this disruption to work, and downtime in general, as it’ll help inform the second criteria, pricing.


Once you know what you’re after, and you feel like the hosting company you’re looking at is competent, it’s at this point where it’s worth thinking about the cost of hosting with the organisation, and matching the expected usage of a site to the capacity you want to pay for.

If you’re using any kind of analytics products like Matomo or Google Analytics, and you have an idea of how happy you or your users are with the site, you’ll have an idea of the correct ‘size’ of server you need. The more certain you are about what you need, and how demand will change the more likely it is that you can go for a longer period of hosting, where the costs per month are lower.

If you don’t know this yet, it’s probably not worth committing for a long contract, without being able to make changes – this is doubly so if you’re choosing to use a proprietary platform without a clear migration path away from a provider. This brings us nicely to…

Standards and Lock-in

When you’re running a site with a given hosting provider, it’s important to have an idea of what leaving them would entail, if your needs change, or it turns out that they’re not a good fit.

There are things you can do to mitigate against risks here. Open standards and open source software make it easier to run the same kind of site with a different provider, compared to an entirely proprietary stack of technologies – although the trade off you increasingly tend to make now is about the end to end experience of needing something changed, having a developer or site builder work on it, show it in a staging area, then rolling out the changes to your site or product for your users.

With a growing number of tools, you might have a more specialised, proprietary platform built from a set of open, standardised components that would take a long time or a large investment in tooling to set up yourself – in this case, where will be  a build vs buy decision you need to make.

Where it’s different for green hosts – transparency around how sourcing power

Finally, once you have answers above, it’s worth thinking about how the servers you’re going to rely on are powered. If there isn’t an explicit statement from a given company about how they use renewable or sustainable power, it’s safest to assume the company is using a power from a mix of sources, and you can get an idea of how “green” this power is with electricity map. This shows roughly how ‘dirty’ power in realtime, based on open data about how what kinds of power stations are generating electricity in a given country.

Using just this, you might make a decision to choose a host based in one country over another – the map below shows how electricity in Scandinavia, powered by lots of hydro and wind, is cleaner than Poland, which tends to get most of its power from coal.

The electricity map shows how “dirty” power in given parts of the world are.

If a company is making statements about green power, then they should be able to share details about how their power is considered “green”. In some cases they might source power directly, operating their own infrastructure, but in many cases, they’ll be buying special ‘renewable energy credits’ – tradable certificates allocated to companies that generate power from renewable sources.

This might be referred to as RECS, REGOS, GvOs or variants and while there are smaller differences from country to country, the principle is largely the same – the “greenness” is a tradeable, so a company running on “brown” fossil power can purchase these certificates and then say they run on green power.

Under this scheme, the idea is that money paid for these credits acts as an incentive for further investment in renewable power, speeding a shift away from fossil fuels.

The issue here is that like carbon offsets, the idea of paying money to reward green behaviour in a distant place does not sit well with everyone.

Generally speaking,  if you want to pay for renewable energy credits on the same grid where you are running your servers, you can, but it’s more expensive – just like how buying offsets in the same country where emissions from running servers take place will cost more.

If you’re choosing a hosting company that relies on renewable energy credits, ask how what kind of credits they use, and whether they buy them from the same grid where the infrastructure you use is. They should be able to give you a straight answer here.

The same applies if provider is not relying on energy credits, but offsetting instead – ask how they know the offsets are effective, and if there is some kind of certification scheme in play, like the Gold Standard, or the Verified Carbon Standard Program. It’s typically a warning sign that they are cutting corners if they can not give a convincing answer about emissions either being avoided, or carbon being sequestered from the air – it’s often a case that they are buying ‘lower quality’ offsets.

How does my part of the world compare for hosting options?

We maintain a directory of green hosts based on information in the Green Web Foundation Database, which we’ve been building over the last 10 years.

If, for example you were looking for good green hosting companies in the UK, you’d jump to the listing – once you have that, try applying the criteria above to end up with a host you can trust to keep your site up, without it costing the earth.

