In response to the above posting from Information Week (click on logo to read):

Mr. Evans,

I realize that strong opinions and language are what gets attention these days, particularly on the web. But, it doesn’t really do much to help us understand or solve problems. Given the opinions you apparently hold, I don’t have much hope of changing your mind on anything but I would offer something more thoughtful for Information Week readers.

First, I don’t understand the point of your article. What is the difference between Greenpeace trying to influence tech companies’ positions on climate change agreements than those same companies lobbying Congress on H1B visa limits? That Greenpeace is in the business of environmental advocacy, including climate change policy, is no surprise to anyone. It’s what they do.

If your criticism is of tactics that rely on using false or dubious data or emotional arguments to mislead people, I would agree with you. However, I would also invite you to spend a working day with me. Much of my professional life is spent helping clients sort truth from fiction in tech suppliers claims about their products and services. What’s the difference between a questionable statement about the speed of glacial melt and the deliberately misleading presentation I saw yesterday on VoIP security issues? Can we agree that everyone would benefit from more truth and accuracy in public claims on any position?

Finally, I don’t see how Greenpeace’s Cool IT Challenge is somehow misleading. The tech industry has spent a lot of effort over the last couple of years to build the argument that IT will be the most important enabler of solutions for climate change, and Greenpeace is repeating their message. The very top of their website says. “Studies have shown that IT solutions such as video conferencing, smart power grids, and highly efficient components could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by 2020.” http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/cool-it-challenge

The Greenpeace challenge is simple and totally appropriate: “show us what you are actually doing”. Why that position would be characterized as a “shakedown” escapes me. “Show me what it does” is exactly the position our clients take in buying or implementing IT systems from these same companies. While you may reasonably argue with the metrics, creating a rating system is a reasonable thing for Greenpeace to do in the role as advocates.

If your real objection to the Cool IT Challenge is that technology companies have no obligations for social and environmental responsibility that go along with their need to make a profit, then we just disagree. But, if believing in Corporate Social Responsibility is “socialism”, then the leadership at companies like IBM, HP, GE and WalMart must be Communists. The truth is the opposite; they are Capitalists and think being a good corporate citizen is good for business. And, it is.

Richard Hodges

PS. The link on your post “Some compelling counterbalance to Greenpeace lunacy” is a non-working URL. Too bad. I actually wanted to see what was there.

The green label is everywhere: Green buildings, green cars, green cleaning supplies and, of course, green computers.
It’s great, except that “green” doesn’t mean anything. At least “organic” has a reasonable definition built around actual farming practices. Green is just a general concept about being good to the environment.
At the moment for Green IT, green can mean whatever you want to mean. Some IT manufacturers even claim to have “certified” green products. But until they have managed to design closed-loop, cradle-to-cradle products that run off 100% renewable energy and are built in non-polluting, carbon-neutral factories, put that claim in the same category as green cars and green flights.
What does have a commonly accepted definition is sustainability. The Bruntland Commission defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
While that’s still a little vague, it’s a definition that’s been generally accepted around the world and can actually be used as a starting point for developing measurable standards. The problem with thinking in vague “green” terms, and not about sustainability, is it that it leads people to make choices that don’t actually deliver a net environmental benefit, and in fact, may make things worse.
Take for example the now generally accepted principle that it’s better to buy everybody a laptop instead of a desktop PC because laptops use less power. Well, unless complete mobility is a necessity, a virtualized thin client will use less electricity than a laptop. Besides that, a laptop may not even be better for the planet just because it consumes less electricity when in use.
Research shows that 65%-80% of the carbon footprint of a computer is created in manufacturing and distribution, not use. Laptops don’t generally last as long as desktop machines (which have shorter lives than thin clients) and so may actually end up with a larger eco-footprint than a desktop. If carbon footprint reduction is your goal, buying an energy efficient desktop machine and turning it off whenever it’s not in use may be the best answer. Keeping an existing machine in service is an even better answer for reducing carbon footprint.
On top of all this, in the real world, laptops end up acting like desktops. Ergonomics and utility general require that “laptop-only” users need a full-size display, keyboard and mouse for use at their desk. While all together this kit may consume less power during active use than even an efficient, properly-managed desktop machine, it certainly reduces the advantage of the laptop in direct power consumption.
This example is not to suggest that choosing a laptop over a desktop computer is a mistake. Where mobility for people is enabled, the potential benefits in re-thinking buildings and workplace design to reduce the amount of space we need can overwhelm any consideration of laptop vs. desktop. It can also make people more productive. What I am suggesting is that simplistic solutions to complex problems may actually be counterproductive. Good decisions require data, analysis, and a life-cycle approach for sustainability, not just a desire to be “green”.
(As posted in Matter Networks )

Richard Hodges is the Founder and CEO of GreenIT, the first consultancy to incorporate the impact on the environment into a systemic and strategic approach to sustainability for Information and Communications Technology.

