While watching a Boston Legal episode, an interesting question was posed to the jury in a case where the legal firm was accused of misrepresenting itself as “green” when (as alleged by the plaintiff) it wasn’t. The plaintiff argued, for example, that William Shatner’s character rode around in a huge “tank” of a car which was horrible for the environment. The defense argued that hybrid cars may actually be worse for the environment than SUVs. Their evidence was a huge mine in Canada where most of the nickel for the batteries used in hybrids is mined. That mine, they said, was so toxic that it was used by NASA to simulate the lifeless lunar surface. The ore mined in this area is then shipped to Japan, using fossil fuels, which presumably pollute the environment. It’s then manufactured into batteries, a process which produces its own nasty chemical byproducts. The batteries are then shipped across the ocean at the expense of fossil fuel as part of a hybrid car. Then, the car itself uses some fossil fuel during its lifetime, releasing some pollution. When it comes time to retire the car, there’s the issue of disposing of the batteries in a way that doesn’t pollute. Thus, the defense argued, who’s to say it is worse to drive a big “tank” of a non-hybrid car, which doesn’t require all that chemical pollution associated with hybrid batteries, than a hybrid and all the pollutants its manufacturing emits?

I’m trying not to take a side on this particular discussion, because I see good points on both sides. But it begs the question that we, as bloggers, should consider what impact we might be having on the environment. While blogging may not have any chemical byproducts or cause any direct pollution, it probably does have a level of indirect pollution associated with it… if nothing else, the electricity you use while running your computer to type up and post your articles. What do you think? Does your blogging help or hurt the environment, or does it have no impact whatsoever?