PDA

View Full Version : Greenpeace Activists Protest at Apple's Irish Offices over Data Center Energy Use




MacRumors
Apr 18, 2012, 09:07 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/18/greenpeace-activists-protest-at-apples-irish-offices-over-data-center-energy-use/)


As documented by Corkipedia (http://www.corkipedia.com/wiki/Greenpeace_Protest_at_Apple_in_Cork), four Greenpeace activists climbed to the roof of Apple's offices in Cork, Ireland today, posting signage and distributing leaflets in an attempt to push Apple to adopt cleaner energy sources for its data centers. The protest, which lasted approximately an hour, came a day after Greenpeace blasted Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/17/greenpeace-takes-on-apple-and-other-tech-companies-over-coal-powered-data-centers/) for relying heavily on dirty coal power for their data centers.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/04/greenpeace_cloud_protest_ireland.jpg


It appears, however, that Greenpeace's assessment of Apple's energy use was based on flawed assumptions, and Apple stands by its claims that its new data center in Maiden, North Carolina and a forthcoming one in Prineville, Oregon will be among the cleanest in the world.

Greenpeace estimated that the Maiden facility would require 100 megawatts of power at peak capacity, claiming that Apple's proposed solar and fuel cell facilities at the plant would provide only 10% of the center's energy needs. The group's report also appears to assume that the Prineville facility will run on dirty power sources, and those two assumptions were combined to give Apple a low "clean energy index" score of 15.3% and estimate Apple's share of data center power usage derived from coal at an industry-high 55%.

Apple quickly responded to the Greenpeace report, issuing statements (http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2012/04/17/apple-greenpeaces-cloud-math-is-busted/) to several media outlets claiming that the Maiden data center requires only 20 megawatts of power at peak capacity and that the renewable energy sources being built at the site will provide at least 60% of the center's power needs. In addition, Apple notes that the Prineville data center is planned to run on 100% renewable energy."Our data center in North Carolina will draw about 20 megawatts at full capacity, and we are on track to supply more than 60% of that power on-site from renewable sources including a solar farm and fuel cell installation which will each be the largest of their kind in the country," Apple said in a statement. "We believe this industry-leading project will make Maiden the greenest data center ever built, and it will be joined next year by our new facility in Oregon running on 100% renewable energy."For its part, Greenpeace believes that Apple is continuing to obfuscate its energy numbers and release only those that make the company appear in a positive light. And so despite Apple's claims regarding significant efforts to minimize the impact of its data centers on the environment, Greenpeace believes that the company should be doing more to publicly lead the way toward further adoption of renewable energy sources.

Article Link: Greenpeace Activists Protest at Apple's Irish Offices over Data Center Energy Use (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/18/greenpeace-activists-protest-at-apples-irish-offices-over-data-center-energy-use/)



MultiMediaWill
Apr 18, 2012, 09:11 AM
U mad bro?

madrag
Apr 18, 2012, 09:12 AM
I think this is good in the long run, most companies do hide their numbers and hopefully this will "help" make them search for cleaner energy sources.

miles01110
Apr 18, 2012, 09:13 AM
For its part, Greenpeace believes that every company in the world is continuing to obfuscate its energy numbers and release only those that make the company appear in a positive light.

Fixed that for them...

Dragado
Apr 18, 2012, 09:13 AM
Datacenters are green. Massive servers that replace thousands of servers that would be required otherwise... It's like mass transit. The thing itself uses a massive amount of juice, but the alternative is far worse. I suppose it's just short-sightedness on their part?

Will do good
Apr 18, 2012, 09:13 AM
Green Peace is a joke. They have lost all credibility long ago. :(

dscuber9000
Apr 18, 2012, 09:13 AM
I feel like there are much more environmentally-damaging companies they could be protesting instead of Apple, which actually has an amazing record for a computer company.

Kleptomaniac
Apr 18, 2012, 09:13 AM
Just standing around doing nothing as always lol.

Kind of the wrong place to be vandalising, considering all the cork offices do is customer service.

ZMacintosh
Apr 18, 2012, 09:15 AM
protesting and whining about it, all from their iPhones

reallynotnick
Apr 18, 2012, 09:16 AM
I used to kind of respect Greenpeace but over time they have proved to be complete idiots.

basesloaded190
Apr 18, 2012, 09:17 AM
Greenpeace seems to have made a lot of assumptions and estimations about all this energy use without actually knowing anything for a fact. Why don't they do their homework and come back with actual numbers

hobo.hopkins
Apr 18, 2012, 09:17 AM
And this is why nobody cares about Greenpeace any longer: too fanatical and not rational.

parish
Apr 18, 2012, 09:17 AM
I wonder how many Greenpeace numpties have iCloud accounts?

illitrate23
Apr 18, 2012, 09:18 AM
<cartman>goddamntreehugginghippies!!</cartman>

deannnnn
Apr 18, 2012, 09:19 AM
Yeah vandalism usually gets results :rolleyes:

ristlin
Apr 18, 2012, 09:20 AM
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4361/38178216.jpg

"Apple uses 100 megawatts of power." - Greenpeace

"We actually use 20 megawatts..." - Apple

"You're wrong, look it up." - Greenpeace

"Here are the numbers, look." - Apple

"No, you're wrong." - Greenpeace

"And it only uses 40% of non-renewable energy." - Apple

"No." - Greenpeace

"And the data center--" - Apple

"No, no." - Greenpeace

"--you are protesting--" -Apple

"No, no, no!" - Greenpeace

"--at uses 100% renewables!" -Apple

"No, no, no, no. Yeeawwwwwww!" - Greenpeace

camnchar
Apr 18, 2012, 09:20 AM
But Apple's Irish offices are powered by Guinness.

aziatiklover
Apr 18, 2012, 09:20 AM
Grean peace just trolling for attention.

Peace
Apr 18, 2012, 09:21 AM
Greenpeace. Ha!

Protest today at N.C. Apple Data Center. 2PM. Be there.


---Sent From My iPhone

Frobozz
Apr 18, 2012, 09:21 AM
So what else is Apple supposed to do other than try to be the cleanest cloud facilities in the country? Isn't that already a lofty, industry-leading goal? What else does Greenpeace want? (Hint: I'm willing to bet it's unreasonable!)

We'd run our data centers on positive vibes and rainbows if we could. I just don't understand the pressure on the single company who seems to actually be addressing the situation. Google also seems to address it, but what about EVERYONE ELSE? Go after them!

Greenpeace routinely retards the green movement by acting NUTS. I'm very much for green initiatives and my household lives by example even when it costs us more out of pocket. Greenpeace just rubs me the wrong way.

ThePimento
Apr 18, 2012, 09:21 AM
I wonder how much power Greenpeace used in creating those protest signs, and copying their fliers they hand out. Someone should protest Greenpeace. Buncha no-good hippies.

cvaldes
Apr 18, 2012, 09:22 AM
I feel like there are much more environmentally-damaging companies they could be protesting instead of Apple, which actually has an amazing record for a computer company.
True, but Greenpeace are publicity hounds, and as such, they will protest Apple because it gets them more media coverage. They could protest ABB, United Technologies, or RR Donnelley and the media might mention it on page 7.

The end result of their efforts benefits the planet. How they go about it is frequently irksome.

I support Greenpeace's mission, but not their tactics. Hence, they get my emotional support, but no money from my wallet.

Macclone
Apr 18, 2012, 09:24 AM
Maybe they need to team up with PETA and have a party. I suggest roasted seal over a coal fire.

Winni
Apr 18, 2012, 09:24 AM
And this is why nobody cares about Greenpeace any longer: too fanatical and not rational.

Strong words from somebody posting on a fanboy forum... :D

jlc1978
Apr 18, 2012, 09:26 AM
I feel like there are much more environmentally-damaging companies they could be protesting instead of Apple, which actually has an amazing record for a computer company.

But that wouldn't get them the publicity that calling Apple out, rightly or wrongly does. While Greenpeace started with some laudable goals I think they've come to value publicity more than developing viable solutions to the issues they raise.

----------

But Apple's Irish offices are powered by Guinness.

And I'd say everything in the Republic is green as well...

Winni
Apr 18, 2012, 09:30 AM
Greenpeace just rubs me the wrong way.

Yeah. But that's probably because Americans traditionally don't care a crap about the environment. You are about 20 to 30 years behind Europe when it comes to the protection of the environment and call activists "hippies".

convergent
Apr 18, 2012, 09:32 AM
Greenpeace is a joke. They are just looking for attention. The fact that Apple responded to them at all disappoints me. The fact that this site promoted their ridiculousness by giving them attention disappoints me too.

