The introduction of “cloud” computing seem to be forcing mass modernization of IT infrastructure. The scale of required demand for computing power surely requires fundamental re-evaluation of assets, methods, and practices which have been developed and deployed during last two decades. “Down on the server farm”, the article published by The Economist, explores economical, political, and security factors involved in planning process.

As servers become more numerous, powerful and densely packed, more energy is needed to keep the data centres at room temperature. Often just as much power is needed for cooling as for computing. The largest data centres now rival aluminium smelters in the energy they consume. Microsoft’s $500m new facility near Chicago, for instance, will need three electrical substations with a total capacity of 198 megawatts.

And we thought the herds of cows generating methane should be blamed for global warming! I wonder if anybody studied a positive impact of IT on re-forestation? With Internet news and advertising replacing newsprint consumption, on-line shopping reduces driving, etc there should be enough evidence to start balancing an impact of progress and present rational analysis of what is going on.

It is interesting to see how the industry based on “disruptive innovation” seem to embrace the challenge because it realizes profit opportunities associated with it. This quote is from “Buy our stuff, save the planet” article published in the same issue of the Economist.

It is easy to be cynical about all this. However energy-efficient computers become, the bigger task will be to generate electricity using technologies that do not emit carbon dioxide. Yet this is one case when market forces and environmentalism align. A cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax, of course, would make such alignments more commonplace. But even without putting a price on carbon, there are already plenty of examples, as in computing, where adopting more efficient technology would both save money and help the environment.

Greenery does not have to be motivated by altruism; and it is far more likely to be effective when it is not. If it helps to reduce carbon-emissions, self-serving greenery is as good as any other kind. The planet cannot tell the difference.

It is a refreshing change in attitude compared to one displayed by traditional industries and governments - “deny until you blue in the face and it will go away”. Perhaps they can benefit from more competition and less regulation, because we badly need some disruption for much more decaying infrastructure outside of IT.