What are the consequences of going green in telecom? I can’t help thinking of Newton’s third law: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Let me explain ... Remember a few weeks ago, when reports surfaced that the highly touted CFL light bulbs contain mercury? To gain the benefits from those low-energy bulbs, users have to accept an equally negative consequence.

So I’m wondering – how is this principle manifesting itself in telecom? I’ve received many releases this past week – the week leading up to Earth Day – praising the green benefits of broadband, of wireless mesh, of solar power.

Some of those benefits are obvious, as with broadband. For example, USTelecom sent a note yesterday about a new site that discusses broadband benefits such as telecommuting.

As a telecommuter, I can attest that, yes, I put far fewer carbon emissions into the atmosphere because I don’t drive as much as I once did. But, my energy bills are higher because I work from home. This is especially true in summer. Here in Phoenix, you’re supposed to turn up your thermostat a few degrees when you leave the house for an extended period. Well, since that doesn’t happen on a daily basis, my thermostat stays at a steady 78 degrees. So how do the benefits of telecommuting balance with the extra electricity I use? I don’t have the answer...

I am all in favor of green initiatives. It’s way past time the United States took responsibility for its overwhelming contributions to global warming. I just think it’s too easy for people to jump on a bandwagon, get sucked into a trend, and neglect to evaluate the positives and negatives.