Last week at my interview with AxiCom, the managing director, Lyle Closs, explained the concept of virtualisation to me. I was a little unsure but I understood that it involved sharing space on servers so that fewer servers are needed. This seems like a great idea and a good way to reduce spending on IT.

However, what I hadn't considered was the environmental impact of virtualisation. Fewer servers means less electricity is required to power the system.

Today in the Guardian there is an article about this subject, Why the future's green for IT. It explains that at present most servers use less than 10% of their capacity whilst running. So by using virtualisation, one server could replace ten. This has the potential to save money and reduce the amount of energy required to power the system and keep it cool.

From a PR point of view this is fantastic. If a client reduces their server use through virtualisation then there is the opportunity for "X&Y Computing Goes Green" style articles. However by adopting this approach it leaves the client open to accusations by the press of being less environmentally friendly elsewhere.

In his blog, Seth Godin recently suggested that green marketing will soon face a backlash from reporters and consumers who see through the eco-friendly promises and campaigns, and want to see that companies really care. So perhaps companies should make more of an effort to be green, instead of simply jumping on the back of new research that shows that they are slightly greener than they thought.