Software, telecommunications and computers play an enormous role in greening up business, first and foremost by allowing us to monitor and track the performance of renewables and conservation efforts, and how we access and manage energy on the grid, within industry, and in homes and businesses. Such technologies specifically designed to be enablers of greener products or processes could, on their own, earn the label of being green. But is a more efficient computer (or appliance for that matter), or the use of IT to replace what is otherwise an energy-intensive task, also worthy of a green label? If you compare how we treat vehicles, the answer would appear yes. We label hybrid cars, electric cars, and small vehicles like the Smart Car green because of their reduced environmental footprint, so why shouldn’t we label a data centre green or an individual computer server technology green because of their dramatically reduced use of electricity?

My only problem with this is that cars, appliances, and computers naturally get efficient over time. An Energy Star appliance today could be deemed an energy hog 10 years from now. It’s a constantly moving target, so calling a computing product or car green is, I suppose, relative to some kind of industry average at a given point in time. Same goes for lighting — will CFLs be considered energy efficient when LEDs become mainstream? Perhaps it’s impossible to come up with a clear, objective definition of “green.” Green is in the eye of the beholder, a subjective label that might be obvious to some and considered greenwashing to others.

On Wednesday Cisco chief executive John Chambers will be joined by Al Gore on a “telepresence” system (a fancy videoconferencing system) that will be broadcast live at a trade show in Orlando, Florida. Chambers and Gore will argue in front of an audience that such technology is green because you can hold in-person meetings without having to travel by jet or train or automobile — in other words, without creating a carbon footprint. I suppose this is true, but videoconferencing no matter how fancy isn’t anything new. It was proposed as an ideal solution during the SARS infection outbreak in Toronto as a way to conduct business without catching diseases; it was proposed as a way to avoid being on a hi-jacked plane after Sept. 11; and it’s been proposed as a way to keep the world running if a bird flu pandemic strikes. It gets reinvented, recast depending on the crisis of the day. In fact, Chambers has been making the same argument lately for most things IT. So, is it green? If so, should we call the telephone, or e-mail, or the Internet green?

It’s not entirely clear to me where the line should be drawn. Perhaps the marketplace will be the ultimate judge, and the public either accepts the green talk of a company like Cisco or rejects it as greenwashing. It’s a risk any company faces when it tries to take something that exists and market it as green, for no other reason than because it can and nobody calls them on it.

For the record, I’m a big supporter of using any technology to improve efficiency and reduce the need to travel. In fact, it would be interesting to see a study that tries to estimate how much greenhouse gas emissions we have avoided by moving to a networked world. The question is whether we can properly call it green.

My Clean Break column today takes a look at the wisdom of completely banning incandescent light bulbs to promote the use of compact fluorescent lights and LEDs, particularly in the kind of colder climates we see in Canada and northern parts of the United States. Nobody disputes the superior efficiency of CFLs and LEDs, but what we often forget is that the heat lost from older incandescent bulbs actually contributes to the heating requirements of homes during the winter. The question then becomes: Are we releasing more greenhouse gas emissions by using more fossil-fuelled heating to make up for the heat that we’re not getting from CFLs and LEDs? The answer, as you’ll read, isn’t so clear cut. If you’re in a state or province that relies heavily on fossil fuels for electricity generation, then it may make more sense to use more efficient lighting year round. But if you’re in a state or province that uses more emission-free hydroelectric power and nuclear power, then it might make sense to keep on using that Edison-style bulb during the winter.

It may be that in certain regions of North America we need to treat lighting like we treat car tires. Just as we switch to snow tires during the winter, we might want to consider switching to incandescent bulbs in the winter and back to CFLs or LEDs during the warmer months when we don’t want the heat loss from old bulbs contributing to our air conditioning needs.

Based on this perspective, it might be wise to question whether an all-out ban on Edison-style bulbs makes sense.

My Clean Break column today takes a look at the wisdom of completely banning incandescent light bulbs to promote the use of compact fluorescent lights and LEDs, particularly in the kind of colder climates we see in Canada and northern parts of the United States. Nobody disputes the superior efficiency of CFLs and LEDs, but what we often forget is that the heat lost from older incandescent bulbs actually contributes to the heating requirements of homes during the winter. The question then becomes: Are we releasing more greenhouse gas emissions by using more fossil-fuelled heating to make up for the heat that we’re not getting from CFLs and LEDs? The answer, as you’ll read, isn’t so clear cut. If you’re in a state or province that relies heavily on fossil fuels for electricity generation, then it may make more sense to use more efficient lighting year round. But if you’re in a state or province that uses more emission-free hydroelectric power and nuclear power, then it might make sense to keep on using that Edison-style bulb during the winter.

It may be that in certain regions of North America we need to treat lighting like we treat car tires. Just as we switch to snow tires during the winter, we might want to consider switching to incandescent bulbs in the winter and back to CFLs or LEDs during the warmer months when we don’t want the heat loss from old bulbs contributing to our air conditioning needs.

Based on this perspective, it might be wise to question whether an all-out ban on Edison-style bulbs makes sense.

Canada’s Competition Bureau, the federal body that polices anti-competitive behaviour and misleading advertising, is expanding its mission to the world of greenwashing. The agency is reportedly getting ready to crack down on companies that make “green” product and service claims that aren’t backed up by the facts. It’s also releasing industry guidelines that were developed alongside the Canadian Standards Association. The guidelines will define what can be called “recyclable” and will require that any green claim made by a company be backed up with hard data. According to the Globe and Mail, “Under the new guidelines, companies won’t be allowed to make vague or non-specific claims about their products. They’ll also be restricted from calling a product as ‘free’ of a particular chemical or compound if that substance was never used in the first place.”

This could prove a valuable exercise for consumers, which want assurances they’re not being misled by marketing spin. Many companies have jumped on the green bandwagon by simply repurposing existing product so they appear as “green.” There was bound to be a backlash, as I pointed out in my beginning-of-the-year predictions for 2008. It’s unclear how the Competition Bureau will go about enforcing these rules, but it will certainly inject a bit of “green chill” during brainstorming sessions at advertising and marketing firms.

Canada’s Competition Bureau, the federal body that polices anti-competitive behaviour and misleading advertising, is expanding its mission to the world of greenwashing. The agency is reportedly getting ready to crack down on companies that make “green” product and service claims that aren’t backed up by the facts. It’s also releasing industry guidelines that were developed alongside the Canadian Standards Association. The guidelines will define what can be called “recyclable” and will require that any green claim made by a company be backed up with hard data. According to the Globe and Mail, “Under the new guidelines, companies won’t be allowed to make vague or non-specific claims about their products. They’ll also be restricted from calling a product as ‘free’ of a particular chemical or compound if that substance was never used in the first place.”

This could prove a valuable exercise for consumers, which want assurances they’re not being misled by marketing spin. Many companies have jumped on the green bandwagon by simply repurposing existing product so they appear as “green.” There was bound to be a backlash, as I pointed out in my beginning-of-the-year predictions for 2008. It’s unclear how the Competition Bureau will go about enforcing these rules, but it will certainly inject a bit of “green chill” during brainstorming sessions at advertising and marketing firms.