Aside from all of that, the fact that they pick a company that is building a massive solar energy farm to power their data center as the target of their protest shows how illogical and ridiculous they really are. As someone else said, "cloud" is inherently green because its transferring what was running on thousands of individual computers and servers into one big consolidated farm. It is very much like mass transit.

Greenpeace = Idiots looking for attention

iSee
Apr 18, 2012, 09:32 AM
Greenpeace sold out their credibility a long ago.

Unfortunately, I think this makes it so they do more harm to the environment that than good: by muddying the waters through misinformation and distortion they make it harder to focus on important and legitimate environmental problems. It's hard for the legitimate environmental organizations to get any attention with Greenpeace in the way.

A long time ago I think they decided to maximize short-term fundraising over environmental imapact. To that end, they focus on grabbing attention whether, or not it makes sense. Apple bashing is a good way to grab some of the attention people focus on Apple.

Greenpeace is a fundraising organization that uses concern for the environment as a fundraising mechanism rather than an environmental organization that fundraises in order to improve the environment.

tomsamson
Apr 18, 2012, 09:33 AM
there are companies way more harmful to the environment than Apple, but hey, still good to make Apple take more responsibility on that end, too.
Good on the protesters for that, best while at it they should also start protesting against Apple gluing the parts of the iOS devices together so its not just extremely cumbersome to replace any part but also leads to most devices probably never getting recycled.

LinksAwakener
Apr 18, 2012, 09:33 AM
Summarized version of this protest:

GP: Apple sucks and uses 100 megawatts of energy at their data center! And it's poopy energy! And they're building a second facility in Oregon that's going to be just as poopy!

Apple: Umm, no. We use 20 megawatts, and 60% of that is provided by renewable resources that we built ourselves like solar panels. Our Oregon facility is going to be powered by 100% renewable resources. Dude, Oregon itself is largely powered by renewable resources like Hydro power plants. What are you smoking?

GP: Umm...well... [puts fingers in ears] La la la! You're probably lying so I'm going to continue rallying up ignorant people!

[facepalm.jpg]

lear45xr
Apr 18, 2012, 09:37 AM
Green peace. Bunch of feckin tree huggers!!

JAT
Apr 18, 2012, 09:37 AM
which will each be the largest of their kind in the country

But that's not ****ing good enough!! We are Green, hear us roar!

rikscha
Apr 18, 2012, 09:38 AM
Yeah. But that's probably because Americans traditionally don't care a crap about the environment. You are about 20 to 30 years behind Europe when it comes to the protection of the environment and call activists "hippies".

Greenpeace are a bunch of idiots.

Greenpeace are eco-terrorist not activists.

posted by a European.

Dragado
Apr 18, 2012, 09:39 AM
Yeah. But that's probably because Americans traditionally don't care a crap about the environment. You are about 20 to 30 years behind Europe when it comes to the protection of the environment and call activists "hippies".

Activists are one thing, but these people are little more than terrorists without the... you know... violence. Everything else is right on the money.

qbricc
Apr 18, 2012, 09:39 AM
The energy usage by Apple is high but its products save energy usage in other areas. I use my computer to buy and sell second hand goods, talk to people all over the world, read ebooks, and remove the need for buying cds & dvds. These all save or use less energy then other traditional methods. Computers and the internet drive down carbon footprints, that is the true story. Run the internet in a green manor and it will save more lives than Greenpeace.

Ashwood11
Apr 18, 2012, 09:39 AM
Green Peace is loseing credibility.

shartypants
Apr 18, 2012, 09:40 AM
And this is why nobody cares about Greenpeace any longer: too fanatical and not rational.

Agreed. Before you just denounce something have some hard facts to back up your claims.

Joe-Diver
Apr 18, 2012, 09:41 AM
This is a non-story.

Greenpeace is a joke and not even newsworthy. I wouldn't listen to anything they say. They have zero credibility.

1080p
Apr 18, 2012, 09:42 AM
These granola munching hippies need to take an organic chill pill. Apple is one of the "greenest" tech companies in the world.

bacaramac
Apr 18, 2012, 09:47 AM
I guess I am not sure what Apple is misleading here. If they say the datacenter will run on 60% renewable, wouldn't that assume 40% coal, etc?? And I don't think Apple is lying about power usage for datacenter. If they say it's 20, then it's 20, I just don't see Apple lying about something so frivolous.

amiganut
Apr 18, 2012, 09:47 AM
If the people at Greenpeace would do some real research, they would find that the planet itself produces more CO2 than us humans. The CO2 content in the atmosphere is about .04%. Yes, ".04%". For those of us in our 70's and 80's, remember that scientists back in the 60's and 70's were predicting a new Ice Age if we did not reduce the "carbon" in our atmosphere. Now it's global warming. Will the so called "scientists" make up their minds. Do your own research. Do not believe scientists and politicians.

jaison13
Apr 18, 2012, 09:47 AM
how about going after the source!! the coal burning power plants and mines? probably because power plant workers and miners would kick their butts!!!

*LTD*
Apr 18, 2012, 09:48 AM
Image (http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4361/38178216.jpg)

"Apple uses 100 megawatts of power." - Greenpeace

"We actually use 20 megawatts..." - Apple

"You're wrong, look it up." - Greenpeace

"Here are the numbers, look." - Apple

"No, you're wrong." - Greenpeace

"And it only uses 40% of non-renewable energy." - Apple

"No." - Greenpeace

"And the data center--" - Apple

"No, no." - Greenpeace

"--you are protesting--" -Apple

"No, no, no!" - Greenpeace

"--at uses 100% renewables!" -Apple

"No, no, no, no. Yeeawwwwwww!" - Greenpeace

LOVE this. Well done. :)

GadgetDon
Apr 18, 2012, 09:49 AM
So what else is Apple supposed to do other than try to be the cleanest cloud facilities in the country? Isn't that already a lofty, industry-leading goal? What else does Greenpeace want? (Hint: I'm willing to bet it's unreasonable!)

Actually, they're pretty straightforward about it. In areas where electricity is generated by coal or nuclear, doing anything that consumes electricity at all is EVVVVIILLL and starting a business there is BAAADDDD and proves you want everyone to DIEEEE. (Oh, what about the people who live there, who can use the jobs and need the services. Don't know, don't care, they should've thought about that when they decided to live there.)

MacRumorUser
Apr 18, 2012, 09:50 AM
They were interviewed on Irish radio today.


Judging by the accents alone, and considering I went to public school in the UK. The two protestors sounded like a pair of upper class privileged English toff's, that obviously didn't have to live in the real world because Mommy & PaPa were footing the bill for their 'lifestyle' choice of cr@ping on everyone else....

How much fossil fuels did their journey to Ireland kick out into the atmosphere ???

bacaramac
Apr 18, 2012, 09:51 AM
Where is Paul Watson these days? I'm sure he would have something to say about Greenpeace. Haha. In other news, Discovery Channel is starting up a new show "Datacenter Wars". Sweet, can't wait.

Tsunami911
Apr 18, 2012, 09:52 AM
much of its mojo from its heyday.

I would not be surprised at all to learn that this was actually a tactical marketing ploy to steal headlines...i.e. they knowingly overstated Apple's usage amounts because they knew they'd get more press that way.

It has been a long time since they have much much of an impact in the world's green policies now that most have been awakened to the need for "green" environmental efforts.

parish
Apr 18, 2012, 09:52 AM
Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon et. al. should get together and commission an eco-audit of greenpeace. Now that would make interesting reading :p

likemyorbs
Apr 18, 2012, 09:53 AM
Image (http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4361/38178216.jpg)

"Apple uses 100 megawatts of power." - Greenpeace

"We actually use 20 megawatts..." - Apple

"You're wrong, look it up." - Greenpeace

"Here are the numbers, look." - Apple

"No, you're wrong." - Greenpeace

"And it only uses 40% of non-renewable energy." - Apple

"No." - Greenpeace

"And the data center--" - Apple

"No, no." - Greenpeace

"--you are protesting--" -Apple

"No, no, no!" - Greenpeace

"--at uses 100% renewables!" -Apple

"No, no, no, no. Yeeawwwwwww!" - Greenpeace

Family guy references are always the best! :D:D:D:D

usarioclave
Apr 18, 2012, 09:54 AM
Shouldn't they be doing something productive, like reducing their carbon footprint by not breathing?

johncrab
Apr 18, 2012, 09:54 AM
Greenpeace, like MADD, AARP and other organizations started with some clear goals and lost their was as it became another org that exists in order to exist. The primary aim of all of these groups is to raise money to keep going and adding to their own bureaucracies. Greenpeace performs a stunt like this now and then to appear relevant just as AARP runs an occasional commercial or publishes an editorial. Yet, these groups really don't do anything but take up space.

