Autodesk, the most polluting software company?


Don’t know what’s true and what isn’t though. Just posting here, don’t shoot the messenger. :wink:


The most polluting in terms of raw output would have to be Amazon, I’d think. AWS, to be specific. Servers that run 40% of the Internet- that’s a truly absurd amount of power, and Amazon hasn’t expressed much interest in nuclear or renewable power. They like it cheap :sweat_smile:


It seems like activists these days are turning over every possible rock they can find in an attempt to tell companies they are not doing enough in helping the climate or in helping some other pet cause. News to the companies, no matter how much you strain to become more equitable, inclusive, or environmentally friendly, it will never be enough and the activists will even invent things out of thin air to prevent the onset of satisfaction.

Now in 3D parlance, the best way a DCC vendor can reduce their footprint on the environment is to have priority on performance improvements across the board (from modeling to simulation to rendering). The average computer ends up using far less power if the code allows it to get the job done in a much shorter timeframe (as we are seeing now in Blender across various tasks).

Right now, a ton of applications from web browsers to game engines are far more bloated than they can be. Not only that, but software is stuck in a cycle where it starts out fresh and fast and then becomes a hulking and slow bugfest (that is another thing, PC users will use more power as well if they keep losing work to crashes).

1 Like

THX A LOT for the link Metin.

Please watch the Whole Fuc*ing video before commenting !!

Guys, Climate Warming and Destruction of our environnement are real threat to our future, children, life and house (yea beacause ppl care a lot about their fuc*ing house)

WE NEED TO STOP EMITING CO2 and he demonstrate clearly that Autodesk product are use in high emission industry.

Groenland/Antartic are melting and Amazon forest is burning… Like at supersonic speed

Autodesk has the RESPONSABILITY to not sell their products to company that destroy our environnement in such large scale.


That seems to come from the point of view that climate change is not an existential threat for a large chunk of humanity… Hardly a pet cause if you ask me…


That would create an incredible slippery slope though, because for companies to start doing something like that means everyone who carries an unfavorable viewpoint (which runs the gamut of political, scientific, and social issues) will become a potential target for the experience of enduring a widespread denial of service.

This is especially important in a world where the concept of the ESG score is being promoted (which is basically China’s social credit system as international law). To note, the idea of the slippery slope argument being a fallacy is a lie, but rather it is an argument that history has shown to be proven and truthful on a repeated basis.

Unless you support Nuclear, I hope you are ready to embrace a future where electricity is available for just part of the day, because it is all but impossible to power everything including our cars with just windmills and solar panels. I am not exaggerating here, because some supposedly developed areas now have blackouts as a way of life during the Summer. It also depends on how far you want to go, do we also ban campfires, or should we also just quit breathing?

1 Like

Countries and companies that generate high levels of pollution should be sanctioned, it is a clear unfair and disadvantageous competition against countries and companies that use less polluting technologies to take care of the planet, technologies that can be more expensive and less productive with respect to technologies that more pollute.


We all agree that we need to lower our CO2 and methane emission, ASAP

I won’t argue with you about the “how” we do so. But that is certainly meaning more nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, green hydrogen and maybe, probably not, fusion.

In any case, I still think Autodesk has to take at least some… responsability about how their softwares are uses.

Powering the world with man-made min-suns would be the holy grail, but we also have new Nuclear Fission technology in the R&D phase that is not only an order of magnitude safer, but it also produces far less waste. Now it is turning out that the thing to make Fusion work may not exactly be the ‘magnetic donut’ like you see at places like ITER (since I do recall seeing articles of promising advancements using lasers and other equipment).

Until then, even Elon Musk is saying we still need fossil fuels in the meantime, and he is the planet’s biggest promotor of electric vehicles. Now climate science happens to be one of those areas with the major problem of computer models completely replacing physical observations in various studies (read through them and count the number of times a model is used instead of hard data. Computer models in general meanwhile, in and of itself, are ridiculously prone to being tuned in a way that can reflect a personal bias. I would also by no means pretend that scientists in general have the ability to not express bias, since it is something that is baked into all of us.

There is no bias and plenty of “hard data” to chew.

Our climate and earth is dying.

But I would agree that, what we are doing with that fact, is a matter of debate.

Well, anyone running a desktop/laptop/notebbook…etc can make a difference in terms of less carbon emissions per capita - annually, if one reasonably thinks about end-user responsibility on taking reasonable steps on how too responsibly use their preferred device for either work or play:

…particularly those ‘fortunate’ enough to reside in OECD economies.

1 Like

To Fr; If your only sources of news is the mainstream sites, then naturally you would be thinking of CO2 as this demon molecule that does nothing but create problems, but have you ever considered just why the owners of commercial greenhouses have it as a level three times higher than in the atmosphere?

Not only that, the term ‘greenhouse effect’ is misleading, because the atmosphere does not work like a garden greenhouse. The greenhouse at the local nursery cannot accurately represent the atmosphere because it is a closed environment as opposed to being exposed to space (so convection cannot occur). I would also take a look at the communist-style revisionism of past climate observations and data, as there are multitudes of recent record heat events that are only so because of the systemic destruction of data from the past (ie. your grandmother was wrong about the heat she experienced because science said so).

Lets not derail that thread.

There is no debate to have here.

Only what you are doing with the fact. Go read the IPCC.

Folks, I hate to be “that guy”, but despite involving Autodesk (who’s primary market is in industrial and manufacturing applications), this thread is only just barely on-topic for this forum. Plus, it can easily spin off to political debates and conspiracy theories (on both sides) that really have no place here.

So here’s what I’m going to do: I’m moving this thread to #general-forums:off-topic-chat and I’m going to say right now that if your reply does not directly relate to the original post in some way, it’s going to be flagged as off-topic. Too many of those and we’ll have to close the thread.