Greenpeace is complaining that the Internet:
a) Allows people to research far more information than the limited amount they prefer to give to people, thus letting people be swayed by other, more -- or less! -- rational environmental groups;
b) Emits more hot air than they do.
But seriously folks: this claim that the IT industry uses "dirty energy" can be leveled at any industry in the modern world. That is to say, an industry that uses electricity. They take any industry in the US (which they do in the article) and then say, 'It uses enough energy to power country (x)!' (In the article's case, the UK.) For example:
"The health industry doesn't do enough to reduce its reliance on 'dirty energy'. If you took the entire US's health industry and pharmaceutical firms' energy use, it could power Spain!'
'The media industry doesn't do enough to reduce it's reliance on 'dirty energy'. If you took the entire US's newspapers, magazines, and television news' energy use, it could power South Korea!'
'The government industry doesn't do enough to reduce its reliance on 'dirty energy'. If you took the energy use by all levels of government in the US, it could power Italy!'
Repeat ad nauseum.
The real question is, 'Why does the industry matter?' The energy used by ALL industries in the nation will aggregate to... guess what, the types of energy the country has! The solution is move the whole country to use cleaner energy, which would necessarily mean that all industries in that country would be 'cleaner' in their energy use.
This is Greenpeace using the Apple Strawman scheme all over again.