The truth is that Apple and other companies are way out in front of Greenpeace on this one, developing solar farms to power their data centers. Apple even let a huge contract months ago to install a solar power station at its North Carolina data center. If GP bothered to read the newspapers they would know this. None of these orgs should be taken seriously.

lifeinhd
Apr 18, 2012, 09:57 AM
Should be easy enough to get them off the roof. Just cover it in oil and set it on fire.

Adidas Addict
Apr 18, 2012, 09:57 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VIt42ZwDrR4/S7dK_8dXddI/AAAAAAAADwk/WmVPYHnMRLg/s1600/sex+pistols+kill+the+hippies+front.jpg

peb123
Apr 18, 2012, 09:57 AM
Where is Paul Watson these days? I'm sure he would have something to say about Greenpeace. Haha. In other news, Discovery Channel is starting up a new show "Datacenter Wars". Sweet, can't wait.

Classic :-). Makes me wonder: How much greenhouse gas does their anti-whale fleet produce?

NAG
Apr 18, 2012, 09:58 AM
Greenpeace, like MADD, AARP and other organizations started with some clear goals and lost their was as it became another org that exists in order to exist. The primary aim of all of these groups is to raise money to keep going and adding to their own bureaucracies. Greenpeace performs a stunt like this now and then to appear relevant just as AARP runs an occasional commercial or publishes an editorial. Yet, these groups really don't do anything but take up space.

The truth is that Apple and other companies are way out in front of Greenpeace on this one, developing solar farms to power their data centers. Apple even let a huge contract months ago to install a solar power station at its North Carolina data center. If GP bothered to read the newspapers they would know this. None of these orgs should be taken seriously.

If Mike Daisey cloned himself and decided to talk about the environment he'd be Greenpeace.

Would be nice if the press would give time to people concerned about the environment instead of a bunch of liars.

Silverfist
Apr 18, 2012, 09:59 AM
Greenpeace is like a watermelon -- really only green on the outside, and all pink inside.

When the founder quits because the group's lost focus on the actual issues and just wants to be extreme for the sake of being extreme, that's a pretty clear sign a group's lost its way.

.

ImageWrangler
Apr 18, 2012, 09:59 AM
So put signs over solar panels blocking their ability to convert sun to power. Brilliant.

Man what a bunch of jackasses.

Amazing Iceman
Apr 18, 2012, 10:01 AM
Someone lock down those nuts! One thing is to protest, another to illegally climb up roofs on private property.

They better drive electric cars; otherwise, they are full of $h!t.

Ciclismo
Apr 18, 2012, 10:03 AM
Greenpeace = the emo spawn of the 1%, and their lackeys.

Obiemi
Apr 18, 2012, 10:04 AM
Green peace seems to be trying to make one point, while missing another. If you're handing out leaflets, how green can it be?

NAG
Apr 18, 2012, 10:05 AM
Greenpeace is like a watermelon -- really only green on the outside, and all pink inside.

When the founder quits because the group's lost focus on the actual issues and just wants to be extreme for the sake of being extreme, that's a pretty clear sign a group's lost its way.

.

What are all the seeds then? Pathological liars?

Silverfist
Apr 18, 2012, 10:07 AM
What are all the seeds then? Pathological liars?

I'm hoping seedless, so they can't reproduce.

.

Thunderhawks
Apr 18, 2012, 10:08 AM
Greenpeace, like MADD, AARP and other organizations started with some clear goals and lost their was as it became another org that exists in order to exist. The primary aim of all of these groups is to raise money to keep going and adding to their own bureaucracies. Greenpeace performs a stunt like this now and then to appear relevant just as AARP runs an occasional commercial or publishes an editorial. Yet, these groups really don't do anything but take up space.

The truth is that Apple and other companies are way out in front of Greenpeace on this one, developing solar farms to power their data centers. Apple even let a huge contract months ago to install a solar power station at its North Carolina data center. If GP bothered to read the newspapers they would know this. None of these orgs should be taken seriously.

Plus 1

Many years ago I used to donate to MADD and Green Peace, only to learn that every donation was used to waste my money for additional letters requesting donations. The frequency of these requests was also ridiculous.

While I appreciate somebody highlighting problem areas our society creates. I would like things thought through a little.

Certainly Green Peace has lost it's thinkers. Apple is a great target which generates publicity, but the wrong tree to piss on.

I was thinking to hand deliver this post to them by walking over really fast on my organic cotton socks, but the fumes from the friction my socks would generate may further destroy the ozone layer.

BTW: A good listen: The planet is fine - George Carlin on YouTube

Prohapps
Apr 18, 2012, 10:10 AM
By trying to digitalize school books into iPad format. How many trees will Apple end up saving?

How many Companies are now a lot more paperless because of Apple products?

Apple has been working at clean renewable energy way before Greenpeace got caught into this.

NAG
Apr 18, 2012, 10:10 AM
I'm hoping seedless, so they can't reproduce.

.

Unfortunately, that is seldom the case. They'll teach a slew of people how to "bend" facts to support xyz and they'll take what they learned when they move to other groups.

oliversl
Apr 18, 2012, 10:11 AM
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Greenpeace is BS (in this case). Shame on them, credibility is lost.

flavor4real
Apr 18, 2012, 10:11 AM
I wonder how many of them have a iPod, iPhone, or a iPad. I also wonder how many of them backup their devices to the icloud ..... u know.

gnasher729
Apr 18, 2012, 10:13 AM
I guess I am not sure what Apple is misleading here. If they say the datacenter will run on 60% renewable, wouldn't that assume 40% coal, etc?? And I don't think Apple is lying about power usage for datacenter. If they say it's 20, then it's 20, I just don't see Apple lying about something so frivolous.

That would be 40% "coal etc. " not 40% coal. Big difference. According to Greenpeace, Apple used 10% renewable, 55% coal, and presumably 35% that are neither renewable nor coal, or the guys are just very bad at maths.

But Apple doesn't have a big coal fire near their data centre to produce electricity, they get their electricity from the grid like everyone else, and trying to assign some specific energy source is just ridiculous. And arguing about percentages is pointless as well: Who gives a damn what percentage is renewable? What matters is how much in Megawatt _doesn't_ come from renewable sources. According to Greenpeace, 100 MW total, minus 10% = 10 MW renewable, equals 90 MW not renewable. According to Apple, 20 MW total, minus 60% = 12 MW renewable, equals 8 MW not renewable. 90 MW vs. 8 MW, that is the number that counts.

Liquorpuki
Apr 18, 2012, 10:15 AM
Yeah. But that's probably because Americans traditionally don't care a crap about the environment. You are about 20 to 30 years behind Europe when it comes to the protection of the environment and call activists "hippies".

That's BS. Environmental lobbies have always been strong in this country. Go look at how much environmental legislation made it into Obama's stimulus package.

States like California have the same 33% renewable energy by 2020 goal that the European Union has. The US is also the #2 supplier of wind turbines for the entire world.

imagi
Apr 18, 2012, 10:20 AM
Oh Yeah, greenpeace also needs to reveal to the world they make their banners, protest signs, videos, send text messages and emails on APPLE products. Oh there goes another whale.......

ristlin
Apr 18, 2012, 10:20 AM
LOVE this. Well done. :)

thanks!

imagi
Apr 18, 2012, 10:22 AM
Oh Yeah, greenpeace also needs to reveal to the world they make their banners, protest signs, videos, send text messages and emails on APPLE products. Oh there goes another whale.......


I think this is good in the long run, most companies do hide their numbers and hopefully this will "help" make them search for cleaner energy sources.

Henriok
Apr 18, 2012, 10:25 AM
This is moronic! Greenpeace should WELCOME cloud initiatives, and urge people to move more things into the cloud!
That way we would use LESS energy and FEWER electronic devices. Don't they know that datacenters are fantastically more efficient than home electronics? And recycling of electronics will be a simple things to do if you have tons of it, and everything concentrated in one or a few places instead of it being scattered about in billions of tiny devices.

Morons!

ugahairydawgs
Apr 18, 2012, 10:26 AM
Hippies.....

Mattie Num Nums
Apr 18, 2012, 10:27 AM
LOVE this. Well done. :)

Because corporations never lie or skew numbers.

Stephen123
Apr 18, 2012, 10:28 AM
This is moronic! Greenpeace should WELCOME cloud initiatives, and urge people to move more things into the cloud!
That way we would use LESS energy and FEWER electronic devices. Don't they know that datacenters are fantastically more efficient than home electronics? And recycling of electronics will be a simple things to do if you have tons of it, and everything concentrated in one or a few places instead of it being scattered about in billions of tiny devices.

Morons!