Trying an idea – carbon.txt

14th May 2019

Over the last ten years, we’ve been recording which websites run on green power on the internet. We’ve tracked this, and its changed, to create a database about how we power the web, to provide an open dataset to for data-informed discussion about how we want the web to be powered

In this post, we share an idea we’re working on, that totally inverts this model.

Where we are now

Currently, the sad default for powering the web is to use fossil fuels – so just by using the web, we often end up unintentionally causing harm, and harm that can be avoided  by using greener options for powering our infrastructure

This is part of the thinking behind the Sustainable Web Manifesto , which we are signatories of – when it comes to options available to respond to climate, it’s one of the easier ones available to your organisation.

Screengrab of the Sustainable Web Manifesto front page.
We’re signatories and we think you might want to be too

What we mean when we say greener options

We say greener options because if you’ve spent any time looking at the power sector, then you’ll know how complicated it can get – to the extent that something that sounds fairly simple, like sourcing green power to run servers, can end up being much complex than it sounds.

While in some parts of the world, you can buy power from a company that only sells renewable power, there are other parts of the world where the grid is regulated to the point that you don’t even have choice of supplier – if they burn coal, and you need to run a server in that part of the world, there’s no other option.

Elsewhere, there may be places where company A sells renewable power, but also sells the fact that energy has been generated with renewable power separately, so that another company B, can buy this credit, and then say they use green power, even if the supplier they use is relying on fossil fuels to generate electricity for their servers .

And as this diagram from Sonia Dunlop of RE-Source suggests, more you look at it, the more complicated it can get:

Image from Liebreich Associates about the different ways you can source renewable power.
Sonia Dunlop of RE:Source diagam showing options

To save you needing to do an MSc in energy policy before you can say if a site is green or not, we’ve been sharing this draft diagram internally to give some idea what we mean when we say green power – which is what we look for when you check a website using the Green Check API, or use one of our browser addons.

How we do this

You might wonder how we do this – and we currently work this out by running a series of checks against the network for a given website, combined with some manual checks when organisations get in touch to be listed as green providers.

Earlier this year we open sourced the underlying code used in the platform to show make it possible to see how we do this in more detail, but in all these cases, we’ve relied on people signing into the green webfoundation admin site to update information about their infrastructure, which has created more friction than we’d like

So, we’re trying something new.

As an experiment, we’re trying out an approach that uses the architecture of the web itself to make it easier to declare this information we typically ask people to provide in our admin site,  to make it possible to have verifiable, traceable claims of running on green power.

carbon.txt – robots.txt for renewable power

One of the things that helped search engines become such an integral part of the web we know is a convention known as robots.txt.

It made it easier for search engines to collate information about the content on a site, and let people build useful services on top of that data, by outlining what information you want search engines to index.

Inspired by this, and other .well-known approaches we’ve been looking at ways to make it easier to automatically update information about how a website is powered, without needing to sign into an admin site run by the Green Web Foundation, that we’re calling carbon.txt.

Rather than relying on someone in your organisation to sign into an admin website to add information to a database, you’d declare similar information in a carbon.txt file available on your own site, in an agreed-upon format

What specifically you’d put in is something we’re working on, and we have a site set up now, to help work this out, at carbontxt.org.

You’re invited to join the discussion there.

Why this might be better

We have a few goals  in mind with this approach, and we know it’s early days, but these are some of the specific things we want to do with this:

  • to reduce the need to store login data about users updating information about a site
  • to make it possible to build more tooling beyond the green checking tools so far
  • to make it possible to audit a digital supply chain, so you can verify claims of green power
  • make it possible to point to structured, relevant information, related to carbon emissions
  • to cover use cases we haven’t thought of yet

We’re actively looking for partners to work with on this – we think the web should be green, and if you think so too, please get in touch.

Plotting a path to a greener web with Wardley mapping

20th March 2019

I joined the Green Web Foundation this month, and I’ve been funded til the end of August by the German Prototype Fund to work out how to use open data and open source to help speed a transition to an internet running on renewable power.

