Congress Passes Energy Efficient Server Initiative

Krishna Dagli writes to mention a News.com article about a just-passed Congressional initiative. On Wednesday the House passed legislation instructing Americans to make energy efficiency a priority when purchasing computer servers. From the article: "Washington politicians voted 417-4 on Wednesday to tell American purchasing managers that it's in their 'best interests' to pay attention to energy conservation. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, also directs the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a three-month study 'of the growth trends associated with data centers and the utilization of servers in the federal government and private sector.'" Well, at least if they're doing this they're not passing 'real' laws, right?

Comments

I'm all for being an earth concious consumer...

[Beatbyte]

...but why is this something our Congress is focusing on? How much time and money was just spent ignoring all the other needs so an oddball like this could get through?

Why don't they start pushing to have government offices 50% reliant upon solar (or other green power) by 10 years from now?

Re:I'm all for being an earth concious consumer...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The problem is our attitude. Here in FL, most solar installs are not to heat domestic water, but to heat the pools. We need to be a little less decadent. When I talk to people about these issues, they really don't give a hoot about polution and energy consumption, despite the people being well edumucated and having a good income. Even our power bill being around half of theirs for the same size family and house doesn't make them think that maybe they could actually do something about their consumption.

Here's the thing: I do give a hoot. A lot of people do. I really want cleaner air and water, a stable climate, and oh yeah, the world economy not to collapse on account of running out of the resources that keep it going. And in fact, I'm willing to make some changes to contribute, no matter how slightly, to these goals.

But I also really like to swim.

"Decadent?" Screw that. The whole purpose of civilization is to make people comfortable; else we'd all still be living in caves and scratching for roots and berries. And you can rail against it all you like, but in the absence of an apocalypse, you will never make people give up the creature comforts they feel they've earned. Oh, they may make some changes -- say, walking a little farther instead of driving now and then, or paying a couple cents extra per kilowatt-hour on their electric bill for power generated from renewable sources -- but asking them to give up their cars and swimming pools and big houses entirely? Forget it. It is just not going to happen, nor should it.

The only way out is through. Better power generation sources, better use of the ones we already have, bits and pieces of conservation here and there (which can add up to a whole lot) ... that's the only way it's going to work. North America, Europe, and Pacific Asia are not going to climb down from their thrones voluntarily; nor are central Asia, South America, and eventually Africa going to surrender the idea of trying to climb up. That's the reality, and I'll say it again, that is as it should be. People want to lead comfortable lives, and the definition of "comfort" keeps getting revised upwards, and it's easy to sneer at this impulse, but honestly I think it's done more for the welfare of the human race than any ideology ever has.

Maybe instead of criticizing your neighbors as decadent, you could say, "That's a cool heating system you've got for your pool. Ever thought about using it for your house water, too? Here's a Web site ..." Just a thought.

What about cars?!?

[Shisha]

Maybe someone should try telling Americans the same thing about cars. To paraphrase the legislation "give high priority to energy efficiency as a factor in determining best value and performance for purchases of cars."

Re:What about cars?!?

[lbrandy]

Maybe someone should try telling Americans the same thing about cars. To paraphrase the legislation "give high priority to energy efficiency as a factor in determining best value and performance for purchases of cars."

I know yours is a bit tongue in cheek, however I still must comment on this concept. This is so offensive to me. Don't ASK people to do things that are non-optimal. Don't ask people to make themselves and their business less cost effective. You don't set up a free market, and then ask people to work outside of the equilibrium points "because". Money is just the metric by which we choose to optimize the system. Taxes and tax breaks on things like this exist for a reason... to help account for hidden costs to make the optimal point... actually.. you know.. optimal.

Congress has the power to move the cost equilibrium (taxes). They don't. They choose to ask you operate to your own disadvantage for the good of us all. Why? Because they are bought and paid for. There are lobbies that prevent them from doing it. So they resort to this seriously ridiculous concept. If you want us to use more energy effecient $THINGS then use TAXES and TAX BREAKS to move the market. Move the god damm equilibrium point so it's cost effective for us to do so. Asking me to operate outside of the cost equilibriums of a free market is basically asking me to risk my own fincial health because you don't have the willpower to risk things yourself. I'm sorry but my retirement/business/kids-college is more important than your re-election. Therefore your "instructions" on how I should spend my money are of no meaning to me. Stand up and make buying energy effecient things cost-effective, and then we'll talk.