I don't think the issue is that they don't know. I think they don't care. They're just trying to generate headlines not protect the environment. They may have other environmental causes they care about, but this is not one of them. This is a completely amoral fundraiser.

oliversl
Apr 18, 2012, 10:28 AM
How about Greenpeace Cloud? What are they doing? I hope they are 100% on solar:
http://www.whoishostingthis.com/greenpeace.org

macduke
Apr 18, 2012, 10:30 AM
Well this explains why they were ignoring the facts the other day: they would have to cancel their little rally. Don't be fooled—this was nothing more than a viral marketing campaign, and it worked because we're still sitting here talking about it like it matters…

Artful Dodger
Apr 18, 2012, 10:32 AM
Yeah. But that's probably because Americans traditionally don't care a crap about the environment. You are about 20 to 30 years behind Europe when it comes to the protection of the environment and call activists "hippies".

Great assumption there on your part. I'll give you an idea that you can quote for fact and guess, ponder or spout about and help your green homework out here…

Three years ago I had a neighbor have Energy Star come over and do some testing (which is a waiting list around 9-12 months btw) to help make their home and show the people in the neighborhood how to reduce each footprint by doing what you "can afford to do". Since then I have been keeping track of my energy use after changing out all my lights, it was also time for some new appliances as the old ones died out.

Guess what in the long run, yeah guess… my usage lowered a good amount and yet my bills remained about the same cost outgoing each month. After researching my own I also asked the neighbors and the findings were what I thought might be going on.
The Electric, Gas companies increased their rates more than normal and not because of inflation but because of the amount of new awareness starting to happen. Now how about those companies adjusting the rates because of events out of my hands or theirs? Yeah that happened also and as for the Electric company I have they got fined heavy and now my rates are back to being very low.

You see, most Americans (to what generation are you implying about also) will and are willing to help make a difference but when big companies do things like this all over the world it's hard to keep up and show a difference. Also most cities (all the ones around me) recycle, hard to find a city, town or any area that doesn't. How about over there? It goes as far as using clear garbage bags to make sure people don't dump everything into one bag like they used to do, we have totes for the recycling and so on, how does that measure up to what you are doing or are you? What areas are you referring to as well as your blanket statement is very vague? Do you own a home, have you replaced all the old windows, doors, roof and so on if it's not new? When you cook do you think green or do things like you always have, same as when it's time to recycle?

The only question that I have never heard from any one person that tries to go green or supports any level is… how much extra water do you use to clean out, up or maintain for the recycling? What, since there are oceans full of water we don't go to the nth degree because that glass bottle needs to be recycled :confused:

Just asking follow up questions so there are not as many broad, loose statements and finger pointing per se :cool:

SixPenceRicher
Apr 18, 2012, 10:34 AM
Green Peace is a joke. They have lost all credibility long ago. :(

I couldn't agree more. And, this sort of shenanigan only helps to reinforce that these people have a hard-on exclusively for Apple and none of the other manufacturers, such as Amazon. I certainly don't see them crawling all over Amazon's HQ or distribution centers...

Greenpeace is a bad egg with questionable intentions. And, I say this is as a pretty green-leaning individual.

racer1441
Apr 18, 2012, 10:34 AM
Dear Greenpeace,

Go away, no one cares.

Antares
Apr 18, 2012, 10:34 AM
Yeah…and Greenpeace is being environmentally friendly by printing all those signs and leaflets. Dotes.

Liquorpuki
Apr 18, 2012, 10:37 AM
I guess I am not sure what Apple is misleading here. If they say the datacenter will run on 60% renewable, wouldn't that assume 40% coal, etc?? And I don't think Apple is lying about power usage for datacenter. If they say it's 20, then it's 20, I just don't see Apple lying about something so frivolous.

Apple's math actually doesn't add up because a 20 MW solar farm only generates 15-20% of its rating. There's no way you get 60% renewable penetration based on what they've built, you can't even get 50%. If Greenpeace wanted to attack Apple they could get them on bad math. But they won't because they're too lazy to do the math in the first place.

Greenpeace's whole accusation is flawed because:

Apple is tied to the grid via Duke Energy which uses nuclear power plants. Greenpeace has no idea if that datacenter will be fed by nuclear or coal. Only way they would know is buying looking at the contract, which I'm pretty sure they haven't because it's proprietary.

Greenpeace decided to take North Carolina's energy portfolio (which is an average of every utility in the state ) and assume this average value is what Apple is gonna get. 54.5% coal was N.C.'s portfolio coal penetration as a whole, so Greenpeace published it and said since Apple is building in North Carolina, they're gonna be fed off 54.5% coal. This is stupid and totally ignores the finer realities, such as some utilities are greener than others, electricity regularly cross state lines, and you can procure whatever type of generation you want if you're willing to pay for it.

immovableobject
Apr 18, 2012, 10:38 AM
Dear Greenpeace:

If you really want to make a difference, you should be protesting in Germany, where they're abandoning (clean) nuclear power for coal.

Apple, Microsoft, etc. do what is necessary for their business. In the absence of green alternatives, they have no choice in their use of power generation systems.

tbrinkma
Apr 18, 2012, 10:43 AM
This feels like a rerun. Like we've seen this play out before. I keep having flashbacks to the time Greenpeace blasted Apple for not having published their plans to remove certain plastics from it's computers. In the end, it turned out that Apple didn't have a plan to remove those plastics, because they *already had*. (It's hard to remove something from your products that you aren't using in the first place.)

Greenpeace has over-estimated the iCloud datacenter's power consumption by a factor of five, thereby under-estimating the impact of the solar & fuel-cell power farms Apple is in the process of building. And, because it would show that they don't know what they're talking about, Greenpeace is ignoring the corrections Apple has provided.

*THIS* is an example of why Greenpeace isn't taken seriously anymore.

notabadname
Apr 18, 2012, 10:44 AM
So Greenpeace members drove their carbon-footprint-using vehicles to Apple's facilities and hung large sheets of former trees on the sides of the buildings. Which Apple of course had to take down after the hour passed and send to a landfill.

Gemütlichkeit
Apr 18, 2012, 10:44 AM
This just makes greenpeace look even more ridiculous.

starflyer
Apr 18, 2012, 10:53 AM
The co-founder of Greenpeace explains why he left. Pretty much sums up this entire thing.


Why I Left Greenpeace
By PATRICK MOORE
April 22, 2008; Page A23

In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.

But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.

At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.

The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.

My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.

Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.

Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children’s toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.

Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.

Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure.

It may be tempting to take this path of least resistance, but at what cost? None of the potential replacement chemicals have been tested and found safe to the degree that DINP has. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently cautioned, “If DINP is to be replaced in children’s products . . . the potential risks of substitutes must be considered. Weaker or more brittle plastics might break and result in a choking hazard. Other plasticizers might not be as well studied as DINP.”

The hysteria over DINP began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated DINP.

The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.

The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.

We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.

Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.

kevingaffney
Apr 18, 2012, 10:54 AM
But Apple's Irish offices are powered by Guinness.

But all US ones are powered by hot air

lowbatteries
Apr 18, 2012, 10:56 AM
Datacenters are green. Massive servers that replace thousands of servers that would be required otherwise... It's like mass transit. The thing itself uses a massive amount of juice, but the alternative is far worse. I suppose it's just short-sightedness on their part?

Except, mass transit isn't necessarily green – see http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html

I don't think we can assume that 1000 servers in one location is better than having them dispersed in many locations.

bedifferent
Apr 18, 2012, 11:00 AM
Oh, now the gloves are off :p

kcmac
Apr 18, 2012, 11:02 AM
Apple's math actually doesn't add up because a 20 MW solar farm only generates 15-20% of its rating. There's no way you get 60% renewable penetration based on what they've built, you can't even get 50%. If Greenpeace wanted to attack Apple they could get them on bad math. But they won't because they're too lazy to do the math in the first place.

Greenpeace's whole accusation is flawed because:

Apple is tied to the grid via Duke Energy which uses nuclear power plants. Greenpeace has no idea if that datacenter will be fed by nuclear or coal. Only way they would know is buying looking at the contract, which I'm pretty sure they haven't because it's proprietary.

Greenpeace decided to take North Carolina's energy portfolio (which is an average of every utility in the state ) and assume this average value is what Apple is gonna get. 54.5% coal was N.C.'s portfolio coal penetration as a whole, so Greenpeace published it and said since Apple is building in North Carolina, they're gonna be fed off 54.5% coal. This is stupid and totally ignores the finer realities, such as some utilities are greener than others, electricity regularly cross state lines, and you can procure whatever type of generation you want if you're willing to pay for it.
A little more going on at their center as well that may play into their claim

http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=16741

darkplanets
Apr 18, 2012, 11:03 AM
Greenpeace is a bunch of irrational nutjobs that will deny all attempts at science and fact.

