Does Green IT Matter?
Those expressing skepticism--including me--that the budding green IT movement was nothing more than a clever marketing ploy may have to eat their words. Or, at least nibble on them. The cynicism certainly wasn't unfounded, and I'm not totally sure it's been disproven today. But one thing's for sure: regardless of businesses' motivation, investment in eco-friendly technologies continues to grow--fast. A study by KPMG, released today, venture capitalists, bankers, entrepreneurs and others said a quarter of new investments will toward green IT. In Europe--whose environmentally friendly policies have far outpaced the U.S.--a number of major financial firms and vehicles have set up funds around green IT investments. So back to the question we raised in September: is green IT just clever marketing? Or is it the real thing? Back then, the consensus seemed to be that businesses were investing for bottom-line considerations. Environmental consciousness was just gravy, really. In our latest Weekly Report, my colleague Eric Chabrow speaks with Sun Microsystems CIO Bob Worrell explains his company's motivation for building a green data center. "I think the real reason that most IT shops should be looking at going green is the sheer cost savings component of it," Worrell says. "We started this journey a couple of years ago, not with the notion of saving the planet, but frankly just to save a whole lot of money. That's proven to be the case, and I think that's the case for many of our peers as well." Enough said? The corporate world is putting a strong new spin on the argument political leaders like Michael Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenegger and, most notably, Al Gore, have made for years. (The Governator's endorsement of Arizona Sen. John McCain, who shares his climate-change concerns, was delivered today after a tour of a solar technology plant.) Financial considerations will always be the first objective for any business move; with a huge potential for profit in the green industry, that shouldn't come as any surprise. Is there more to it? Is there at lease a smidge of environmental concern behind the investments? Probably. But for now, the bottom line wins. And there's nothing wrong with that. |
Comments (6)
Here's what's wrong with merely financial motivations: they often follow government regulations, rather than from humane imperatives based in environmental science. Government regulations are subject to lobbying and other forms of political pressure. For example, the automobile industry has continued to campaign against requirements to make cars more efficient or less polluting. As individuals and companies, we all have a crucial stake in the future of our only environment, regardless of financial or regulatory considerations.
Posted by JRollman | February 4, 2008 3:28 PM
Financial motivations are the only ones that will drive change. Weather (it's a pun) you believe in global warming or not (I don't) there is real financial savings for organizations to "go green" with parts of their IT solutions. One of the organizations I have been working with is an entirerly green data center in Alaska called, "Sequestered Solutions." They run on hydro power and the climate itself to keep things cool and costs as low as possible. Their warm water output is also a profit center as it is used to warm up city water in Anchorage so that pipes dont freeze.
Part of the green revolution is just good business based on the three things that drive business...location, location, location...
Posted by TMyers | February 4, 2008 8:22 PM
I must disagree with both who commented on this article. The financial motivation for moving toward green IT has been there for many years. The fact that governments are trying to regulate good behaviour has been around for years. However, the fact that we are running to the natural end of our resources has driven people out of both financial and environmental sense to begin the movement toward green IT. At Wyse (and many other companies who have preached the movement to centralized computing), we have recognized the ecological impact of our products for many years. I personally have performed countless exercises in spreadsheet madness to prove that moving away from fat clients to thin clients makes both fiscal and environmental sense. It is only with the recent decreases in energy availability that anyone has begun to listen to these arguments. That itself is a sad statement on the fiscal and environmental consciousness of business managers and executives.
Posted by Henry Fieglein | February 5, 2008 1:46 PM
Thanks for the article; the topic is a passion of mine. I fervently believe we must look at multiple solutions to our problems of energy and environmental contamination related to product lifecycles and use.
The best, albeit poorly supported business cases for energy conservation are in using our technology to work via telework.
One source cited up to 102 million people drive alone to and from work in the U.S. on the average work day.
Now let's build a new spreadsheet.
Let's say they each commuter uses 1 gallon of gas for the commute and spends 1/2-hour commuting. How much greener would we be if 1% of this 102 million worked from home each day? 2%, 3%, 4% ...?
How much more personal energy would be available via time return? How much more productive may we as a culture be when we move away from physical presence being the measure of productivity? How better is the quality of our business continuity under major disaster scenarios (pandemics, planes and towers, etc.) with distributed human resources capable of working through the network?
The largest opportunity for green return in terms of work ability, personal and potential physical energy lays in telework. All the technology ability is here now.
The challenge we face is finding the leadership and political will to make the cultural and economic changes necessary for the new and certain to come reality of telework as a norm.
Posted by Mike McGarrity | February 5, 2008 3:33 PM
Isn't it interesting that the loss of industry may help to provide more telecommuting, just as the Industrial Revolution caused a creation of jobs that required physicial attendance?
Posted by ddawdy | February 7, 2008 10:04 AM
I have been lucky enough to work with and for firms that believed that being "green" was part of their civic responsibility. The biggest areas that provided savings were the consolidation and management of lighting and cooling. I believe that there is no need to provide financial incentives for a firm to go "green." Having a consumer base in the future will depend upon everyone being green.
Posted by Hane Carlson | February 13, 2008 12:39 PM