Sustainability hits the Super Bowl

Reading about GE’s intent to launch its Smart Grid campaign with a 30-second Super Bowl spot, I was struck at how far we’ve come since the sock puppet. It’s exhilarating to see how rapidly sustainability is entering the mainstream consciousness, whether on a personal level (the avalanche of how-to books helping people live greener lives) or on the national stage (President Obama’s order that the EPA reconsider California’s request to set tougher auto-emissions standards).

When the NFL does its best to mitigate the environmental impacts of the Super Bowl, when coveted ad space is purchased by companies pushing energy efficiency—it’s hard not to feel like we’re (finally!) on the right track.

Go Steelers!

I wasn’t particularly surprised to come across this article talking about the sharp decline in green marketing spend in the latter half of 2008. With brands—sustainable or not—jumping on the “green” bandwagon in late 2007 and early 2008, the fever-pitch of claims and counter-claims was bound to hit a wall.

Companies that blindly assumed consumers would purchase anything that proclaimed “green!” “natural!” “organic!” “earth-friendly!” are now gaining a first-hand education in the principle that Andrew Winston and Dan Esty introduced in their book, “Green to Gold”: that environmental features are the third or fourth characteristic that consumers pay attention to when making purchasing decisions.

Price, quality, value—these all take precedence, leaving “green” to serve a tie-breaking function, especially in today’s grim economic climate. I wonder if “regular” (not LOHAS) consumers are looking at green claims more closely when at the store shelf, and asking themselves whether what’s written on the packaging is credible (or just greenwashing), and whether it justifies that additional 50 cents, dollar, or more. Unless that claim can translate into additional cost savings or greater efficiency (think CFLs), it’s likely that the lower-cost option is winning out.

In my opinion, companies that have invested in systemic sustainability integration are vastly better-positioned that those who invested only in sustainability marketing and PR, from both a credibility and an operational perspective. When your facility is using 30 percent less water and energy to manufacture products, when your employees are fiercely loyal and willing to give 110 percent because of the stellar work environment you provide, when investors can read about your detailed strategy to address the impacts of climate change on your operations in your latest Carbon Disclosure Project submission; that competitive edge—and not necessarily a lofty and potentially unsupported claim on a product label—is what will really help your bottom line.

For those who missed the recent controversy over the carbon emissions of a Google search, here is a brief recap…

Act I: Breaking news

On January 11, 2009, the Sunday Times of London published a provocative story, in which it claims that “Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate the same amount of carbon dioxide (15 grams) as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea.” The paper attributes this finding to Physicist Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University researcher, who will soon release a comprehensive study on the environmental impacts of computing. Needless to say, 7.5 grams of CO₂ per search multiplied by the number of searches conducted globally would add up rather quickly!

 Act II: Google’s response

Google—perhaps understandably—did not take kindly to the Times’ article. Urs Hölze, Google’s Senior Vice President of Operations, responded on the company’s blog later in the day. Contrary to the initial report, he contends, “One Google search is equivalent to about 0.2 grams of CO₂.” By comparison, he continues, “The average car driven for one kilometer produces as many greenhouse gas emissions as a thousand Google searches.” All that is to say the energy consumed by a single search is relatively minimal.

Act III: The resolution?

Tech News World returned to the original source for clarification. Wissner-Gross, the aforementioned Harvard researcher, discredited the Times’ story, indicating that he had been misquoted. While a Google search does have an environmental impact, he explained, “Our work has nothing to do with Google. Our focus was exclusively on the Web overall, and we found that it takes an average 20 milligrams of CO₂ per second to visit a Web site… I have no idea where they got those statistics [involving tea kettles].”

This back-and-forth is thought-provoking for a number of reasons. It raises questions about journalistic integrity, greenwashing, and scientific methodologies, not to mention the amount of carbon that we use daily while computing at work and home. The truth is that in spite of the internet—perhaps even because of it—we are left with many more questions than answers, at least for the time being.

I find myself keep coming back to one question in particular. Suppose that one Google search only emits the equivalent of 0.2 grams of CO₂, as the company suggests. Does that figure reflect the energy used only to execute the search command or does it also reflect the energy spent receiving and viewing the results of said search?

Of course, I don’t know the answer, but it seems that Google’s figure accounts only for the search command itself. Suppose that, as Wissner-Gross claims, it takes an average 20 milligrams (0.02 grams) of CO₂ per second to visit a Web site. If Google is accounting for both emissions from the search and the results, it would imply that the entire process is completed in 10 seconds on average. (If anyone from Google is reading this, please correct me if I am wrong).

This seems highly unlikely, especially when I am sitting behind the keyboard. So this begs the question: how useful are internet searches without answers? In my opinion, not very. The same is true, I’m afraid, of statistics measuring carbon emissions from internet searches, when the emissions from search results are not reflected.

By no means am I defending the Times, nor am I trying to single out Google.  They have already received enough attention for the week. I do, however, think this is a very important issue that deserves our attention. In a sense, that is the silver lining of this whole exchange—more people will take notice of the impacts of their computing habits. It is widely accepted that the environmental impacts of computing are considerable and growing. Estimates for the number of internet searches conducted daily range in the hundreds of millions. A study released in 2008 found that online consumers spend on average 32.7 hours/week using the internet. Wow!

So, at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter how much carbon is emitted by search engines like Google. What matters, to me at least, is that companies, industries, and society are working to reduce the environmental impacts of computing from the current levels.

Here’s to asking lots more questions, and, hopefully, finding a few answers as well.

In this age of transparency, communicating sustainability progress to your stakeholders, including customers, investors, and employees, is your gateway to earning credibility, building trust, and, ultimately, enhancing brand value.

 Industry leaders have embraced reporting to maximize their investment in sustainability strategy and initiatives. By establishing a robust reporting process, including two‐way stakeholder communication, you can capture these benefits and zero in on the priorities crucial to your core business strategy.

 You’ll learn about:

• Current reporting trends
• Stakeholder expectations
• Best practices from industry leaders
• Reporting “must-do’s” to achieve credibility

PRESENTER: Aleksandra Dobkowski-Joy, Principal at Framework:CR
DATE: January 16, 2009
TIME: 1:00-2:30PM (EST) 
REGISTRATION AND FEES: Via the course brochure or register@altamont-group.com