Apple could publish their power bill from Duke and they would still deny the usage. That's how backwards their organization is; it's like a 8 year old child plugging their ears and yelling at the top of their lungs "I'm not listening!".

Their campaigns against plastics is utterly laughable from the science perspective -- never have I seen such complete stupidity in my life. It's all fact-less sensationalism in order to drum up publicity, which in turn generates them money. That's the primary motivation at the end of the day; they want money. If they actually cared about the environment they would first have to start in China, which has the worst environmental record of anyone.

ovrlrd
Apr 18, 2012, 11:04 AM
I wonder when Greenpeace is going to start protesting itself for using too much energy protesting.

The metaprotest would cause an implosion in the organization and we would never have to hear from them again.

vojnik
Apr 18, 2012, 11:06 AM
this is just getting ridiculous

Ice Dragon
Apr 18, 2012, 11:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeS4tVFbNNk <--- Captain Kirk has a message for Greenpeace at the 4:05 mark.

iGrouch
Apr 18, 2012, 11:08 AM
MRN Grainpace
SDR Grainpace
OBJDR Grainpace RI

Password for Apple European HQ Cork.

(have to say with Cork accent and be from Cork do get it)

zztype
Apr 18, 2012, 11:09 AM
For its part, Apple believes that Greenpeace is continuing to obfuscate its energy numbers and release only those that make other companies appear in a negative light. And so despite Greenpeace's claims regarding the energy impact of Apple's data centers on the environment, Apple believes that the company is doing more to publicly lead the way toward further adoption of renewable energy sources.

Liquorpuki
Apr 18, 2012, 11:11 AM
A little more going on at their center as well that may play into their claim

http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=16741

What do you mean?

bedifferent
Apr 18, 2012, 11:17 AM
The co-founder of Greenpeace explains why he left. Pretty much sums up this entire thing.

This has been proven to be a fake letter over the years, I think the site Snoops or something verified that info. Sadly.

Now, how bout that "Mountain Lion"? Thoughts? ... Anyone? ... Bueller? ... Voodoo economics?...

iZac
Apr 18, 2012, 11:17 AM
High profile target makes high profile news. This is almost as ridiculous as the crap that PETA pulls.

y3k
Apr 18, 2012, 11:20 AM
Geez, there are so many companies in the world really ignoring environmental issues and these idiots are attacking Apple, probably the greenest computer manufacturer on Earth?

Fraaaa
Apr 18, 2012, 11:23 AM
Come on. They listed on the 14 companies even Yahoo that has 50% of renewable energy, as in: "No matter the effort will make you pay!" :mad:.

JAT
Apr 18, 2012, 11:23 AM
Apple's math actually doesn't add up because a 20 MW solar farm only generates 15-20% of its rating. There's no way you get 60% renewable penetration based on what they've built, you can't even get 50%. If Greenpeace wanted to attack Apple they could get them on bad math. But they won't because they're too lazy to do the math in the first place.

Based on which panels? There's been a lot of change. Plus, I thought for the entire farm/array, they use output as the rating.

starflyer
Apr 18, 2012, 11:24 AM
This has been proven to be a fake letter over the years, I think the site Snoops or something verified that info. Sadly.

Now, how bout that "Mountain Lion"? Thoughts? ... Anyone? ... Bueller? ... Voodoo economics?...

I have never heard that. I did a quick google search and I can't find anything saying it was fake.

Bubba Satori
Apr 18, 2012, 11:28 AM
The proles have to obey dictatorial environmental laws
but Greenfleece doesn't have to obey tresspass, vandalism and extortion laws.

How special.
Another ******* double standard.
Don't do as we do, do as we say.

Frauds, hypocrites and unaccountable envrionazis forcing their irrational ideology down our throats.
They won't be satisfied until they've ground Western Civilization a halt
and were all sitting in the dark, shivering as we gaze at our green navels.

The billionaire carbon credit mobster poster boy of environmental hypocrisy.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XHKCA1X0p-o/TUw-0lr_B4I/AAAAAAAAAIk/7G_QUYi9wNY/s1600/al-gore-plane.gif

justperry
Apr 18, 2012, 11:29 AM
I feel like there are much more environmentally-damaging companies they could be protesting instead of Apple, which actually has an amazing record for a computer company.

Steel companies use massive amounts of electricity in their furnaces.

bedifferent
Apr 18, 2012, 11:33 AM
I have never heard that. I did a quick google search and I can't find anything saying it was fake.

The letter was fake but not Moore's change in stance. Interesting as to why. Hmmm. I just read this info, seems like the two are just going back and forth, however Moore has made a s**tload of cash from corporations in lectures, speeches, tours, etc. Just basic mudslinging that goes nowhere. Shame as I try to be as eco-conscious as anyone, but Greenpeace sometimes gives the environmental movement a bad rap. Sucks. I just hope that this doesn't make people on here anti-environmental. We need to be more aware of the impact that we (as techies) have on the environment. I'm disappointed in a lot of the comments, not because of their points but because of such comments as "*******s", "idiots", "get a job", etc. We may all not agree, but I just wish more on here would do so civilly. In the words of Rodney Kind, "Why can't we all just get along" lol :)

Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore
Media release - October 10, 2008
Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.
While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he "saw the light" but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.

Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who's Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.

Moore's claims run from the exaggerated to the outrageous to the downright false, including that "clear-cutting is good for forests" and Three Mile Island was actually "a success story" because the radiation from the partially melted core was contained. That is akin to saying "my car crash was a success because I only cracked my skull and didn't die."

By exploiting his former ties to Greenpeace, Moore portrays himself as a prodigal son who has seen the error of his ways. Unfortunately, the media - especially conservative media - give him a platform for his views, and often do so without mentioning the fact that he is a paid spokesperson for polluting companies.

The following provides a brief overview of Patrick Moore's positions and his history of working for corporate polluters.

TRUTH V. FICTION ON PATRICK MOORE:

Patrick Moore claims he is an environmentalist and represents an independent scientific perspective on forest issues.

TRUTH: Moore was paid by the British Columbia Forest Alliance, an industry-front group set up by the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller (the same PR firm that represented Exxon after the Valdez oil spill and Union Carbide after the Bhopal chemical disaster). The BC Forest Alliance is funded primarily by the logging industry. He also has ties to other corporations including Monsanto and Weyerhaeuser.

According to Moore, logging is good for forests causing reforestation, not deforestation.

TRUTH: Webster's Dictionary defines deforestation as "the action or process of clearing of forests." The argument advanced by forest industry spin-doctors that clear-cutting "causes reforestation, not deforestation" is without basis in fact. It is like arguing that having a heart attack improves your health because of the medical treatment you receive afterwards.

According to Moore: "Forward-thinking environmentalists and scientists have made clear, technology has now progressed to the point where the activist fear mongering about the safety of nuclear energy bears no resemblance to reality."

TRUTH:

- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) concluded years ago that the lack of containment on Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored advanced nuclear reactor designs constituted a "major safety trade-off."

- Patrick Moore has recently begun touting the "safety" of nuclear energy at the behest of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), which is being bankrolled by the nuclear industry to promote nuclear energy as clean and safe energy. The public relations firm Hill & Knowlton has been hired to roll out a multi-million dollar campaign to repackage Moore's propaganda to convince congressional leaders of public support for the building of new nuclear plants.

Hill and Knowlton are most well known for their public relations work defending the tobacco industry. The PR firm has also worked for industry interests to stall action to protect the ozone layer by executing "a carefully designed campaign attacking the science behind the ozone depletion and delaying government action for two years. This was enough time for DuPont to bring new, ozone-friendly chemicals to market." Austin American Statesman, Cox News Service Jeff Nesmith June 26, 2005 http://www.statesman.com/search/content/insight/stories/06/26doubt.html

More information on Hill and Knowlton can be found at:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hill_%26_Knowlton

Moore's recent call that the U.S. should generate 60 percent of U.S. electricity from nuclear power is ludicrous. These plants are acknowledged by the federal government's own National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - commonly referred to as the 9/11 Commission - as terrorist targets. An accident or terrorist attack at a nuclear plant could result in thousands of near-term deaths from radiation exposure and hundreds of thousands of long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within only fifty miles of a nuclear plant.

His proposal not only fails to address the risk posed to the American public by our existing plants, but also fails to address the urgent issue of global warming. According to Dr. Bill Keepin, a physicist and energy consultant in the U.S., "given business-as-usual growth in energy demand, it appears that even an infeasibly massive global nuclear power programme could not reduce future emissions of carbon dioxide. To displace coal alone would require the construction of a new nuclear plant every two or three days for nearly four decades…in the United States, each dollar invested in efficiency displaces nearly seven times more carbon than a dollar invested in new nuclear power."

