Is IT sustainability just a lot of greenwash?
Image via Wikipedia
It’s powered by renewable energy sources from Scottish and Southern Energy’s dedicated bio-mass plant built right next door to the data centre. The plant burns wood chips, waste paper and fiber fuel to create electricity, hot water and steam. Converted from a former warehouse on the Slough Trading Estate, the facility is quite large at 55,000 square feet.
Rackspace was one of the UK’s first web hosts to offer carbon neutral hosting. In 2006, the company planted trees through its relationship with tree planting charity, the International Tree Foundation. The web host has planted more than 2,500 trees to date, offsetting the carbon emitted through running servers.
People I know in the business say that claims like these are just ‘green washing’ and are more about marketing than they are about saving the planet. But building a wood-powered data centre has to count as an honest commitment to making computing more sustainable, in my book.
Click here to read the rest of this Tech Talk column.
Filed under: Tech Talk
Subscribe to our feed
Subscribe by Email
It’s great that Rackspace is helping the environment. More companies should concentrate on that type of “green.”
Agreed Charlie, but it’s a huge capital investment. Not many companies will be willing.
Rackspace can afford to go green. Their hosting fees are 10 times more than some more competitive, equivelant packages.
But they are good, apart from the ridiculous and stupid chat window that pops up whenever you go to their website. I hate aggressive web sites, particularly when the company is so good - it leaves me in some sort of consumer/usability paradox.
More companies should go green, but as most hosts are actually “virtual” and themselves rent space from the “backbone”, only the top-tier net companies can actually have the capability let alone capital, to go green in this way.
Nathan, I find the concept of an ‘aggressive website’ fascinating. Please do explain what this means.
Well I did write a longer explanation of what I believe aggressive web sites are, but when I submitted it, it just disappeared. (No errors, or nothing). So, you’ll have to excuse me if this is the abridged version (and I’ll Ctrl+C it beforehand this time)
I see aggressive web sites being sites that have pop-ups, have competing channels of information that are ill-controlled or thought through and which violate your privacy.
In the case of Rackspace, for example. Popping up chat windows when you are on the site. If I want to engage in a sales conversation, I know the various channels to use - indeed, I am on one of them so leave me alone and let me look around! I walk away from these companies. Same goes for companies that pop up “survey” requests when I visit pages. I don;t mind filling surveys, but not if they disturb my experience.
Popups in general are increasingly (finally) being seen as bad practice and rude. They violate the “web-etiquette” that is developing around accessibility and usability.
Other aggression is in sites where multiple channels of content compete. For instance, the old MotoGP and movies, sound and banners all playing when you went to the home page. Result was a barrage which was difficult to use and absorb.
Finally, those silly banner ads that “escape” from their allocated space on the page. There is an Orange ad on Yahoo! UK & Ireland at the moment that “leaks” and runs around the page.
Flash has a lot to answer for with these sites, but let’s not go there.