Green IT is
all
the
rage.
60 percent of global executives view climate change as important to consider
within their companies' overall strategy
McKinsey report on
ITstrategyblog.com
A sudden outbreak of tree-hugging planet-conciousness? Nah.
I think the real reason that most IT shops should be looking at going green is the sheer cost savings component of it
SUN CIO Bob Worrell on
Biz-tech 3.0
First and foremost, this new trend is powered by record oil prices.
Second: green has become a magical marketing word.
A green spin covers any sin.
Hot air has become big business.
buy this product, save the planet!
Companies wishing to greenwash their brand, can enroll in
carbon
footprint
benchmarking
programs to "produce carbon labels".
We should all become carbon neutral:
To be considered carbon neutral, an organization must reduce its carbon footprint to zero.
Determining what to include in the carbon footprint depends upon the organization and the standards they are following.
Generally, Direct emissions sources must be reduced and offset completely,
while indirect emissions from purchased electricity can be reduced with renewable energy purchases.
The Carbon Neutral Company, a big player in the carbon offset market,
features a carbon calculator
that easily tells you how much offset credits you need to buy. At the Carbon Neutral Company.
The calculation is largely bogus, since it only considers headcount and business travel.
For an IT firm like ours, emissions are mainly determined by the amount of servers running 24/7.
the carbon neutral myth
Offsetting your carbon emissions is a flawed concept anyway. Of course it's good
if you plant a tree somewhere. But that doesn't stop the carbon you're emitting yourself
from reaching the atmosphere. To really, really stop hurting the planet, we'll have to
really, really, stop emitting CO2 altogether.
The idea of planting trees in order to "neutralise" emissions taps into a
pre-existing cultural notion that something with
obvious environmental benefits could be used to cancel out doing something
environmentally damaging.
But it just doesn't add up.
CO2 is absorbed by trees as part of the carbon cycle, an incredibly complicated
set of chemical, physical, geological, and biological processes passing carbon
through the earth's biosphere. The carbon cycle can be divided into two
parts: active and inert. Trees are part of the active carbon cycle, a continual
movement of carbon among plants, organisms, water and the atmosphere. In
contrast, reserves of fossil fuels are inert: the carbon they contain is locked up
and does not come into contact with the active part of the carbon cycle unless
we burn them.
Movement of carbon between the active cycle and the inert pool
is one-way - once carbon is released from the inert pool by burning fossil fuels,
it enters the active cycle. It will not return to the inert pool unless it undergoes
the same sort of millennia-long geological process that transformed it into a
fossil fuel in the first place.
Kevin Smith -
The Carbon Neutral myth
If Green IT is to be more than window-dressing and marketese,
IT companies will have to drastically rethink their energy sourcing mix.
Basing operations on renewables like water, wind and solar power
may be the only sustainable option.
Google and Microsoft are already basing their datacenter strategy on water power.
Peak oil helps, of course....