According to Moore, "Three Mile Island was actually a success story in that the radiation from the partially melted core was contained."

TRUTH:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that 10 million curies of radiation were released into the environment by the Three Mile Island Meltdown. Expert witnesses in the TMI law suits estimated that 150 million curies escaped, because the containment at Three Mile Island was not leak tight and the NRC ignored many of the potential escape routes for the radiation.

Liquorpuki
Apr 18, 2012, 11:34 AM
Based on which panels? There's been a lot of change. Plus, I thought for the entire farm/array, they use output as the rating.

No, they use nameplate capacity, AKA the farm's output if it was generating at max 24/7. Only thing is the sun goes down so solar panels never generate 24/7.

And the panel improvements just mean you're able to get more MW out of a smaller footprint.

keiths29
Apr 18, 2012, 11:34 AM
Greenpeace has named the companies doing the most to be green. How many other companies are much worse? How many countries are worse? Its sad how a once great organization who used to fight real causes are now just trolling for press.

Bodycalming
Apr 18, 2012, 11:36 AM
Look closely, you will see them calling home on their mobile phone. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:. Do Greenpeace have a data centre, or do they use flags to communicate across the world? :confused: :confused: :confused:

powers74
Apr 18, 2012, 11:40 AM
What are all the seeds then? Pathological liars?

Just nuts.

MrNomNoms
Apr 18, 2012, 11:44 AM
Datacenters are green. Massive servers that replace thousands of servers that would be required otherwise... It's like mass transit. The thing itself uses a massive amount of juice, but the alternative is far worse. I suppose it's just short-sightedness on their part?

Yes it is sorted sighted on their part; combine the cloud with high speed networks and telecommuting then one could imagine millions of cars off the road for starters, considerably smaller sized office buildings since a fair chunk of work is done at home etc. If technology is properly utilised and rolled out to all areas then it would be a boom for energy efficiency and conservation long term.

guzhogi
Apr 18, 2012, 11:45 AM
For its part, Greenpeace believes that Apple is continuing to obfuscate its energy numbers and release only those that make the company appear in a positive light.

And some would say Greenpeace is continuing to obfuscate other companies' energy numbers and release only those that make the companies appear in a negative light.

spice weasel
Apr 18, 2012, 11:49 AM
I feel like there are much more environmentally-damaging companies they could be protesting instead of Apple, which actually has an amazing record for a computer company.

Yeah, but then they wouldn't get as much press out of it. They're going after Apple in particular because of the popularity of its products and the name recognition it has.

I'm am completely down with the environmental cause, but Greenpeace is a joke.

Sabenth
Apr 18, 2012, 11:51 AM
i havent gone through all the pages but why protest outside a call center and not the actual server centers in america were these things are based? Just of late these protest things that have been happening do not seem to change a thing. Bankers are still raking in money apples going to carry on brining in the money and were all still going to use cloud based products .

rcappo
Apr 18, 2012, 11:53 AM
My laptop, iPhone, and iPod are solar powered. But, I'll agree that Apple isn't who they should be protesting. They have done a lot, and modern laptops are much more efficient than older desktops.

It is the coal ash ponds, the mining run-off, drilling, and air pollution that is the problem... The issue is that they get a lot more media coverage by protesting Apple than some mining operation in West Virginia.

DakotaGuy
Apr 18, 2012, 11:59 AM
Greenpeace is a joke. Apple get those servers fired up and EXPAND!

Dirtfarmer
Apr 18, 2012, 12:03 PM
Datacenters are green. Massive servers that replace thousands of servers that would be required otherwise... It's like mass transit. The thing itself uses a massive amount of juice, but the alternative is far worse. I suppose it's just short-sightedness on their part?Absolutely not. Diesel buses pollute more, on average, than if the riders simply drove efficient gasoline cars.

Why? Because buses actually do not have that many riders, on average, and because diesel engines release thousands of times the pollution of gasoline ones: they just measure their emissions differently. Look it up.

Don't believe anyone's greenwashing BS hype, ever. Any chance that the green movement had of accomplishing their very important task has been lost. The movement has been hijacked by every profiteer, terrorist, and agenda-pusher on planet earth, and now means nothing.

Tiger8
Apr 18, 2012, 12:10 PM
guys, this is normal, it is typical for every joe, jane, and tom to try to pass their agenda and using the world most valued company name as a vehicle for free publicity. Kinda reminds me of PETA and them 'protesting' celebrities for things like wearing FAKE fur or not speaking about animal rights.

ciociosan
Apr 18, 2012, 12:11 PM
Judging by the tone in here, I'm assuming this is going to get downvoted, but here goes.

While you may or may not like Greenpeace's tactics or their singling out Apple and not Lockheed, Union Carbide or whichever other corporation you'd like to name, it seems there's something rather important that's being overlooked here.

Apple, together with Google, is driving the move to the cloud. This is not something that was completely necessary, in my humble opinion, but a conscious business choice on Apple's part. It takes a whole lot of energy to move things back and forth over the Internet, at least compared to having it stored locally, so where that energy is coming from is important.

Now, while one might point out that no one's being forced to use cloud services, by Apple or any other company, with Apple's size and their legendary insistence on us doing things the way they want us to, by way of making "their" solutions (App Store, iCloud etc etc) more prominent than the alternatives, they have a role to play here.

Apple is a major player in consumer electronics, and Greenpeace has always been about raising awareness, in one form or another. This means that if they get Apple to change the way it's going about something, it affects the carbon footprint of A LOT of products and users.

And let's not forget, Apple didn't move to BFR free components and lower power consumption parts (on the desktop side anyway) because they're good people who care about people drowning in the Maldives or the coral reefs dying. They did it because they're a company that cares about bad PR and the effects it has on their profits. They changed things in large part because of organizations like Greenpeace.

Oh and all of you "IT'S A HOAX & AL GORE IS FAT!1!1!!!" types: Go back to sleep, we'll wake you when your house is under water.

tmroper
Apr 18, 2012, 12:15 PM
The Greenpeace people out in front of my local Apple store every day around lunchtime never try to mention this, they're still talking about the whales.

Boisv
Apr 18, 2012, 12:15 PM
This is all energy that could be spent going after companies with a strong pollution record, like perhaps BP.

subsonix
Apr 18, 2012, 12:28 PM
The billionaire carbon credit mobster poster boy of environmental hypocrisy.

Image (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XHKCA1X0p-o/TUw-0lr_B4I/AAAAAAAAAIk/7G_QUYi9wNY/s1600/al-gore-plane.gif)

Ironically, Al Gore is on Apples board of directors. I'm not sure what that does to your argument.

notabadname
Apr 18, 2012, 12:31 PM
The attack was of course likely coordinated on iPhones and MacBooks.

Reminds me of the occupy Wall Street protests and all the Apple laptops and devices that were shown being used to coordinate the events against the big "evil" corporations then.

C62008
Apr 18, 2012, 12:38 PM
Al Gore, an Apple board member, is no doubt behind these protests (and the many more we will soon see) as he exerts pressure on Apple from both inside and in the arena of public opinion to spend even more money using technology from companies he is heavily invested in. It's a cynical scam. But then, that pretty much sums up Gore.

farmboy
Apr 18, 2012, 12:42 PM
If the people at Greenpeace would do some real research, they would find that the planet itself produces more CO2 than us humans. The CO2 content in the atmosphere is about .04%. Yes, ".04%". For those of us in our 70's and 80's, remember that scientists back in the 60's and 70's were predicting a new Ice Age if we did not reduce the "carbon" in our atmosphere. Now it's global warming. Will the so called "scientists" make up their minds. Do your own research. Do not believe scientists and politicians.

Greenpeace are idiots for whom myths and stories are more interesting than facts. They've always been that way. But reasonable people would agree that we shouldn't trash the place where we live. We haven't found any other place quite like it to move to.

Your CO2 number is correct, but that's like saying CO only has one less oxygen atom than CO2, so it must be OK, it's just one atom. Minute changes matter in science. Just parenthetically, if your own body concentration of CO2 rises from the normal 40mmHg up to 45...CO2 displaces all the oxygen in your organs and you die (CO2 is NOT harmless). Happens to miners all the time, and in industrial accidents.

Even Richard Muller, the guy Fox, WSJ and others trotted out on every climate story, and who was funded by the Koch brothers' "Deniability Institute--Tobacco, Oil, Climate, We Don't Care" (aka Heartland) to deny and refute any global warming claim, has converted. He went to UC Berkeley with the intent of publicly destroying their climate change data...and came back after many weeks saying the data, and global warming, was real. Atmospheric CO2 levels are only one factor.

If you remember a couple of guys in the 60s speculating as to ice ages, you should have also remembered that their claims were universally dismissed by other scientists even then. Not quite the same with climate science.

