2006-12-18T23:52:00.000Z

I've gotten into the bad habit of leaving computers and monitors either running or on standby when I leave the office. My colleagues think this is something I must have picked up while working for a large US company where no one cared about energy consumption, but this is a little unfair. I suspect that the culture of waste in all areas of the corporate world is widespread in the UK too. The larger the organisation, the worse it is - whether the mountains of unnecessary print outs coming out of laser printers in offices, the dumping of food produce at supermarkets, or the early retirement of perfectly functioning equipment to keep the recruits happy. The trouble is that as long as the company makes a profit, no one wants to address these issues.

So how bad is it that I leave a few machines running - some of them servers that may be accessed remotely by a few people over the weekend for a few files?
We'll I haven't checked my electricity bills for the cost of this, but I'm sure it is a small but significant amount at the end of the year. The bigger problem I suspect is that I am not alone. What is happening all over the world as the number of computers increases, the Internet sprawls with an ever increasing number of hosts and everything needs to be online all the time? This must amount to a very large amount of power consumption and account for a considerable level of carbon emissions.

I think that technology needs to help stem this tide. Why do monitors have to consume a lot of power when on standby? Why does my PC need so much power to run? Surely we have the means to build more efficient equipment. Why does an ISP need rack upon rack of individual servers, each with independent power supplied and whirring hard drives, when most will be sitting idle for their entire lives? I am quite excited about virtualisation technologies reaching the mass market and shared SAN's for hosting data in web farms, not just because it is cheaper and more resilient than current approaches, but also because it will save on manufacturing more under-utilised machines, will save power and reduce carbon emissions.

But what about changes in our behaviour? Remembering to turn off the copier, shut down the PC and hit the lights on the way out. This is much tougher. I don't think we can risk our future by counting on it, but we may not have one if we don't.

Kumar Mehta
Paraspar eCommerce Solutions

2006-07-30T22:03:00.000+01:00

Is Online Shopping Really Green?

While we were all enjoying the unusually warm weather last week and secretly harboring the thought that this has something to do with global warming, I was pleasantly surprised to see a full page advert in the London Metro paper last Monday announcing that 24th July (247) is online shopping day and that online shopping is green. The advert had been placed by the IMRG (http://www.imrg.org/) and sponsored by a few large retailers. The theme was that online shopping is environmentally friendly - "Go Green Go Online" was the headline.

The argument is that if you buy online, you save on fossil fuels, cause less congestion and less carbon emissions. As online sales grow, the effect will increase.

The industry association has also launched a new Green Fund to help support the rainforest.

I'd love to believe that online shopping is going to make the planet last longer - but I suspect the truth is a little more complicated and the impact less than significant. This is clearly a great publicity stunt that rides a wave, benefits the cause of raising awareness of environmental issues and provides a logical rationalisation to would-be shoppers that they are helping to preserve the planet as they feed their material desires and fill the coffers of the retailers.

But a legitimate question remains - Is online shopping really green and can it make a difference as it grows? Certainly I can understand that individuals would not have to drive themselves to the shops and this would save on fuel and emissions, but what about the increased packaging for home delivery and the use of delivery transportation? My 2.0 litre Toyota is probably more efficient over a 10 mile journey than a John Lewis lorry. Online shopping makes it possible to purchase goods from Hong Kong and have them delivered by courier - in the most part using air cargo. Is this really better than paying more for a local supplier - or doing without? And what are the return rates for items purchased online verses those from retail stores? Returning goods will incur additional transportation costs and packaging.

I am also surprised about the Green fund and the rainforest - because many of our customers drive their online sales through offline catalogues and direct mail - something that is unlikely to reduce in the near future.

This week I also read an article quoting the third highest ranking bishop in the UK as saying that flying on holiday is a sin. This is the first time I have heard the Christian faith make such a statement about the environment. I agree with this sentiment - we have a moral responsibility for the welfare of the planet, but at the same time I think this is unlikely to make any difference. The same would apply for buying something from Hong Kong when it could have been purchased locally.

Perhaps online shopping will be greener than high street shopping when we become conscious of the wider choices we can make online and choose to purchase items made by companies that follow environmentally friendly processes and that we purchase products that can be delivered with minimum transportation costs.

Kumar Mehta
Paraspar eCommerce Solutions