So just what does green mean anyway? Intuitively, green means doing things in a way that minimizes the impact on the environment. If we want our organization to be green we will act in such a way to do things like reduce energy consumption, reduce non-recyclable waste, reduce greenhouse emissions, eliminate toxic waste, minimize our contribution to landfills, etc. Green business embraces the concept of a green economy–defined as economic activity by companies and customers in the form of products, services, and business models that promote economic growth, reduced environmental impacts, and improved social well-being (that from State of Green Business 2009 published by GreenBiz.com). For our purposes we are going to be concerned with Green Information Technology, which while it encompasses all we already said about green really just boils down to using computing resources efficiently.

Our assumption here, of course, is that green is good. And we will promote green business and green computing as a matter of course. However, when I receive an e-mail with the green tag appended a number of things come to mind. First, I think it is a little presumptive to assume that I would even consider your e-mail to be "print-worthy." Second, I remember that you work on the 20th floor of a building that is not even remotely green.

We fight our way to the office using high carbon footprint automobiles; we then enter buildings with artificially engineered environments; we ride elevators to our destination; we consume conditioned air because the windows in our building don't even open; we create huge data centers that consume enormous amounts of energy and generate enormous amounts of heat that must then be dissipated by cooling systems that themselves consume large amounts of energy. And we have the nerve to suggest that someone else do their bit by not printing our e-mail? Puhleeze…that really is a bit much. I suppose every little bit helps, but I would rather start with the things I can control before I start putting the onus of going green on recipients of my e-mail, which probably wasn't necessary anyway. Ever hear of instant messaging?

While there certainly are countless factors that go into green (or non-green) computing there is one that rises above all the rest–energy consumption–specifically in the form of electricity. Electricity is what makes computers run, and while electricity is the distributable energy source of choice for most of the world, it is not a particularly efficient way to distribute energy. Electric infrastructure grids–based on century-old technology–are horribly inefficient.

An estimate of power loss in the transmission and distribution systems in the U.S. is around 7.5 percent. And where does this electricity come from? In the United States about 70 percent comes from fossil fuels, which are not only destroying the environment but are non-renewable in the lifespan of humans on this planet. That means when and if we do find safe ways to use fossil fuels there won't be any left. Hydroelectric provides about seven percent of our electricity and nuclear 20 percent. The remainder comes from other renewable resources like wind, geothermal, etc.

Interestingly in France nuclear accounts for about 80 percent of power generation. Unreasonable fear has eliminated the growth of nuclear power in North America. I find it ironic that the most efficient, least hazardous form of power generation is despised in favor of any other source of power. I spent some time in Cambridge, Mass., in the mid '70s. The most common bumper sticker I remember seeing there was "split wood not atoms." Winter evenings in Cambridge were characterized by layers of thick, low-lying smoke created by thousands of wood-burning stoves. It looked like London in the 19th century. I am sure all that wood splitting (and burning) was good for everyone's lungs. And isn't this the home of MIT?

Using technologies that have improved significantly from first- and second-generation nuclear plants, safe, efficient fast breeder or perhaps even fusion plants could provide us with long-term sources of energy and then we would not be quite as concerned with inefficiencies in the grid and elsewhere. I say could because it isn't going to happen in the U.S., which makes it all the more important that we start finding more efficient ways to consume what electricity we have left.

The laws of thermodynamics are pretty straightforward and totally unforgiving. Every bit of heat generated by a piece of electronic gear is lost energy. And we all know that computers generate a lot of heat. Then we compound the green problem because we are forced to build huge systems to cool our data centers and those cooling systems use even more electricity (inefficiently). In a data system there are three or four main components that generate the most waste in the form of heat and thus are the source of most of the inefficiencies in the system–power supplies, processors, monitors, and storage systems.

Power supplies are the least efficient and most often ignored component when we try to go green. The reason being is we don't often get to specify power supplies; they are not add-ons. Power supplies, which convert power from a higher to a lower voltage (and from AC to DC) are notoriously inefficient. There exists a performance specification for power supplies called 80 PLUS, which promotes and certifies efficient power supplies for computers and servers. If you can buy 80 PLUS (http://www.80plus.org) certified systems. Energy Star (http://www.energystar.gov) is a government initiative that already has gone a long way in forcing computer manufacturers to produce more energy-efficient systems and components. Hopefully all the monitors in your organization carry the Energy Star sticker (and also are high-efficiency LCD monitors).

Processors are massively energy inefficient. Just take a look at the heat sinks and cooling fans they demand and you just know they are burning watts. I have used some laptops that I can't even place on my lap because they are too darn hot. There exist technologies that allow processors to lower voltages and cycle down during periods of lesser use. Storage systems are costly in terms of energy–all those little motors and spinning disks consume lots of energy. But these are only a small part of the problem.

The major issue is that a lot of the servers in most of our data centers are sitting there doing absolutely nothing but generating heat and sucking wind. This also from InfoWorld: "A study by McKinsey found that among a total of 458 servers at four production datacenters, 32 percent (146 in all) were running at or below three percent peak and average utilization. These types of zombie servers are prime candidates for unplugging to free up space and power and reduce cooling needs."

Computer hardware has become inexpensive enough that we tend to solve a problem by throwing more hardware at it. I routinely see server farms running with barely a load on any server. Is it really necessary to keep six front-end Web servers running all the time? Probably not, but we design for peak load and then run the farm as though we are running at peak load all the time. The fact is for most organizations we don't deal with the macro problems (like too many servers running). It is easier to deal with the micro problems and buy energy-efficient servers and monitors. In essence we are saying that it is not our problem–let the manufacturers deal with it. That way of thinking is like driving a Hummer and then going 20 miles out of your way to buy gas at the discount station. Certainly we should use only energy-efficient equipment, but I warrant there are ways to become green that we aren't willing to face up to.

As we are in the midst of a great recession one would expect companies would find new ways to be more efficient by encouraging telecommuting. I am certainly more energy efficient working from my home office than I am driving into the office and adding to the energy footprint there.

I am saving myself and my employer resources and money by staying put. And yet I see employers making the opposite decision. The rationale apparently being that since times are bad everyone needs to be on site–for reasons I am unable to fathom.

Companies that encourage work from home and telecommuting achieve great savings in real estate and office costs. And that doesn't even consider the benefits accrued through a happy work force–or the reduction in energy costs.

There are hundreds of things–both large and small–that every organization can do to become greener. Start with the obvious–reduce printing costs. Print double sides, get rid of color printers, encourage the printing of multiple pages per side. Purchase only energy-efficient equipment. Establish policies regarding turning off or putting to sleep assets that aren't in use. Do an inventory of your data center and eliminate (or turn off) any unnecessary equipment.

But don't stop there. Take a look at the big picture. Seriously consider telecommuting, eliminate offices or cubes in favor of hotel spaces. Know that green does not just mean green for your firm, it means green for assets and resources outside the corporate environment. Green is an initiative that goes beyond the bottom line. It is after all an initiative to improve the quality of life for everyone, everywhere, one step at a time. Don't think micro–like that green e-mail signature. Think macro–make a difference.