After reading this blogpost, I would like to react and question some of the things presented here. First, I'd like to state something in general terms regarding the hyped enviroment, second I'd like to comment on the suggestion put here and third add something from my own point of view. 

This entire global warming/CO2 debate should be approached with skepticism. (Note that I'm no native speaker) Especially if you look at the ammount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Likewise the old argument that in passed times the ammount of CO2 was higher. Keep in mind that a vulcano eruption increases CO2, so we should close them off? We like to blame, instead of investigating the real causes.

Seemingly, you should approach the motives, questions and reasons with caution. Is this a marketing tool, or is this a serious issue? Or are we mopping the floor with a running crane. Is it they AMMOUNT of energy we use, or how we generate it? This applies to our materials used as well, do we use a lot of non-recyclable plastics or do we use bottles more than once? (Note: Coca-cola changed their bottles in the Netherlands to bottles that they keep melting and re-using. They used to do this once they where really worn off. They changed because the looks didn't fit the image, rather than making a positive contribution to our power consumption pattern) Same with computer parts.

This particular quote: "One study shows you can get a 97% increase in productivity if you combine energy-efficient servers, virtualization, different kinds of cooling and some basic improvements in data center layout to improve air flow."
There are more of these percentages and statements, but this is something you need to PROVE, one doesn't make it conclusive when 10 others suggest something else. A more OBJECTIVE point of view would not hurt, this is rather subjective. (If these, in my opinion, bald statements are used, be sure you did your research on the topic and no random outcome that suits your own strategy)

Now, intentions seem to be noble, but are the intentions translated into actions? Planting trees stops somewhere, when we covered our 'free' space. My main concern lies within the lack of promoting 'recyclable computers with low power consumption'. Dell has no significant outline on this matter, like a 'green' line, covering all usergroups and their demands. I don't think the exact location of a datacenter, structure or related really matter in long term, however, on short term, this solution might be acceptable.
 
Perhaps a more permanent solution should be obtained for the problems that we face. Indirectly, the CO2 debate links to our power consumption and how we generate it. So lets start at the root of the issue.

From what I've gathered, Microsoft moved their server to iceland and uses thermal heating for their servers. Idea's like this really make a difference, energy sources should be renewable, we don't want 10000 birdkillers in the ocean, but perhaps solar energy in the desert could make a significant difference? Since data-centers are more or less footloose, you could place them near such a source of renewable engery (Forget the atomic energy, this is by no means renewable and actually is postponing the real solution and drive to find one) Dell should emphasize the benefits from more performance/per watt more, while this is located in the blog, it's nowhere to be found on the site!

I've recently ordered an XPS 420. Now I know powerconsumption is higher than on a standard computer, simply because I want to play a game. This illustrates the problem why lowering powerusage can't be a long term solution, since there's allways a minimum of power needed. The world hunger for data storage seems to be endless, and thus posing a vital question on how to cope with this desire. Incremental changes in servers, locations and parts are desireable for a short term solution. To make it understandable, use renewable plastics instead of the tacky throw away stuff, preferably use steel or other reusable material. Less heatproduction, all are good causes, but trying to use the excess heat to generate power would make sense too, so the 'waste' is limited, adding all these improvements to the original question on how to deal with the power problem, should provide a basic idea on how to approach this problem, rather than planting kilometers of trees...
 

You bring up a lot of interesting ideas, but I wanted to respond in general to your comments.  Certainly there are debates in some circles about the causes and effects of global warming and even more conversation around the levels of CO2.  Our purpose is not necessarily to join in the debate, but rather to provide the products and services for which our consumer and business customers are asking.  The cost of power has gone up dramatically in nearly every market, so some customers have asked us for more energy-efficient computers or services that will help them manage this.  Some customers are reaching a limit on the amount of power they can deliver to a data center, so we provide them solutions that deliver more computing power in the same space (Referencing the 97% figure).  Still other customers are asking for “greener” products from a “greener” company, so we provide both of these as well.  The point we want to make is that you don’t have to choose between performance and “green,” you can have both.

 Using less resources means a more sustainable environment -

Using less is not the same as sustainable.  It may save money and be desirable to implement cost savings but less consumption does not equate with sustainability.

The most sustainable countries in the world are those with wealth, that consume.  The poorest countries with the least "footprint" are also the least sustainable: see Zimbabwe, North Korea, Somalia.

By all means become more responsible and more sustainable, but please, get some better advice on what this means instead of just embracing green hype and dogma from a lot of zealots who quite frankly often are as rabidly anti-capitalist as they are environmental.
 

If my new Dell arrives soon and has a decent screen, I shall be glad to help! 

The idea of power consumpton and the CO2 debate would seen that the best way to do this is to make the intake of solar energy  the main point, because of the increase of input from what you can configartion with and from the increase of the energy from solar power, would be the significant different in way we set this up, the only problem that can be seen is to recyle the co2 to a point that would be production to other life on the world.