Like many of us, I rely on the computer and internet for work and, increasingly, for pleasure. Switching it off is not really an option.

Yet, I am also concerned by the fact that the IT industry is a growing contributor to the world’s greenhouse emissions. I am trying to do my part – cutting back my usage (curbing my addiction) and not indulging my love of gadgets by upgrading to the shiniest new toys as soon as they become available.

Now I have found another solution. Click 4 Carbon is a for-profit business based in the UK that aims to raise money for forestation projects in Asia. The site includes an online community and information about how to green your lifestyle. That’s all well and good but I’m sure you readers are pretty clued up about that already. What really excites me is the search tool.

Nearly anyone who uses the internet uses search. There’s no need to feel guilty about that, despite what you may have read. (The claim that two Google searches uses as much energy as boiling the kettle for a cup of tea is a myth, based on some sketchy physics guesswork and a misquote). Yet you can do better.

What I like about Click 4 Carbon is that it is not asking me to change behaviour – it is simply asking me to be smart about it. If whenever I need to do a search, I do it through Click 4 Carbon instead of Google or Yahoo. This way, I am helping a green business survive and fund forestation projects in Asia at the same time. It is still powered by Google so I know the search results will be good and the site also pledges to offset the carbon used to run the business, including its servers.

Now this is what I have been searching for.

Image: DeclanMT

Carbon Footprinting, or conducting a life cycle analysis on a given product to measure its greenhouse gas emissions over its lifetime, is all the rage. But how useful a tool is it?

Case in point: Coca Cola recently made big news when it measured the carbon footprint of a can of Coke. A standard 330ml can of Coke will set you back 170g of carbon dioxide (CO2e). But what does that really mean? To a consumer, not much. Are you going to stop drinking Coke based on those numbers? Drink more Coke? Or start drinking Coke, even though you never did? Probably none of the above.

To Coke, the numbers mean slightly more because it gives the company a snapshot of which aspects of production are most carbon intensive (manufacture, transport, packaging, and so on) so Coke can lessen their environmental impact.

But what about qualitative factors? When Coke compared the footprint of a can of Coke to the footprint of a mango and passion fruit smoothie from Innocent, a UK Smoothie Company, the smoothie had a higher carbon footprint (209g for a 250ml bottle).

Of course, one might wonder how can you compare apples to oranges – or in this case, high fructose corn syrup and water to fruit. How can a can of Coke actually be better for the environment (or a person) than a smoothie?

And, if you compared a smoothie filled with fruit grown closer to Britain – like apples, pears or berries – rather than tropical fruit flown in from the Southern Hemisphere for comparison, you’d probably come up with a lower number.

A better tool, which can be used alongside Lifecycle analysis, is agroecology.

Agroecology integrates qualitative concerns and considers ecology, sociology, economics and policy with equal weight. An agroecology analysis might evaluate how the fruit is grown and what sort of living standards the people who grew it enjoy. It might also consider the impact on the environment of the Coca Cola plant that produced the Coke in question (beyond the carbon footprint issue).

Carbon Footprinting is a good tool for corporations, but consumers, when deciding which products to buy, should take such numbers with a grain of salt. Incidentally, if you want the lowest carbon snack of all, go for a piece of fresh, local fruit.

Fun fact: Coke recently scooped up a minority stake in Innocent. The company will use the funds to expand its markets in Europe.

Image: maessive

The Walt Disney Company is telling the world it plans to be greener. It’s recently released an environmental plan; one of the highlights is a goal of halving the company’s carbon emissions from fuels by 2012. Eventually, the organization hopes to have all its offices, retail complexes, theme parks and cruise lines functioning with zero direct greenhouse emissions.

Other goals released include reducing waste and reducing water usage. Presently, much of the 300,000 tons of waste created annually ends up being sent to landfill. Plans are now in the making to ensure that this is reduced by becoming more compost and recycle center savvy and also by buying more post-consumer recycled materials.

Electricity consumption is also being targeted with a goal of using 10% less by 2013.

It’s ambitious, but the Walt Disney Company does have a history of considering eco-friendly options. Over the years, they have made a conscious effort to pursue a philosophy of what they call environmentality.

Back in the 1960s,  the company set aside almost a  one-third of The Walt Disney World Resort property in Florida as a dedicated wildlife conservation area in perpetuity. The Disney Worldwide Conservation Fund, set up in 1995, has provided  $12.8 million to support more than 750 conservation projects in 110 countries.

The Disney theme parks also reflect this concept of “environmentality” with the trains at Disneyland running on biodiesel made with cooking oil from the resorts restaurants and hotels. And all the Disney Florida resorts have Florida Green Lodging certification.

These large scale goals show Disney still has a long, long way to go, however – let’s hope they will achieve them.

Image: peasap