'Green' technology can't save us from ourselves

So much for the rhetoric...

Technology can be many things - often frustrating, frequently ingenious, occasionally revolutionary.

But it's certainly not rare to see big claims made on its behalf, whether it's the apparent cost savings to be gained by installing a shiny new IT system, or less fiduciary savings - such as saving the planet from the environmentally damaging effects of human activity.

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

Indeed, when it comes to climate change, many people seem prepared to believe we can engineer our way out of catastrophe - whether it's by developing sophisticated carbon capture and storage techniques, or ramping up nuclear power production, or investing in technologies to harness renewable energy. A truckload of faith is being placed in technology.

But it's worth remembering that technology is a product of human ingenuity - and ingenuity doesn't stop when the tech starts.

Take the rhetoric around videoconferencing. It's now commonly held that this is a 'green technology'. Why? Because it can stand-in for face-to-face meetings and therefore - so the logic goes - cut down on corporate travel and reduce CO2 emissions.

These claims are most commonly made for expensive, high end videoconferencing systems - such as Cisco's TelePresence or HP's Halo - where the tech does everything it can to make you feel as if you are just across the table from your colleagues, even if they are thousands of miles away in your Asian HQ.

And it's a seductive rhetoric: a technology that's good for businesses and the planet.

But just this week a very different story emerged from the experiences of two multinational companies who put their faith in videoconferencing.

Speaking at Gartner's Enterprise Networking & Communications Summit, London-based media company Pearson - which has been using a telepresence system since 2001 - explained that, yes, videoconferencing has allowed its senior execs to reduce trips to their New York office. But this has then freed them up to travel more strategically - to places such as Asia - in order to expand the business. So Pearson's air miles have at best stayed the same.

Meanwhile, energy company E.ON UK - which has been ramping up videoconferencing to cut travel as part of a series of initiatives directly aimed at shrinking its carbon footprint - found its air miles actually increased last year despite these efforts. Why? Because it is being increasingly encouraged to participate internationally, in E.ON group-wide initiatives.

In other words, better comms technology does not automatically equal reduced corporate travel. In fact it may actually encourage more travel. (And none of this takes into account the extra resources required to power such high end system.)

So much for the rhetoric.

But then as technology erodes the sense of distance between colleagues, offices, countries, it's foolish to believe businesses are going to see this as an opportunity to stay at home. After all, expansion is the order of the day in the corporate world - companies don't talk about their plans for 'staying the same size'.

So let's not delude ourselves. Technology is not going to save the environment: it's what individuals and businesses do after it has been switched on that will make the difference.