I figured it might be worth sharing some maps here to help explain my thinking, and hopefully, this should make for an interesting blog post. If nothing else, I it should at least make it easier to understand, how mapping can be used, if you’re new to the technique.

Starting out – let’s map out the value chain for running a digital product

There’s various ways you can think about how you deliver a product or service to users, and one way I find helpful is to think about the value chain.

You start with the need you might be wanting to meet, then you see what’s needed to make that possible. Then you see what’s needed for that, and so on all the way along the chain of needs, until it stops being useful to you for the purposes of planning. If you’re interested in Wardley Mapping, there’s a free book, and many, many videos online.

When I use the term digital product in this piece, I use it  as a stand-in for website, web app, or application otherwise accessed over the internet, typically using a common protocol that browsers can use, like HTTP or HTTPS. I might use the term website or app, but it’s best to assume they’re interchangeable here.

For the purposes of this map, I’m assuming our user is someone responsible for running a service or digital product. This might be a developer, a designer, or it might be a product manager responsible for working with a team of specialists to get something out the door.

Now this might be a bit meta, so bear with me – I’m going to start with our user need as making a digital product available to their users. For that, there’s a few things they might typically need.

Let’s run through them:

A first attempt at a value chain

fig 1. our initial value chain

What do we see here?

At the end-user’s end

First, let’s assume our the eventual end-user of this product needs some kind of browser, which might be on a phone, laptop and so on. We’re also looking at an internet app, so we’ll need some form of network connection for them too.

Typically a browser provides some kind of useful experience by presenting rendered content, which typically is a combination of markup, and some assets (i.e. images, movies, or in some cases, gobs of javascript running in the browser).

At the organisation’s end

As the web has grown up, it’s become more and more full of ne’er do wells, who will try to hack whoever they can. So, let’s assume we want to provide a secure connection too, so when people use our product through a browser, they see that reassuring green padlock.

Of course, there needs to be some process providing this mix of markup, and assets to the people using our service. Usually, this will be some web server we’d be running to generate our pages, or serve files. Increasingly these days, to make things load fast, you’d serve some other files from a content delivery network too.

Updating our product

If we didn’t ever need to change our product, this might be enough, but if we want to respond to what’s happening outside our organisation, we’ll probably want to make changes to content on our site. It’s common to use some kind of content management system, (CMS) to allow a wider range of people to make changes to a site, so let’s add that.

Having somewhere to put this

For the more complex parts of our product, it’s a very good idea to have a repeatable way to get updated versions of our product to our users. These days, there will likely be some kind of repeatable deployment pipeline here.
We spoke about changes before – if we want to make changes, it’s really, really useful be able to keep track of changes we make. So we’d also use some form of versioning or source control, which our deployment pipeline typically relies on.

Having somewhere to put this

If we want to keep track of the changes we make, that implies some kind of persistent storage of data (this might be in a database or just a bunch of files – it doesn’t matter quite so much for this map).

And if we want to make changes or be able to run web servers in the first place, that implies some kind of compute power.

For computing power, and persistent storage, we need servers, which are almost always hosted in some kind of datacentre. These often rely on some backbone-like network connection between datacentres, but adding this doesn’t change the map so much, so in the interests of clarity, I’ve left this out.

Keeping the lights on

Datacentres use prodigious amounts of electricity.

Sadly, right now most of this electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, because this is the norm for most electricity grids.

That it takes this long to start talking about power, and that electricity is so far down the value chain helps us understand why, at present, the internet mostly runs on coal.

We’ll come back to this, but now that we have a value chain, let’s make a map from it, with our handy evolution axis.

For this piece, I’ve tried using Julius Gamanyi’s set of icons for draw.io, as an experiment. You can see my original file here on Google Drive.

Turning the value chain into a map

fig 2. creating a wardley map from our value chain

The next diagram here shows how this looks once we’ve had a go at mapping our value with an evolution axis, for a company that runs its own servers, in its own datacentre.

Later, I’ll sub in concrete examples of specific products or pieces of software correspond to each node, to make it easier to relate to, but for now, let’s focus on the evolution axis.

