By Gemma Simpson, 4 December 2007 17:02
NEWS
Nine out of ten UK IT departments do not know what their carbon footprint is and 56 per cent do not even see their energy bills, research reveals.
And only 15 per cent of CIOs said they are planning to calculate their carbon footprint, with a further 38 per cent wanting to do so but not knowing how to calculate this figure, according to a survey by environmental charity Global Action Plan.
Green IT from A to Z
Click on the links below to find out more...
A is for Abroad
B is for Blades
C is for Carbon footprint
D is for Data centres
E is for Energy sources
F is for Freecycle
G is for Government
H is for Homeworking
I is for Ice caps
J is for Jobs (Steve)
K is for Kilowatts
L is for Landfill
M is for Mercury
N is for Nanogeneration
O is for Offsetting
P is for Paperless office
Q is for Queen
R is for Recycling
S is for SmartPlanet.com
T is for Travel
U is for Upgrade
V is for Virtualisation
W is for WEEE
X is for Xmas
Y is for You
Z is for Zero emissions
More than two-thirds (68 per cent) of IT departments do not pay for the energy consumed by their department - with 56 per cent of the total surveyed not even seeing an energy bill. Another 12 per cent are aware of how much they spend but don't foot the bill, the research reveals.
Environmental performance of equipment is also not a top concern for CIOs with only eight per cent of those surveyed purchasing products purely on their green credentials and more than a third do not even consider the green gains when purchasing new products at all.
But more than half do consider such eco-benefits when buying - but only as a secondary and less important factor, according to the An Inefficient Truth report.
The report also found IT departments are left out in the cold when it comes to planning for a greener corporate landscape with 49 per cent of tech teams only partially involved in their organisation's social responsibility and sustainability strategy and a quarter of departments not involved at all.
And nearly half of respondents have not been invited by other departments to join an organisation-wide energy efficiency project, according to the survey of 120 CIOs and IT chiefs in UK companies.
Only six per cent of the organisations surveyed have financial or personal incentives schemes for their ICT department to adopt environmentally friendly initiatives, although more than a fifth would like to see such a scheme.
Many pointed to time and cost pressures are the biggest barriers to adopting sustainable IT policies and said recognised standards and tax allowances would provide the most valuable support towards reducing the IT industry's contribution to the UK's carbon emissions.
The global IT industry accounts for two per cent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions - the same amount the world's aviation industry churns out - according to analyst house Gartner.
Comments
There are 15 comments. Join the discussion
1. Roger Huffadine
I suspect that the 2% figure includes the heating and Ventilation consumption of all the manufacturers who produce IT equipment and not the energy consumed by IT equipment running in offices.
I suppose the conclusion that one can draw from this report is the the followers of King Canute should seek to evangelise the more susceptible and leave us Techies alone - many of us just plainly don't believe that human activity is causing radical changes in climate - remember we also did history, physics & maths and can work out for ourselves that Research grants are not awarded to opponents of the religion of climate change.
2. David Gaskill
Maybe the "techies", being economically and mathematically literate, were aware that if every computer in the UK was turned off for a year of the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would be more than replaced by the increasing output from Chinese power stations in around two weeks.
Perhaps they considered that there were a better things to do with their company's money and their time...
3. Charles Wood
Absolutely!
Great to hear that someone in the community is prepared to say what a lot of us think...the whole CO" thing is a big scam.
None of the current "evidence" is provable beyond doubt and none of it would stand in an English court.
Global warming probably is happening, but wether CO2 is the CAUSE or human activity has ANYTHING to do with it is highly questionable, but very convenient cannon fodder.
4. Sarah
Thanks Roger for summing up my feelings.
The only part of the green issue I buy into is what we can do to avoid continually putting things in the ground when we have finished with them.
And I resent as an industry being referred to as techies. Come on Silicon, I thought you were supposed to be on our side!
5. Guy Reynolds
Rather than being clueless us Techies have seen through the concept of Carbon Foot printing for the hyped farce that it is, and are working to reduce the energy and material consumption that we can control.
There are no agreed methodologies for carbon foot printing and what gets included and passed on to whom and when. As a result any business can argue that it has a zero carbon footprint because it passes on its carbon to the consumers of its goods and services. If it can't then why am I expected to offset the carbon emissions of my flights rather than the airline doing it and if they pass to me why don't they pass on to the hotel where I am staying?