Eventually the Earth would recover from almost any climate or pollution disaster over time. It's a very resilient place, and scientists acknowledge this. The problem is all the life forms and what happens to them in the meantime.

What are we going to do about it?

MeanAndy
Apr 18, 2012, 12:44 PM
Hah, this is where I live. Was on the radio earlier and thought, ya of course, after the 'news' that came out yesterday, let's do something stupid...and they did.

Come on, there must be better ways than this. I mean I'm all for companies using renewable energy as much as possible but there are far worse ones than Apple out there. A lot of their products are "Green" and their base in Cork is powered 100% by renewable energy. If anything Apple seems to be paving the way for other companies to follow suit.

Stupid stunts like this just give Greenpeace and even worse image than it already has.

Oh and I hope that was printed on recycled paper...using recycled ink!

bedifferent
Apr 18, 2012, 12:46 PM
Judging by the tone in here, I'm assuming this is going to get downvoted, but here goes....

I up-voted you, thank you for a sensible comment, I rather read a well written post than the posts that simply name call and patronize. Whether I agree or not, it leads to civil discourse which is (sadly) lacking on MacRumors.

Jus11
Apr 18, 2012, 12:49 PM
Judging by the tone in here, I'm assuming this is going to get downvoted, but here goes.

While you may or may not like Greenpeace's tactics, or their singling out Apple and not Lockheed, Union Carbide or whichever other corporation you'd like to name, it seems there's something rather important that's being overlooked here.

Apple, together with Google, is driving the move to the cloud. This is not something that was completely necessary, in my humble opinion, but a conscious business choice on Apple's part. It takes a whole of energy to move things back and forth over the Internet, at least compared to having it stored locally, so where that energy is coming from is important.

Now, while one might point out that no one's being forced to use cloud services, by Apple or any other company, Apple's size and their legendary insistence on us doing things the way they want us to, by way of making "their" solutions (App Store, iCloud etc etc) more prominent than the alternatives, they have a role to play here.

Apple is a major player in consumer electronics, and Greenpeace has always been about raising awareness, in one form or another. This means that if they get Apple to change the way it's going about something, it affects the carbon footprint of A LOT of products and users.

And let's not forget, Apple didn't move to BFR free components, lower power consumption parts (on the desktop side anyway) because they're good people who care about people drowning in the Maldives or the coral reefs dying. They did it because they're a company that cares about bad PR and the effects it has on their profits. They changed things in large part because of organizations like Greenpeace.

Oh and all of you "IT'S A HOAX & AL GORE IS FAT!1!1!!!" types: Go back to sleep, we'll wake you when your house is under water.

A rational voice in the desert, indeed.

Liquorpuki
Apr 18, 2012, 01:00 PM
Judging by the tone in here, I'm assuming this is going to get downvoted, but here goes.

While you may or may not like Greenpeace's tactics, or their singling out Apple and not Lockheed, Union Carbide or whichever other corporation you'd like to name, it seems there's something rather important that's being overlooked here.

Apple, together with Google, is driving the move to the cloud. This is not something that was completely necessary, in my humble opinion, but a conscious business choice on Apple's part. It takes a whole of energy to move things back and forth over the Internet, at least compared to having it stored locally, so where that energy is coming from is important.

Now, while one might point out that no one's being forced to use cloud services, by Apple or any other company, Apple's size and their legendary insistence on us doing things the way they want us to, by way of making "their" solutions (App Store, iCloud etc etc) more prominent than the alternatives, they have a role to play here.

Apple is a major player in consumer electronics, and Greenpeace has always been about raising awareness, in one form or another. This means that if they get Apple to change the way it's going about something, it affects the carbon footprint of A LOT of products and users.

And let's not forget, Apple didn't move to BFR free components, lower power consumption parts (on the desktop side anyway) because they're good people who care about people drowning in the Maldives or the coral reefs dying. They did it because they're a company that cares about bad PR and the effects it has on their profits. They changed things in large part because of organizations like Greenpeace.

Oh and all of you "IT'S A HOAX & AL GORE IS FAT!1!1!!!" types: Go back to sleep, we'll wake you when your house is under water.

Yeah but in this case, there's nothing for Apple to change. They're not doing anything wrong and have actually gone the distance with this building. They've spent money to put a solar farm on their land when most companies won't even put solar on their roofs. They've designed their building to use alternative cooling systems while most industrial buildings just run their AC 24/7. They're installing 5MW's worth of fuel cells running off expensive biogas when most people don't even know what a fuel cell looks like.

The problem here is Greenpeace is in the wrong and 2 years after their first press release, they still refuse to admit it. Instead of doing their due diligence and researching whether their accusations hold up, they just up the volume and run more PR. It's intellectually lazy and unethical

IJ Reilly
Apr 18, 2012, 01:01 PM
So the protest weren't at Apple's offices in Ireland, but in their Irish Offices? I didn't know that buildings can have nationalities. So if the building emigrated, it could be known as Apple's Irish-American Offices.

Padraig
Apr 18, 2012, 01:06 PM
Hah, this is where I live. Was on the radio earlier and thought, ya of course, after the 'news' that came out yesterday, let's do something stupid...and they did.

Come on, there must be better ways than this. I mean I'm all for companies using renewable energy as much as possible but there are far worse ones than Apple out there. A lot of their products are "Green" and their base in Cork is powered 100% by renewable energy. If anything Apple seems to be paving the way for other companies to follow suit.

Stupid stunts like this just give Greenpeace and even worse image than it already has.

Oh and I hope that was printed on recycled paper...using recycled ink!

Rubbish.

HiRez
Apr 18, 2012, 01:13 PM
I think "Clean our camera lens" might have been appropriate.

Dr McKay
Apr 18, 2012, 01:30 PM
Greenpeace are nothing but terrorists.

Rocketman
Apr 18, 2012, 01:52 PM
Apple doesn't say much, but as a public company, whatever statements it does make have to be intended to be accurate as of the time they are made. Greenpeace is just using Apple's mindshare to get attention for itself without the same attention to accuracy or ethics.

Rocketman

Michaelgtrusa
Apr 18, 2012, 02:16 PM
I up-voted you, thank you for a sensible comment, I rather read a well written post than the posts that simply name call and patronize. Whether I agree or not, it leads to civil discourse which is (sadly) lacking on MacRumors.

The question is, do people care? IOS 5 seems more important.

tmarks11
Apr 18, 2012, 02:28 PM
In a related story, 10000 green peace activists go home to a house powered by a coal power plant....

...and don't see anything hypocritical about firing up that coal-powered espresso machine for a quick brew...

----------

They better drive electric cars; otherwise, they are full of $h!t.
Electric cars that are recharged from the power grid, which gets 42% of its power from coal power plants.

And if you think coal power plants are better for the environment then an internal combustion engine, then you are looking at different data then I am.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2006/10/coal-chernobyl-twice-week-and-coal-9.html

Revivalution
Apr 18, 2012, 02:30 PM
I don't know of many companies that have tried to please Green Peace as much as apple. After all they Had Al Gore on the board of directors. What could be more Green than that?

And how does Green Peace Say Thank You? By doing this. Great job GP it makes everyone want to work with your flawed views.

For those who are environmental activist you need to separate yourself from Green Peace as quickly as possible, while you still have a sliver of credibility.

mytdave
Apr 18, 2012, 02:30 PM
Maybe they need to team up with PETA and have a party. I suggest roasted seal over a coal fire.

LOL. Earlier this month the PETA people were out en masse at the Easter egg hunt I took the family to downtown... They were handing out flyers (and stickers for the kids!) about protecting poor chickens...

After the egg hunt we intentionally went straight to Chick-fil-a for lunch and bought 2 dozen chicken nuggets. It was fun. :)

mmurphy123
Apr 18, 2012, 02:32 PM
Would someone please tell Greenpeace to have a Coke and a smile and SHUT UP!

jonnysods
Apr 18, 2012, 02:38 PM
What were their signs made of?

tigress666
Apr 18, 2012, 02:38 PM
Just an observation here. It seems every post on here that is, "***** the environment, just liberal blah blah blah" (I'm not saying every post degrading Greenpeace) never seems to have more to say than that.

Yet the posts that will acknowledge there is a problem (Even if they don't like Greenpeace), you can find some posts that have thought put behind and actual bringing up of info they have found.

Seems if people think this whole green movement/protect the earth movement is false, maybe they should at least put some thoughts into their posts to argue the fact rather than just post insults and random sentences making fun of it. If you want me to even entertain the idea that maybe we shouldn't have to worry about the environment, back it up with a real argument, not just slur words made to try to make the other side look silly. It just makes you look like the ignorant one.