As you’d expect a lot of what we have is either in the product realm (you’ll pay for a product, or hire someone to install it and customise it, or utility realm (i.e you pay on a metered basis, for something fairly undifferentiated).

For the bits that our end users see, we’ll often have some custom code or content that’s unique to us, let’s put it on the left.

I’ve also added an example below, with some actual products or services you might see in use, to make things a bit more concrete.

fig3. our map with products/software you might recognise if you build websites

Using this map

Now we have a map, we can try using it to help us ask ourselves some questions, like, I don’t know…

What if we listened to science, and we acted like we cared about all the avoidable harm we cause from burning fossil fuels by default in the tech industry?

For the purpose of this piece, let’s take the audacious assumption that, given the choice, we would take steps to avoid tends of thousands of early deaths from particulate inhalation from burning fossil fuels, or avoid contributing to runaway climate change, and all the conflict and harm associated with it.

There’s typically two strategies you will see people using and talking about when the subject of technology and climate change come up.

They’re not mutually exclusive, but they look a bit different on the map.

If we use colour to represent the kind of energy flowing through the map, and the thickness to represent how much we’re using, we can represent both strategies.

Strategy 1: Reduce how much you emit, by matching useful work to underlying usage, and using more industrialised infrastructure

Before we map this, let’s refer to the report by the International Energy Agency’s own report, Digitalisation and Energy from 2017, to see what’s been happening over the last few years, so we know what we’re trying to represent.

The report outlines:

  1. how a shift to cloud to has helped take the edge of the growth in energy use in datacentres, but also
  2. gives some very rough indications of energy used by different components we might show on the map.

We can see this in the charts below, from the report.

fig 4. charts from the IEA report showing changes in energy use

On the left set of charts, we see what kind of kit is using energy in datacentres – servers (i.e. compute), in light green make up the lion’s share of energy, followed by what they call infrastructure (in this case, HVAC, and chillers) in dark blue, for keeping servers cool.

The turquoise and darker green represent storage, and the network respectively, which are both much smaller.

On the right chart we see how the market has changed over the last few years – you can see how energy demand has grown slightly, but not by all that much in absolute terms. You can also see how much of the pink area, representing less efficient traditional datacentres been replaced by the shift to cloud, and hyperscale (i.e. Amazon, Google Cloud, etc) datacentres instead.

What might this look like in our maps?

I’ll show the map pre-cloud, with a very rough estimate of how much energy is flowing through it, then I’ll show a map with a bunch of techniques applied to use more industrialised services, and how they change the map

Remember – colour indicates the kind of energy we’re using, and thickness indicates roughly how much we’re using.

Showing this shift in the map – before

fig 5. pre-cloud, running on brown power

Because so few people think about where the energy running our servers comes from our power overwhelmingly is brown power from fossil fuels. Because in-house datacentres are less efficient than cloud datacentres, they end up needing more energy to do the same amount of work, which means more emissions.

We know compute is a more energy-hungry than the storage and network, so the lines for those are a little thicker accordingly.

Showing this shift in the map – after

Now, let’s look at the map with more appropriate techniques applied.

I’ve grouped them at three levels, Platform, Packets, and Process, which is the mental model I find most helpful and use in talks about the subject, and map fairly well to the official GHG corporate standard for reporting emissions for digital services and ICT

fig 6. our map, post-cloud, still with ‘brown’ power

At the platform level – moving to cloud

This is pretty much the whole premise of cloud – by treating compute like a commodity, it’s used in volumes that make it economies of scale possible, and you end up with vastly more efficient datacentres. Also, the computing you do pay for, you can scale up and down more easily to meet demand.

You can see this on the map with the compute, storage and datacentres much further to the right. Industrialising this ‘pulls’ the other components to the right too, to the point where you’re more likely to pay someone else to run continuous integration for you, and rely on a larger provider like github for hosting code.

You’d also rely on some kind of object storage, like cloud storage from Google Cloud Platform, or Amazon’s S3 service, where you pay in pennies, per gigabyte.

