green hosting debate

[squinky86]

Well, I'm probably going to take a lot of flack for this, but one thing that almost made me stay away from WHB was that it is "carbon neutral" or "green." From the announcement, WHB is supporting a tree-planting effort. I would like clarification on a few points:

1. If the trees are going to be used for manufacturing wood-based products, will this tree-planting effort provide their trees for free, or for a fee to those that need the wood?
2. If the trees are going to be chopped down as soon as they reach a decent level of maturity, how much good is it really doing?
3. If the trees are planted in Kenya (as per the announcement), wouldn't the light absorbed by the trees cause a greater warming to the local environment than cooling caused by the conversion of carbon gasses? (see albedo effect)

For those of us who are greatly skeptical of this whole carbon offsetting and global warming fad, will WHB offer a "regular" hosting option, where we let them keep the profits, or is carbon offsetting of our accounts required? I went ahead and created an account because the value can't be beat, and because I read the aforementioned announcement as if it was a not-for-profit tree-planting effort to provide some underprivileged communities with free wood (which I would be more apt to support).

What are your thoughts on WHB's carbon offsetting? Please vote in the poll.

EDIT: I did not vote in the poll, because my answer to the question is a clear and profound: "I don't know anymore."

[Matt R.]

Interesting post. In answer to your questions.

1) The wood is traded with local businesses for a low fee. Our contribution boosts local business.
2) The trees are left to mature properly and a set, small quota is allowed to be deforested.
3) Honestly, my science is weak on this area. I am not familiar with this effect.

We do not offer any "non-green" plans. While I understand the skepticism about global warming and whether it is a natural reoccuring climate change cycle (I personally believe it is the latter but we are helping accelerate it), we do feel we are doing a good deed in helping slow down this phenonomen and helping provide employment in the developing world.

[squinky86]

Matt,
For your answers in numbers 1 and 2 alone, you certainly have my support, and I think it's a point that hasn't been hammered home enough. People see "green hosting" or "carbon offset hosting" and think "environment." I think it would be good from a marketing standpoint to explain the humanitarian effort going into this charity, also.

I may not be speaking for the majority, but if I were choosing between two hosts that were basically similar, and one supported a predominantly environmental charity (where the focus is more on the environment than the people) while the other supported more of a humanitarian charity (where the focus is on the people, but action is performed in an environmentally cautious way), I would buy service from the later host.

Again, I may be speaking for the minority; that's why I have the poll up. Hopefully we'll get some new participants who can let me know if I'm way off base here.

[eob]

I think it's an incredibly clever move on behalf of WHB and it makes sense from a purely business point of view even if the science behind it is a lil shakey (it's not in my view, but some people feel it is ). One of the big hosts in Ireland domestically went aggressively after a cloud computing model, invested in low-consumption servers, and modified their datacentres where the waste heat was recycled to heat other buildings and from talking to the CEO.. it's been a huge success. Clients reselling their hosting solutions or clients with servers and virtualisation based with them actively use the 'green' moniker in reselling their services for PR.

[Matt R.]

Matt,
For your answers in numbers 1 and 2 alone, you certainly have my support, and I think it's a point that hasn't been hammered home enough. People see "green hosting" or "carbon offset hosting" and think "environment." I think it would be good from a marketing standpoint to explain the humanitarian effort going into this charity, also.

I may not be speaking for the majority, but if I were choosing between two hosts that were basically similar, and one supported a predominantly environmental charity (where the focus is more on the environment than the people) while the other supported more of a humanitarian charity (where the focus is on the people, but action is performed in an environmentally cautious way), I would buy service from the later host.

Again, I may be speaking for the minority; that's why I have the poll up. Hopefully we'll get some new participants who can let me know if I'm way off base here.

I 110% agree. We are a business after all and businesses generally have an objective of profits. We do. But if we can help the environment and if we can help the developing world, we very much want to. We run ourselves as a human company and we enjoy helping good causes such as this.

We are improving our green hosting page on the site this week. If you have other suggestions, we're very open to these.

[omniuni]

The whole "green hosting" is great. I would always go with a green host. What I like is that WHB isn't just "green" they know what they're doing to be green and they're working with an actual group. There are plenty of "carbon neutral" hosts, but I like that WHB actively shows what group they're working with. As for the poll, I think points one and two are a bit.... similar? It's a toss-up which to choose, or which is a closer match.

[squinky86]

As for the poll, I think points one and two are a bit.... similar? It's a toss-up which to choose, or which is a closer match.

Of course I understand that some people will fall into more than one category. My intention for the poll is to determine whether your support (or non-support) of WHB's sponsored charity is based mostly on environmental or humanitarian reasons.

Conclusion: vote for the one that motivates you the most.