HEXUS.lifestyle editor
Bob Crabtree puts aside his green-tinted eyeshades and goes
green all over to applaud VIA's attempts to promote the use of
low-energy computers, even as he criticises the choice of
wording and the confusion that may result.
The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, was the highly-appropriate
setting yesterday for a media event promoting VIA's world-wide
computing initiative to reduce carbon dioxide (CO
2)
emissions.
At the event, two UK-produced low-energy PCs
were introduced. One, the Carbon 3, is from
Evesham Technology
and due in the coming months; the other, actually a range of
models, is from quiet-system-specialist
Tranquil PC
and has been available for a little while.
Rather less appropriately, both PCs, like the initiative, carry the
confusing and virtually meaningless label, "Carbon Free".
From that, it's all too easy to infer that VIA and
its partners have cut out all the carbon within PCs - as though carbon
were somehow an environmental poison, like lead or cadmium, which, of
course, it's not.
What VIA is actually doing is making an effort to tackle one
significant cause of global warming - the excessive energy used by
personal computers. In addition, it's running various
environment-improvement schemes, most notably tree-planting, some of
which are only at very early stages.
The thinking about trees is that, as they photosynthesise, they take
in CO
2 and give off oxygen.
VIA's idea, more or less, is to plant sufficient trees for each
processor to cancel out the CO
2
that would be created by the production of the electricity required to
run that CPU for its useful life. Perhaps a little surprisingly,
though, that life VIA estimates as being only three years.
The same strategy of using trees and other environment-improvement
schemes as CO
2-offsets is being applied
by VIA to motherboard chipsets and graphic processors.
It's also integral to the certification of Evesham and
Tranquil PCs as being Carbon Free computers - a process that VIA,
rather than any independent body, carries out.
There are, of course, commercial reasons for VIA's apparent altruism
and for its tree-huggin. The company specialises in making CPUs and
chippery with far lower power consumption than its competitors'
products. Consequently, telling the world about it should boost sales.
That boost might be doubly helpful given that these low-power parts can
have a practical downside that leaves VIA at a commercial disadvantage.
As most HEXUS readers will be more than aware, VIA's products are often
out-performed by competitors' more power-hungry parts.
This performance disadvantage may not be noticeable or relevant in the
every-day use of PCs for office and internet applications but it's
likely to be holding back sales in some sectors - with no valid reason.
A business, organisation or government department running lots of PCs -
whether 100, 1,000 or 100,000 - can instantly see the economic returns
of switching to lower-powered machines.
For home users with just one or two PCs, the saving is not so great and
the need less obvious.
But even if these home users never require the grunt that more
power-hungry machines can deliver, they'll find that hard to believe
all the while they're loudly - and frequently - being, in effect, told
otherwise by the many companies aiming to sell them the latest and
greatest (and in many cases quite unnecessary) speed-demon,
power-hungry PCs.
The very fact that VIA is pushing the advantages of its own technology
- technology that could be described as technically inferior - may lead
cynics to say that it is only using environmental issues for
self-promotion, profit and as a cover-up.
That's going to leave the company open to criticism - principally by
competitors who may feel duty-bound to take a sceptical stance. Such
competitors are also well placed - and possibly sufficiently motivated
- to undermine Carbon Free by claiming that it is an attempt to mislead
buyers.
They and other cynics will be able to point out that VIA gives no
consideration at all to one very relevant and massive cause
of CO
2 production with PCs - the energy
used in manufacturing CPUs, chipsets and all the other many components,
active and passive.
And at this early stage, VIA isn't doing much to help itself. When the
subject was raised at its Kew briefing, the company rather reluctantly
admitted that it did, indeed, need to factor manufacturing into the
equation if it is to tell a more complete and accurate environmental
story - and then it had to concede that this is something that's not
going to be happening in the near future.
Competitors who chose to carp about VIA's lack of totally joined-up
thinking, though, do leave themselves open to criticism that the energy
consumed by their own production methods also leads to excessive
emissions of CO
2.
Even so, that danger still might not prevent them from claiming that
Carbon Free isn't just confusing and misleading but verging on the
fraudulent.
We take a very different position even while accepting that VIA is
primarily pushing the benefits of its own technology and hasn't thought
things through quite as well as we'd have hoped.
We'd point out that the same apparently self-serving use of
environmental issues could be used as a stick to beat makers of
wind-farm equipment, solar-energy panels and a whole swathe of other
environment-enhancing products.
Rather more significantly, the same is true for many
manufacturers outside the fields of computing and environmental
protection but still, in our view, isn't necessarily cause for
criticism.