For the same amount of work, all these services are more efficient as they benefit from economies of scale, so we use less energy – hence the skinnier lines.

At the network level – sending less over the wire

Because you pay for bandwidth, there’s a direct incentive to send less data over the wire, but it also has a (relatively small environmental) impact – you save money by being parsimonious, because you need less infrastructure running to support shifting all these bits around, which resuling in lower emissions.

In addition though, when it comes to the web, time is money, so you also end up with a snappier user experience, so people can do what they came to do faster, and in greater quantities. I’ll leave out discussions of Jevon’s paradox here for now, where greater efficiency drives more absolute use, because that pretty much applies to all of capitalism, and this post is already large.

Again, I’ve represented the impact of reduced emissions by making the lines thinner where network is involved, like the content delivery network, network, and assets, and markup nodes to represent less energy used.

At the process level – using appropriate techniques

You’ll often see people in lean or agile circles talk about process when it comes to product development in terms of avoiding waste, where waste is everything that doesn’t directly generate value for end users or customers.

You can see this in the shape of the updated cloudy map itself (fig 6), where there’s less undifferentiated heavy lifting taking place. Also, where services are paid for as a product or service, there’s a often clearer link between the amount you pay to provision, versus your actual usage, giving a direct incentive to think about use.

Buying the knowledge about how to change our map

There’s one thing we should bear in mind here – the knowledge of how to take a product or service, and make a map for a service look less like the earlier one, with all the thick lines, and start to look more like the one with more components on the right with thin lines – is not evenly distributed in the industry.

In fact, it often relies on specialised knowledge and new forms of practice – and because acquiring this knowledge is expensive, the organisations or people who have this tend to be expensive too.

fig 7. showing the new forms of expertise and knowledge you’d hire, to change the map

Because of this, your product needs to be successful enough, or large enough to have sufficient usage to justify hiring these expensive people, in the hope that they’ll create more value than they cost, so you make a return on doing so.

In all these maps, where savings are taking place, they’re largely doing so because there’s a happy alignment where reducing wasteful usage translates to savings being passed along by providers.

This is intrinsically appealing if you work in tech, as now, armed with this knowledge, you might feel like captain planet for just doing your job.

I’d request you keep reading for the second strategy though.

Strategy 2: Reduce how you emit by changing where electricity comes from

The other option, is to look upstream, make a change there, and see the effects cascade through the entire map.

Let’s say we wanted to only run our own infrastructure on 100% renewable power.

Our map might look like the one below. I’ll explain the colouring shortly.

fig 8. switching to green power

Wait. Why isn’t it all green?

The short answer is because the internet.

We can green the parts of the value chain we control directly, but because packets of data travel through the rest of the internet, it gets much harder to have any meaningful influence beyond this.

Think of all the datacentres data has to pass through to reach your device.

Every datacentre it passes through, in every different country, uses electricity that might come from a different energy mix, at different times of day.

So, here, we don’t have direct control over how data travels through the internet – the best we can hope for in the short term is to control how much we use.

How do I know what is green?

Okay, let’s look at just the bits we can control. The problem here now is that if we want to only use green power, we either have to run everything ourselves where we directly control the infrastructure we use, or only choose providers who also exclusively run their infrastructure on green power

Right now, this is an expensive, manual process, and either involves loads of specialist knowledge about the ways you might buy green power, or asking a lot of the same questions of everyone you buy services from, and hoping they know and/or care.

Because this is far from most customers, and pretty tedious to collect, it’s in a really sad, sad part of the map – right at the bottom, and all the way to left.

Sad times.

fig 9. why we default to fossil fuels – most of us don’t know to ask, or how to ask

What if we could make this easier to find out?

What if it was easier to find out how a datacentre was powered?

For the last 10 years, the Green Web Foundation has been collecting data on which sites run on which power, by combining properly nerdy analysis of how networks are built, using commonly available sysadmin tools, and collating evidence about how the datacentres are powered by straight up asking people who run them.

