The Wrong Debate

A colleague just dropped a copy of eWeek on my desk.  The April 14th issue.  It contains an article titled: Green IT's merits spark debate by Clint Boulton.

(I'd provide you a link but the on-line eWeek seems to be out of sync with the printed paper version.  Why do they even have a printed version of eWeek?)                

The essence of the debate, staged among four Gartner analysts, was to state opposing views on the merits of "Green IT".

But, alarmist or skeptical, it was the wrong thing to debate. 

I wouldn't blame you for being immediately skeptical of four Gartnerites on stage in Las Vegas at a Gartner event debating IT impacts on global warming.  What's the chance of outside the G thinking?

And of course 'Vegas is a great place to discuss carbon footprints.  We'll be doing it at EMC World in just a few weeks. 

Hmm.

The debate participants included Martin Reynolds and  Simon Mingay supporting green IT as good for business and the environment.  On the opposing side were Charles Smulders and French Caldwell who, according to the eWeek article were:

"calling green IT a myth made up by people who want to believe they are doing something good for the environment and by businesses that want  a new way to sell more products."

To summarize; on the pro side the position was that attention to green IT is essential in order to avoid future risks, control costs and prepare for government interventions. It also helps the planet. 

That's OK as far as it goes.

On the con side, the position was that IT accounts for only 2% of global emissions and that cattle  "exude more carbon dioxide in the US than all of the motor vehicles on the road". (I don't know if its true but its a great line.) Vendors were criticized for "green washing" and not having a meaningful environmental impact. 

The article also reports their suggestion that customers not "fixate on catch phrases" with "the fervor of religious converts" and just save energy instead.

Maybe he was playing devil's advocate.  Otherwise, he doesn't give customers credit they deserve and he really doesn't get it.

First cows.   Cows may be relevant to the discussion if you want to argue the larger impacts of entire supply-chain of meat production as a contributor to global warming.  Some people are going vegetarian in their bid to save the planet. (See today's Boston Globe: One Less Burger One Safer Planet ) That doesn't have much to do with the two most important impacts that IT needs to act upon. 

First, fix the environmental impacts in your own shop. 

That's good for business. 

And it deals with way more than energy.  It's e-waste, and toxic chemicals, and conservation of resources (including financial) across the board. 

While there may well be companies that are using green to sell more products, I can't imagine that most customers don't see right through it.  Any customer I speak with wants proof points and they really don't want to buy something unless it effectively serves both the business purpose and the environmental objectives.

The second, and most important impact, is the active use of information technology to help save the planet.  A recent report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) found that:

“for every extra kilowatt-hour of electricity that has been demanded by ICT technologies, the U.S. economy increased its overall energy savings by a factor of about 10.”*

To be fair, Mingay did make some reference to this concept but I believe it must be stated much more forcefully.  Something like "IT will be a primary force in the global battle with climate change. " 

Essential really.

Start with the idea that "green IT" isn't what anybody should be after and efficient IT is.  That's where the paybacks come in reduced capital expense, floor space, energy consumption and operational costs. 

Choose your motivation - environmental or bottom line.  The things you do to address both are essentially the same.

Doing the right thing requires less from natural resources and produces less in carbon emissions but it's a twofer. 

Then, go to the larger idea that it is through the effective use of technology that we can do everything from efficient lighting control to analysis and diagnosis of weather, oceans, agriculture and ice caps. 

We can also conduct on-line commerce, education, social networking and, of course, music sharing.

Gaining the ultimate in efficient IT won't be simple, but the concepts really are.

Saving the planet is a bit more complicated, but IT will help.

No need to debate.

Unless you want to. 

What do you think?

* Laitner, John A., and Ehrhardt-Martinez, Karen. Information
and Communication Technologies: The Power of Productivity.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, February 2008. www.aceee.org