6. Jay
look at this right, gov says "buy eco friendly kit etc" for 2 reasons
a) they need people replacing machines as fast at their bought to maintain the 'economy' only gov fat cats benefit from b) we need to save electricity until better methods of generating it become available
oh b.t.w global warming, as earth history proves, is self perpetuating (just maybe we help it a little) and so we're all gonna die arguing 'bout it! se y'all in hell
7. Mark Hosey
Yep, there is indeed a load of rubbish talked about global warming but, one thing remains, none of us can be absolutely certain that the carbon being dug out the ground and burned in huge quantities is not contributing to global warming in a big way? The real experts, those that really study the subject objectively and scientifically do not state categorically that this is so. They merely state that the evidence indicates a high probability that continued consumption of non renewable carbon based energy sources (coal and oil) together with deforestation may be contributing to global warming. A high probability!
The layman has no evidence either way, they can only base their opinion on what others report and if those reports are based on inaccuracies half truths and lies we all have a problem coming to a reliable conclusion. Make no doubt about it, both sides are guilty of putting their own spin on it.
So, jut just in case, would it not be prudent to follow the recommendations of those experts, the scientists who carry out the research, who have concluded that there is a high probability that we are contributing to global warming? It may be better to proceed cautiously rather than blunder about in dogmatic the ignorance peddled by both sides and the media.
8. polar bear
hey Charlie, take your head out of the sand (or maybe step out of your gas guzzler).
It's not a case of taking this to court, it's waking up to the fact that the human race is rapidly destroying the planet.
9. anonymous
4 men running 1Km produce more CO2 than 1 car (capable of carring the 4 men in comfort) travelling 1Km. just think of the carbon footprint for the London marathon each year.
10. Sun worshiper
Hey Polar Bear
Ice melts @ just above Zero degrees - the ice caps have been warming slowly for the last 10,000 years - its just a coincidence that they have reached Zero when you are on the Planet. But hey its a free Country and you can follow any religion that you choose, if you want to be a Canuteite that's fine by me but don't shove it down my neck.
11. Karen Challinor
I also take offence at the "Techies" appelation will there be other articles starting with "Suits - useless on something or other " ?
12. Mark Hosey
Anonymous. The difference is the four runners are consuming renewable sources of energy (food) whilst the car uses a non-renewable energy source (Oil, a fossil fuel).
13. Mark Hosey
Sun worshiper.
Climatology and meteorology are not religions; they are sciences which study natural phenomena that man desperately needs to understand. A science, as you probably know, is the methodical study of physical processes. The scientist bases his/her theories on empirical evidence. The good scientist then attempts to test those theories, the outcome of which should provide more empirical evidence allowing the science to advance and allowing others to develop technologies which can be used in the service of man. The tests of those theories will either confirm or disproving the theories in whole or in part. The good scientist will report those results regardless of the outcome. The good scientist may then go on to discard, revise or improve on those theories in light of the new evidence.
It only becomes a religion when people blindly accept what they read and what they are told (in this case from and by a number of dubious sources including the media and a number of pseudo scientists on both sides who bend and distort the truth reporting only those bits that confirm their opinion). If you want to form a useful opinion you should read the text books, not the magazines that come with the Sunday news papers.
14. Julian
I hope the mapority of Silicon readers show sympathy to the theory that climate is changing rapidly, and that human activity is the most likely accelerant.
Clearly there are some readers who won't subscribe to the theory of rapid destruction of planet ensuing from our own energy-driven lust, willing to ignore the mounting evidence whether it's court-worthy or not, as one post deems it ought to be. As the Scottish guy says, some prudence is surely required on this topic. Or could it be that many IT people have only self-interest at heart, and the rest of the world can go take a hike?
I wonder, do IT people generally not worry about the world they are bringing their children into?
15. Roger Huffadine
Mark H - I'm the Sun Worshiper (in case you hadn't guessed)
The thing is after I retired for the first time I got bored and wanted to drink somebody else's tea, so I worked in a Graduate School Office where I saw PhD research proposals and the resultant theses.
If I am a non adherent to religions born of modern research papers it is because of my experience in the 'office' and because on a rotating 20 year cycle - butter, milk, bacon, eggs, sugar, beer, wine, air, fish, chips and a whole host of other life enhancing products are alternately GOOD then BAD.
If the research community had a modicum more integrity than politicians then I may begin to listen.
Oh yeh - whatever happened to that huge hole in the Ozone layer that was going to kill me by now?