It’s also been tracking when sites have changed, to make it possible to track the shift of the internet away from fossil fuels.

So… what if checking this information was as simple as an API call, against a domain?

Let’s try mapping it.

fig 10. What we’re trying to do at the Green Web Foundation

This is what we are working towards now. We’re opening as much as we can, to get this knowledge out of that sad part of the map, by making it as easy to consume, in as many ways as we can.

Right now

This information is accessible in two main ways – deliberately checking a domain against an API, or using a browser extension to show this to you as you use the web.

Over the coming months, we’ll be making it easier to both access this data, by creating a regular release of open datasets in this field, but also make it easier to add to this via the API, so the data releases are more useful. We want to make it easier to build upon the API, or use the data to come with new things we haven’t thought of.

Competing on green in the world of tech

In the end, this is what we’re aiming for – we want to make it much easier to compete on green credentials, because all things being equal, we think most people, given the choice between comparable providers, would prefer to choose the one that doesn’t have all the human costs of burning fossil fuels associated with them use a service.

So, when and how might this info be useful? We’re not sure, but we have a few ideas

When choosing your suppliers

If you’re looking to choose provider for part of the value chain on this map, it should be easy to find this information, and take it into account then deciding who’s in your value chain. Especially if, like lots of large companies you’ve already publicly said you are doing this.

When you’re finding people to work with

If you’re looking for a new job, when you have the most leverage possible, you should be able to check if an employer is walking the walk, and talk to them about this.

It’s increasingly common to talk about diversity in conversations about finding talent now, and increasingly smart managers hire for diverse teams.

We know who climate change hits the hardest, and we know it hits the people in the communities we want to hire from if we want a more diverse industry.

When helping others rethink how they deliver services

And if you want to use this data in products or consulting to make it easier to help people move away from fossil fuels, and compete on this, you should be able to.

A huge amount of money is spent moving to the cloud, and there’s obvious leverage in moving existing workloads to greener clouds wholesale.

But you don’t need to wait til then.

Just like adding you can tests each time you see a bug in a codebase to clean it up over time, you don’t need to wait until you’re about to shift to a new datacentre to start cleaning up your supply chain. What if there was a ‘green ratchet’ policy, where ever new service going into production had to run on green power?

Help make the web green

One of the reasons we’re taking an open approach with the Green Web Foundation, is that when you’re a tiny NGO, you need all the help you can get, and “open” is a strategy that can help when you don’t have much in the way of resources at hand, to increase your reach.

So, if you’re interested in working with us, from auditing your own supply chain, to building tools or services to help transition the web to run that runs entirely on green power, please get in touch – send an email to contact@thegreenwebfoundation.org, or if you prefer twitter, send a DM to @mrchrisadams.

If you’re just curious, you can alway join the low traffic mailing list for updates as we work on this.

Opening up the Green Web Foundation

4th March 2019

Over the last ten years, the Green Web Foundation has built the largest database to track the shift of the internet to green power in the world. Over these years, we’ve been recording which websites run on which kinds of power, and when they switched from fossil fuels.

Now, over the next 6 months, and funded by the Prototype fund in Germany, fellow environmental web geek Chris Adams is joining the team to work with us on a new project, the Open Green Web. We’ll be releasing a set of open datasets, and open sourcing all the code we use to collect this data. Find out more in his introductory post below.

How we power the internet matters.

If the IT industry were a country, it would emit more carbon than Canada.

What’s more, a huge part of these emissions comes from burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. So, one of the most effective things we can do to reduce emissions in our industry, is transition to an internet that runs entirely on green power.

However, one of the key things slowing down this transition is knowledge – most of us have no idea of what kind of power the services we use run on, and don’t know how to ask this either.

Opening up the green web

I’ve been using the Green Web API for various bits of analysis when trying to understand the carbon footprint of the entire internet, and I’ve been inspired by how projects like OpenCorporates have had an impact elsewhere.

So last year I got in touch with René Post (The Green Web Foundation co-founder), and together we hatched a plan to see if opening up the data and code might help, in speeding the shift to a green internet.

