It’s great, except that “green” doesn’t mean anything. At least “organic” has a reasonable definition built around actual farming practices. Green is just a general concept about being good to the environment.

At the moment for Green IT, green can mean whatever you want to mean. Some IT manufacturers even claim to have “certified” green products. But until they have managed to design closed-loop, cradle-to-cradle products that run off 100% renewable energy and are built in non-polluting, carbon-neutral factories, put that claim in the same category as green cars and green flights.

What does have a commonly accepted definition is sustainability. The Bruntland Commission defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

While that’s still a little vague, it’s a definition that’s been generally accepted around the world and can actually be used as a starting point for developing measurable standards. The problem with thinking in vague “green” terms, and not about sustainability, is it that it leads people to make choices that don’t actually deliver a net environmental benefit, and in fact, may make things worse.

Take for example the now generally accepted principle that it’s better to buy everybody a laptop instead of a desktop PC because laptops use less power. Well, unless complete mobility is a necessity, a virtualized thin client will use less electricity than a laptop. Besides that, a laptop may not even be better for the planet just because it consumes less electricity when in use.

Research shows that 65%-80% of the carbon footprint of a computer is created in manufacturing and distribution, not use. Laptops don’t generally last as long as desktop machines (which have shorter lives than thin clients) and so may actually end up with a larger eco-footprint than a desktop. If carbon footprint reduction is your goal, buying an energy efficient desktop machine and turning it off whenever it’s not in use may be the best answer. Keeping an existing machine in service is an even better answer for reducing carbon footprint.

On top of all this, in the real world, laptops end up acting like desktops. Ergonomics and utility general require that “laptop-only” users need a full-size display, keyboard and mouse for use at their desk. While all together this kit may consume less power during active use than even an efficient, properly-managed desktop machine, it certainly reduces the advantage of the laptop in direct power consumption.

This example is not to suggest that choosing a laptop over a desktop computer is a mistake. Where mobility for people is enabled, the potential benefits in re-thinking buildings and workplace design to reduce the amount of space we need can overwhelm any consideration of laptop vs. desktop. It can also make people more productive. What I am suggesting is that simplistic solutions to complex problems may actually be counterproductive. Good decisions require data, analysis, and a life-cycle approach for sustainability, not just a desire to be “green”.

Richard Hodges is the Founder and CEO of GreenIT, the first consultancy to incorporate the impact on the environment into a systemic and strategic approach to sustainability for Information and Communications Technology.