Fridge makers, for instance, have completely eliminated the use of CFCs
and also greatly reduced the power consumption of their big white
boxes. Dishwasher makers - often the same companies, it's true - now
turn out machines that use less detergent, energy and water than even
before.
Similarly, there are carmakers who strive to produce vehicles with very
low fuel consumption or that are powered by alternatives to petrol and
diesel. Many other types of company also seek to benefit
from taking the lead in the development of products that are
environmentally-friendly or, at least, less harmful than they would
otherwise be.
Some of these changes may have been driven by legislation - actual or
impending - and, often, we've had Germany to thank for much of the
pressure that's been applied.
But the firms that are first to implement these changes do tend to grow
taller in the eyes of consumer who are aware of environmental issues
and, maybe more importantly, in the eyes of some big institutional
investors, such as pension funds, whose remit is to operate in ethical
ways.
More important than either is that these changes benefit us all.
VIA could also be criticised for promoting CO
2-offsets.
After all, it is going to be far cheaper for VIA to implement such
schemes than for competitors because, typically, the competitors' CPUs,
chippery and GPUs use far more electricity and would require far larger
offsets.
But that is the very point that must be borne in mind - competitors'
products do use far more electricity.
And that means they cause the emission of far more CO
2!
We believe that what VIA is doing should be welcomed, despite any and
all shortcoming of the Carbon Free banner and the fact that the
manufacturing side is not yet integral to the story it's trying to tell
about environmental impact.
The company has come up with a very worthwhile way of publicising the
need to reduce the energy used by computers across the world.
That, hopefully, will not be ridiculed by the media, nor cause
competitors to pour scorn.
Instead, we hope that all of VIA's rivals react responsibly by looking
closely at the energy consumption of their products and trying to
reduce it as far as possible.
And remember - as if you could forget - that a whole mass of evidence
points to the fact that excessive emissions of carbon dioxide have
caused and continue to cause global warming, with much of
the CO
2 the result of fossil fuels
burnt to generate electricity.
This warming is leading to profound climate changes that are thought
likely to have already produced a significant increase in environmental
disasters, such as flooding and landslides in some places and droughts
in others.
But far more catastrophic consequences for the planet we all live on
are being forecast if we don't rapidly and significantly
reduce CO
2 emissions worldwide. Some
may happen in our lifetimes but others, more certainly, will take place
in our children's.
We don't expect you or anyone else to look at what VIA's doing through
rose-tinted spectacles - there are valid criticisms that can and should
be made and more of them than we've highlighted.
But we would hope that you'd take seriously the excessive power
consumption of PCs and stand up to debate the issues with cynics and
any self-servers who unreasonably dismiss VIA's initiatives.
We'd really like to think that your doing so may not even be
necessary, although that would mean VIA's competitors had reacted in a
positive way that benefits the planet. That, however, would
have required them to come to the realisation that such a
reaction is appropriate for a sound business reason - it's the
one most likely to maximise the long-term return to their shareholders.
Reasonable or rubbish? Check out VIA's own press release and
investigate the key links that tell you more about its initiative, then
share your thoughts with us in
this
thread in the HEXUS.news forum.
HEXUS.links
HEXUS.community
::
discussion
thread about this article
HEXUS.pressreleases
::
VIA
and UK System Partners Launch World's First Carbon Free Personal
Computers
External.links
Evesham Technology -
home page
Tranquil PC -
buying
page
HEXUS.community :: your right2reply
I have a feeling this topic would make a good Hexus article.Quote
lets be honest at least via are doing something towards the enviroment.
Via is doing something for their bottom line, which happens to intersect with enviromental protection. I'm not saying enviriomentaly friendly (less unfriendly) computers are a bad thing, just that Via doesn't care about the enviroment, it just happens to insersect their path.
I definitly agree with that the Power/W imporovements are great, and seconded on the GPU efficency. Hopefully we can go back to the good old days when computers were next to silent since they didn't have a bunch of heating elements in them.Quote
Companies are money making machines, thats what they do. Especially if they are publicly traded companies. Companies that are moved to produce more socially and environmentally responsible products because it is better for their bottom line is far better than being forced to by legislation (as this means extra expense for the government to impliment).Quote
While reducing power consuption is clearly a good thing VIA's ideas is complete marketing BS. If they really cared about the enviroment they would try to find more envirometnaly friendly ways to manufacture chips (a process which uses a list of chemicals that looks like a who's-who of toxicity). I think for any enviromental change to be successful it needs to come from the people not from the selfish corporations who will make up any stunt they think will help sales, be it empahzing raw clock speed or low power usage. Personally I think rules like RoHS are more effictive since they are made by people who don't have a financial interest in selling hazardous substances(at least in theory).
My thoughts exactily. This obsession with Carbon our society cuerrently has is BS.Quote
Reply