I live in Germany, and if you’re developer in Germany, there’s a fantastic government project called The Prototype Fund, that will fund people to work on Public Interest Tech.

I applied, and the project to open up the data and code in the Green Web Foundation was chosen – huzzah! Below is the moment, I found out, on twitter that it had been accepted:

The plan over the next 6 months

After the initial dancing, and introductions, we have a rough plan now.

Over the next 6 months, we’ll be opening up as much of the Green Web Foundation code and data as we can. We’re focusing on three main areas: trust, ecosystem, and reach, to do all we can to speed the transition.

Lets’ cover these in more detail:


We want to make it easier to see how we power the internet now, and understand the provenance of the data we publish.

To do this we will:

  • publish a detailed methodology about how we check if a site is using green power or not
  • open source the code for the Green Web Foundation platform, and the browser plug-ins we use
  • update the documentation to allow anyone to understand how it all works, and how to contribute to the project


Next we want to make it easy to use the data, by extending the APIs we offer.

Right now, the API is read-only. To update the Green Web Foundation directory, you need to sign into the website to add information about a given site.

We want to make it possible to update the Green Web Directory through an API as well as read from it. We want to do this so it can be incorporated into new and existing tools.

In addition, we’ll expose more information in the API responses, to make it possible to do new things with the API.

What if search engines could use this data when presenting results to you, to rank green results higher? Or if you could use this to route packets of data around the internet based on how green each ‘hop’ would be? What if, when building new sites or apps, you could audit the supply chain of services you rely on, to see which ones are still using fossil fuels to switch?

We’ve been speaking to a bunch of organisations about new things we could and we’re looking for more ideas, so if you have an idea, please get in touch below.


Finally, we will publish open datasets from the data collected, so it can be used for analysis by academia, industry, and anyone else interested.

One goal in particular that we have is to create a dataset that can easily be incorporated into existing resources like the HTTP Archive – so when we talk about the state of the web, we can also talk about how much of it runs on green power, and how much still runs on fossil fuels.

How you can help

So, that’s the dream. It’ll take more resources and time than we have right now, so we’ll need your help.

We’ll be looking for beta testers to try out the new APIs and user interfaces, for partners to work with the data we already have, and we’re interested in hearing how you’d want to use data.

We’re also looking for an advisory board to help us see the problems we’re trying to solve from as many angles as possible, as without this, we know we’ll miss loads of really obvious stuff.

And of course we’re still looking for project partners, to help with the upkeep of running the servers and services we make available.

If you’re interested, please join the project newsletter, at the link below, and we’ll send our first update shortly, about how you can get it involved.

Join the Open Green Web project mailing list for updates.

If you prefer twitter, you can follow me, as I work on it (I’m @mrchrisadams) or the organisation account, @greenwebfound, where I’ll be posting updates over the coming months.

Tally ho!

Post image credit: Image by Pexels on Pixabay

Continued support from Leaseweb

4th December 2018

Due to the serious numbers of daily checks against the Green Web database, the server was running out of disk space. After talking to several partners, we are now happy to announce that Leaseweb again proved to be a dedicated partner to the greening of the web, by adding of 1 TB SSD RAM to our server at no additional cost. This not only solved the immediate need for more disk space, but has sped up the user-experience of the site and API’s as well.

So we want to express a heartfelt thanks to Leaseweb because of this, and hope we can continue the partnership in the years to come!

Germany has the most green hosted domains within the top 1m sites

12th November 2015

The Green Web Foundation in Sweden has compiled a top 10 of countries that harbor the most green sites within the Alexa top one million: sites that are running on green energy.

Of the 185 countries that have at least one site within the top million, only 41 countries have green hosted domains, so there is clearly still a long way to go before the Internet is completely green hosted! The aim of The Green Web Foundation is to monitor and promote this development, till the day that it is no longer needed.