The recent Wall Street Journal article  “Green Goal of ‘Carbon Neutrality’ Hits Limit”  was described by one of the green newsletters as “slamming” Dell for its claims to be carbon neutral.  

 That’s not what I got from the article.  What the author quite rightly does is assess what Dell and others are doing   and explain  why “Dell’s drive offers an early road map of the thorny questions companies will face as they attempt massive emission reductions …”

Dell and Timberland were both apparently cooperative and transparent in explaining what they are, and aren’t, doing. Everyone needs to recognize that we are all just at the beginning of the long-term task of figuring out how to measure and manage the eco-footprint of industries, companies, and products. Objective analysis and criticism is essential to that process.

The article also makes the point we have made many times with our clients: enterprises need to take great care in how their marketing efforts represent publicly what they are doing in their climate change and sustainability programs. Unclear, unsubstantiated, or overstated claims are actually counterproductive.

My only criticism of the article is that it focuses solely on climate change and carbon emissions which, as complex a problem as it will be to solve, is only one piece of the sustainability puzzle for IT.  

 WSJ:  (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123059880241541259.html#articleTabs%3Darticle)

Environmental Leader:    (http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/12/31/wsj-slams-dell-over-carbon-neutral-claim/)

Luggage for family holiday holiday travel includes 3 cell phones, 3 MP3 players, 2 Gameboys, 2 digital cameras, 1 Portable DVD player, 1 video camcorder, and a laptop … each with its own unique AC/DC power adapter.

In the U.S. there are more than 1.5 Billion of these wall-warts in use, with a Billion new ones shipped every year. The U.S. EPA estimates 11% of all electricity used passes through adapters, and 30-50% of power is lost in conversion. The worst is that wall-warts are vampire load, sucking electricity even when there is no device attached to be charged. The EPA has developed regulations governing both efficiency and stand-by mode, but as portable electronic devices proliferate that’s only going to slow the rate of energy consumption growth.

For enterprises, the rapid spread of portable network end-points, small printers, and other “personal” devices means an increasing amount of totally unseen and unmanaged energy consumption, as well as a growing stream of e-waste and universal waste.

A recent report from the Carbon Trust says only 1% of Enterprises in England know their carbon footprint. That brought to mind a presentation at the London Carbonfootprint-IT Summit which made the point that even if an organization knows its overall carbon footprint, reducing it requires detailed knowledge of operations … knowledge that virtually no Enterprise has about IT.

One of our current projects is in the U.S 1% club. Good. But what do you do with a pie chart showing two sources, buildings and transportation, at 50% each? How do you know how the size of IT’s slice on the chart?

Power consumption by Enterprise IT is a bigger number than most believe. But, the only way to know the number is to count it up, piece by piece. It’s a cliché, but true … you can’t manage what you can’t measure. You also can’t get credit for saving money and reducing carbon emissions unless you can show where you started.

IT product manufacturers and distributors need to look down the track and see what’s headed toward them … Carbon Labeling on products. Some data points … EnvironmentalLeader.com recently posted Supply Chain Leaders Should Prepare For Carbon Labeling from MIT. A Carbon Trust survey reports “43 per cent of all UK senior decision makers have a positive view of carbon labeling”. A storage vendor told me a major Bank RFP required a full life-cycle carbon assessment for products proposed.

More notable than these, Wal-Mart has launched its Sustainability 360 program that extends “beyond Wal-Mart’s direct environmental footprint to engage associates, suppliers, communities and customers.” CEO Lee Scott recently wrote that WalMart is committed to “driving sustainable practices into our supply chain”. Whether you are selling WalMart IT gear or they are selling your electronic products on their shelves, disclosure of product carbon content is bound to happen … and probably much sooner than you might expect.

A very interesting presentation on carbon Life-Cycle Assessment from the CITRIS Research Exchange at UC Berkeley is available on-line. The talk is on how to send the right signals to consumers and drive environmentally sustainable purchasing. A major take-away is how little analytical work has been on tools for environmental LCA’s for consumer products … and how daunting a challenge it will be to create those tools.

One example highlighted in the presentation was Personal Computers. Their research shows 65% of the life-cycle carbon footprint of a PC comes from the “Production” phase. This data is consistent with other information suggesting less than 20% of the electricity consumed by a PC is actually from the “Use” phase of its lifetime.

While there is no question everything that can be done to reduce energy use by IT systems in operation should be done … and quickly. In the long run, “sustainability” for IT will mean learning to build products that use all natural resources far more efficiently, keeping those products in service for longer useful lives, and following Bill McDonough’s vision to make sure that at the end of life IT products return to the production cycle as technical or biological nutrients.

This blog will cover news and updates with all things related to GreenIT. Visit our company site at http://www.greenit.net for more details!