I agree with Chris to an extent, and it should also be remembered that many archives operate in shared premises and we may have little control over these sorts of issues.

But is this not a good way for some services to flag an inadequate, inefficient system to funders and supporting bodies? Perhaps it could add weight to a move to digitise more and improve electronic infrastructure? In local authorities I would have thought that demonstrating a willingness to reduce a service's carbon footprint is going to be met with enthusiasm and support.
This also ties in nicely with the new PD5454 I believe.

My point is that archives' and archivists' time and resources are stretched thin. The positive effect we can have on global warming is imperceptible. Any effort on our part to seriously consider it as part of an agenda for the profession is therefore misdirected effort. If considered as a standalone entity, most archives air-conditioning and energy use will mean they are net contributors of carbon to the environment.
 Our society will, or more likely will not, so structure energy costs so as to reduce society's carbon footprint. It just is not part of our remit.

That new archive buildings should be as energy efficient as possible is true, and it may be helpful to publicise or as a profession study and adopt thermal inertia as our preferred method of environmental control. But the most pressing motive will be our running costs, not offsetting the industrialisation of China

I agree with Liz's point about shared premises and not only that but shared policies - for me working in a new building with passive archive stores and ground source heat the imtention is obvious and the National Trust has clear policies on environmental impact but many archives are in buildings that are resource/energy heavy and are tied by their parent organisation's priorities/policies.

Agree for many of us this is out of our control and, at the moment at least, it is not enough of a stick to beat a parent organisation with to get money spent on inefficient systems.

I think the suggestion that digitisation reduces carbon footprint an interesting one. OK so maybe some people don't have to travel to get see material on site (isn't that their carbon footprint not ours?) but we still have to keep the originals, possibly in an inefficient air conditioned strong room, and also have to run the servers that host the digital copies. You only have to look at the banks of fans and feel the heat pumped out of the back of the server room to know that isn't very energy conscious, although in our building it does give the homeless a warm place to spend the night. If you choose to put your digital material in the cloud the fact that you cannot see and feel the servers and fans doesn't mean they are not there.