Of these 41 countries, the top five covers already nearly 97% of all green domains, and the top 10 over 99%:

rank country # green hosted domains percentage
1 Germany 43555 43,6%
2 United States 33232 33,3%
3 Netherlands 10856 10,9%
4 United Kingdom 6432 6,4%
5 Canada 2751 2,8%
6 Denmark 1038 1,0%
7 France 534 0,5%
8 Australia 529 0,5%
9 Sweden 529 0,5%
10 Belgium 470 0,5%


The same data, but visualized in a graph:

top 10 green hosting countries

So Germany is the big winner here, even more so when considering the fact that the United States has around 7 times as much domains in the top million as compared to Germany.

When looking at the total number of sites that came green out of The Green Web API, it shows that around 10,4% of all popular sites are green hosted now, a development we will monitor closely in the future.

If you know of any hosters that are not yet in The Green Web Directory, please let us know so we can add them – especially in countries where we have not identified green hosters yet (see map)!This way we can fulfill our promise to The Green Web App-users, and show directly in your browser, for any site you visit, if it is green – or not yet!

Thanks for your support,

The Green Web Foundation, Sweden.

.Koeln is the greenest city domain!

24th September 2015

Last year saw the introduction of many new Top Level Domains (TLD’s). A special class are the city TLD’s, like ‘.amsterdam’, ‘.rio’ or ‘.tokyo’. It makes sense for cities, companies and non-profits to use these domains, for instance travel.taipei is short and to the point. So the registrations go well, NYC is on top with close to 85.000 registered domains. But is it for many buyers just another referrer, bought to prevent others from using it, or are they actively marketed and used? And, important from out point of view, do these sites run on green energy? Read about this and more below.

There are currently 211 domains in this category within the Alexa top million. The distribution and popularity is very uneven, take a look at the following toplist:

ranking city TLD # sites in top
1 Tokyo 76
2 Taipei 20
3 NYC 19
4 London 18
5 Moscow 18
6 Berlin 11
7 Paris 10
8 Amsterdam 6
9 Nagoya 5
10 Hamburg 5
11 Yokohama 4
12 Melbourne 3
13 Vegas 3
14 Wien 3
15 Koeln 3
16 Brussels 2
17 Joburg 1
18 Rio 1
19 Osaka 1
20 Sydney 1
21 Capetown 1


So although NYC has around 2,5 times more registrations, the .tokyo brand is clearly much more actively used in practice.

If we look at the number of city TLD sites in use per continent, Asia is a clear winner:

position continent number percentage
1 Asia 106 50,2%
2 Europe 76 36,0%
3 USA 22 10,4%
4 Australia 4 1,9%
5 Africa 2 0,9%
6 South America 1 0,5%


When we greencheck these domains (click here for free API access)  to find out if they are green hosted, we get a different picture: only seven out of the 21 city TLD’s have sites that run on green energy. If we factor in how many times a site is visited, we get the following weighed ranking:

position City TLD percentage green
1 Koeln 75%
2 Wien 74%
3 London 72%
4 Amsterdam 59%
5 Berlin 45%
6 Hamburg 33%
7 NYC 4%


So for every time a .koeln-site is visited, in 3 out of 4 times the page was served by a green hoster. The .wien TLD is doing equally well, with .london on a respectable third place.

When we distribute this outcome again against continent, green hosting in this domain is clearly a European affair, with only .NYC having a tiny percentage of green hosted sites. But where is Asia in this list, no green hosting at all?

So where Asia is clearly outperforming Europe and the USA in the actual use of city TLD sites, when it comes to green hosting, Europe is – for now at least – doing quite well.

Note: do you know of any green hosters in Asia? Please drop us a line!

The Green Web Foundation, Sweden.

Disclaimer: the Alexa top million changes rapidly all the time. This dataset was compiled early September 2015, and does not necessarily reflect the current status and ranking of these sites.









Why every greencheck counts

6th August 2015

As you know, we have compiled a list of hosting companies that run on renewable energy. Others do not have that option, but make sure their operations are at least carbon neutral. Most hosting companies however, simply do not care much about the environmental impact of their activities, and they think that you will never find out anyway.