In another life, I experienced government targets at first hand. The government in question was the same one we in the UK have now. At the time, I found the targets a source of great impudence because they seemed to owe little to reality and a great deal to wishful thinking.

Of course, we don't get anywhere without realistic, or even challenging, goals. They provide us with yardsticks for our achievements. But they do need to be rooted in some grasp of reality in order to be taken seriously or, if they're unavoidable, to win the respect of those affected by them.

And this is what bothers me about the environmental targets set by the government. Frankly, yesterday's introduction of 2.5% biofuel into our nation's forecourts is a classic example. It coincides with the announcement today that basic foodstuff prices have risen for the fifth time this month and some countries are refusing to export rice in order to feed their own people affordably.

Is there a connection? Of course there is. Do the politicians care? I wonder about that sometimes. Taking over arable land or destroying forests in order to grow crops to create fuel (which some countries do) is an affront to nature, not to mention the people who live there. And the end result is no less carbon pumped out from motor vehicles which, surely, ought to be one of the objectives given that we're increasingly taxed on our emissions. (The narrow argument, by the way is these emissions are reabsorbed by the biofuel plants themselves.)

And here we find the problem. Objectives are generally derived from narrow economic arguments, which take little account of human reality. I recently read a transcript of a speech entitled The Challenge of the 21st Century: Setting the Real Bottom Line by sustainability expert Dr David Suzuki which articulates the insanity of the way we make these high level decisions.

He talks about the wisdom of ancient people who regarded earth, air, fire and water as sacred elements. Everything that we are, and our very survival, relies on the combination of those elements. But, as he points out, anything that nature does on our behalf is regarded as an 'externality'. i.e. it's not part of the economic equation. I guess this is why carbon now has a price on its head. It's a start, but it's only part of the story.

As well as carbon being the number one public enemy (or money-making opportunity, depending who you talk to), we really need to consider what our actions are doing to the entire ecosphere—earth, water and air—if we're really going to tackle the survival of humankind in any meaningful way. Lopsided thinking is not really good enough.

If you're in IT, you might be thinking, "So, what's this got to do with me?" The answer is "quite a lot actually" because you support most business processes. In order for them to meet external or self imposed environmental targets, they need measurement and performance information for themselves and their suppliers. They need the support of teleworking or telepresence technologies to cut travel. In all sorts of ways, they need the support of IT systems to help improve their own environmental footprints.

This is not a one-off, quick fix, this is a change in how we work and live forever. And I believe it will lead to a change in the way that an organisation views IT. It will finally be seen as an integral and beneficial part of the company.