Also, as long as they think it’s important to be as accurate as possible in computing the so-called emissions from computing, what about including ALL of the costs of wind and solar? Look at the land that wind takes up. What are the costs to service the equipment?

I suspect many of the costs are simply ignored.

We need to decide based on the economics – which includes quality of life information.

On the plus side, it’s starting to look like that more and more people are figuring out that this human-caused Global Warming is really a scam and many of the people behind it aren’t very genuine. http://director...earth-over.html

In the UK gas (petrol to us) is the equivalent of $10 per US gallon.

That makes people use smaller more fuel efficient cars and use them less. Also smaller cars use less energy and resources to manufacture.

The real market of real costs is the only way to reduce energy use commodity use and CO2.

Buying credits only offsets guilt, it does not address the underlying problems of scarce resources.

(Oh and get used to the figure of $10 a gallon its coming your way sooner than you realise.)

P

Maybe just a rare person – in tech and also with awareness of environmental issues.

Are tech smarties not green? Maybe only the successful tech folks have a brain to be green. Less Ayn Rand more Reality.

Many conferences I have attended lately have a speaker talking about how to go green and this sounds like a fantastic way for tech businesses to do so, so long as there is room to offset the emissions by providing clean energy into the grid where it would have been supplied with ‘dirty’ energy otherwise. When this is not the case, there will be no need for such a service and everyone will be happy.

Even if it does not become a killer service, it is still a lot better than many others popping up and is for a good cause.

From the number of unnecessarily negative comments, I get the impression that there are a lot of readers here who hate to see others succeed, are jealous of the TC coverage, or think that if they would not use a service themselves that it must suck.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

Imagine that, a web-based company that actually has CUSTOMERS. Hmmm…..

I’m in the industry (DC design, etc.) and can tell you that I’ve been in front of numerous big-name companies here in the Silicon Valley that refuse to change their IT practices or infrastructure despite the fact that they’re horribly inefficient. They are spending literally millions more per year than necessary on energy.

Why? A number of reasons:

1. It’s easier to buy offsets than to change the physical infrastructure.
2. The costs to achieve a “Best Practice” scenario are more immediate than energy costs (despite being much lower…)
3. Not wanting to rock the boat. Classic “if it ain’t broke…”
4. Many IT professionals fear that after saving the company millions they’ll be given a laurel wreath and a pink slip. Energy efficiency = more uptime = less work = human redundancy.
5. Etc, etc, etc.

All this to say that there needs to be a fundamental philosophical shift in the IT world in order for any major changes to occur. Even the dangling carrot of massive financial savings isn’t enough for a lot of companies. It’s almost as though they’re waiting for legislation.

Don’t get me wrong. I think co2stats probably has a place in the industry, and I appreciate what they’re trying to do. It just seems to me to be part of the problem instead of the solution. The emphasis needs to be placed on reducing current usage, not buying eco-indulgences.

I’m green now!

Or they could just pay for the service, put the badge on their website, and continue to waste away.

http://www.alex...stinctions.html