If nothing else, Greenpeace has done something constructive, get people to talk about the problem (Even if they are mis aiming their protests or just using the name to get recognition). Though it seems only one side wants to actually talk about it, the other side wants to stick their fingers in their ear and pretend that it's all just a bunch of whackos so they don't have to listen to them.

SBlue1
Apr 18, 2012, 02:42 PM
Greenpeace is just loosing respect if they keep acting like this. :(

Blu Reel
Apr 18, 2012, 02:42 PM
It's interesting to see numbers posted and actions taken decrying the actions of a few companies as having a negative impact on the environment.

The question I have is:

Which would have the greater impact on changing the environment for the better? A few companies modifying their practices? or millions of people modifying their practices?

If you're looking for a government solution, would it make you mad that millions of American don't pay any income taxes?

If you're looking to raise awareness to individuals across the US, would it make you mad that millions of Americans have higher priorities than making sure their energy use is from clean energy?

Wouldn't you consider such a population demographic that numbers in the millions to be a severe drain on our economy, our society, and our environment?

Would it make you mad to know they represent 6.5% of the American population? That's 46 million people.

By the way, that's how many people who are living BELOW the national poverty threshold in the United States as published by an Indiana University study. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/11/poverty-america-likely-worse-report

They do not pay income tax.
They are more concerned about where and when their next meal is coming from and if they can afford to pay this month's rent.

And hypothetically, if all 46 million people were employed and making $11,170 (household of 1) which is the poverty threshold for annual income, that would mean the companies that employed them for the entire year would have spent $513+ BILLION dollars in their wages alone.

So, once again, which would have a greater impact on the saving the environment? A few companies modifying their practices? or 46 million people having the ability to modify their practices?

macnerd93
Apr 18, 2012, 02:50 PM
Don't Greenpeace realise how many jobs heat industry create for people?. Why are they always so negative towards anything that they have no understanding of.

Its important to do what we can to help the planet, but the way Greenpeace act is extreme. Why can't they put their time and money to good use rather than just wasting their lives protesting lost causes?

There are far more important things to worry about than all this eco clap trap i.e the major hunger in africa, the current wars and all other forms of societal issues.

I can foresee oil running out way before we have to worry about serious levels of global warming anyway.

They need to be doing more stuff worthwhile to society and not trying to hold us back.

Revivalution
Apr 18, 2012, 02:50 PM
I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much different than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

http://www.weatherbrains.com/audio/wb052206.mp3

daxomni
Apr 18, 2012, 03:56 PM
Is it just me, or does it almost seem like today's Greenpeace story by Eric Slivka was written as soft-sell setup to nudge people into outright bashing of environmental activists for daring to challenge Apple's numbers?

Maybe Greenpeace does have faulty numbers, that's certainly possible. However, so far as I can tell they're also asking for more transparent information so everyone can have a better idea of what is (and is not) being done to actually reduce our net pollution levels (which I understand have continued rising drastically for decades now). If Apple supplies a few carefully chosen numbers that don't seem to entirely add up then I guess Greenpeace is just supposed to pretend they don't see anything questionable with Apple's response? Apple is no doubt greener than it legally has to be, and is probably much greener than many other businesses of similar size, but is it really so crazy to think Apple could do even more to reduce their impact on the environment? Not even Apple is making the claim that there is absolutely nothing more they can do, so why are their fans already exonerating them? I find it interesting how so many people point out that Apple is not and cannot be a "perfect" steward of the environment while apparently expecting virtually no mistakes from activists that may dare to criticize them. If they drove a car or printed on a sheet of paper or made a phone call then they must be abject failures at being environmental activists. Yeah, that sounds calm and objective to me. In the end we have a thread where hundreds of members are calling not for cleaner air or water, but for fewer activists and less dissent. Why? Because they caused a single company a day or two of mild grief? I guess when the stock price falls you have to blame somebody. Might as well be our already dwindling numbers of extremely wealthy environmental activists who live in mansions, fly in private planes, and drive supercars. Right? Makes sense to me.

ramuman
Apr 18, 2012, 04:32 PM
Green Peace is a joke. They have lost all credibility long ago. :(

They never had credibility.

RangerOne
Apr 18, 2012, 04:44 PM
I was stopped outside an Apple store a few months ago by a Green Peace volunteer who said "Are you helping Apple waste energy with iCloud?"

I let him have it. I've been involved in the data center industry for more than a decade, and it was clear to me that Green Peace hadn't done their homework and couldn't understand the numbers even if they found them.

This is a simple case of Green Peace trying to garner free press by complaining about a high-profile company like Apple. Clear and simple.

I have little respect for Green Peace. Not any more. I consider myself a strong environmentalist, but that organization really gives environmentalism a bad name.

JAT
Apr 18, 2012, 05:01 PM
Judging by the tone in here, I'm assuming this is going to get downvoted, but here goes.

Your post probably shows more thought than all of the Greenpeace people together put into this series of events.

Dragado
Apr 18, 2012, 05:27 PM
Except, mass transit isn't necessarily green – see http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html

I don't think we can assume that 1000 servers in one location is better than having them dispersed in many locations.

You don't understand. These servers have far more capacity than anyone's local server would ever have, because their industry is measured in storage size. A single large capacity server uses less energy per GB than a bunch of smaller servers would. I think this is a safe assumption when you understand how the industry works.

brdeveloper
Apr 18, 2012, 06:09 PM
I think this is good in the long run, most companies do hide their numbers and hopefully this will "help" make them search for cleaner energy sources.

I didn't understand the highly negative score to your post. How can we live so nearby, watch the same movies and most tv series (although subtitled, dubbed) but think so different?

Is it patriotism, a kind of nostalgy from the time when Apple was a true american company? Let's face it, in the long term Apple tends doing nothing for americans and more for its stockholders. So defending Apple when it does something in the wrong way doesn't pay any dividend to americans in general.

ramuman
Apr 18, 2012, 06:11 PM
Except, mass transit isn't necessarily green – see http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html

I don't think we can assume that 1000 servers in one location is better than having them dispersed in many locations.

That guy is an absolute idiot. He assumes that delivery of energy is 100% efficient towards charging an EV (from coal/nuclear/the lord himself), and bases his calculations of that. Give me a break.

Also, by the very EPA study he links to, rail transportation is the most efficient. On top of that, BTUs used at the vehicle doesn't equal total BTUs used. I could drive a car that uses 1 BTU per mile, but it won't make a difference if it takes 10,000 BTUs to deliver that to the car.

robwormald
Apr 18, 2012, 06:16 PM
the best bit about this is the Cork Apple site is up on a hill, out of the Cork city centre, and across the road from a traveller's (gypsy) campsite.

it's not going to be the most visually effective protest they've ever done

BC2009
Apr 18, 2012, 06:32 PM
I wonder how much power Greenpeace used in creating those protest signs, and copying their fliers they hand out. Someone should protest Greenpeace. Buncha no-good hippies.

That would be awesome! Where is their headquarters?

Scarrus
Apr 18, 2012, 06:41 PM
True, but Greenpeace are publicity hounds, and as such, they will protest Apple because it gets them more media coverage. They could protest ABB, United Technologies, or RR Donnelley and the media might mention it on page 7.

The end result of their efforts benefits the planet. How they go about it is frequently irksome.

I support Greenpeace's mission, but not their tactics. Hence, they get my emotional support, but no money from my wallet.


The only thing their efforts benefit for is filling the pockets of those who developed the so-called new "green energy".
Bet you anything those are the guys behind all those "green movements" around the globe.
And I thought the general population was finally getting smart...

Amazing Iceman
Apr 18, 2012, 07:01 PM
In a related story, 10000 green peace activists go home to a house powered by a coal power plant....

...and don't see anything hypocritical about firing up that coal-powered espresso machine for a quick brew...

----------


Electric cars that are recharged from the power grid, which gets 42% of its power from coal power plants.

And if you think coal power plants are better for the environment then an internal combustion engine, then you are looking at different data then I am.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2006/10/coal-chernobyl-twice-week-and-coal-9.html

LOL! That's the insanity of this whole mess.
If people are really worried about contamination, they should stop using Pampers and use regular cloth diapers and wash these by hand.

Tinmania
Apr 18, 2012, 07:05 PM
Yeah. But that's probably because Americans traditionally don't care a crap about the environment. You are about 20 to 30 years behind Europe when it comes to the protection of the environment and call activists "hippies".

As you are from Germany, you should ashamed of yourself for such a ridiculous comment. Here we have Germany, running scared because of last year's, tsunami shuttering nuclear power plants. What a joke.



Michael

blinkin182
Apr 18, 2012, 08:01 PM
I feel like there are much more environmentally-damaging companies they could be protesting instead of Apple, which actually has an amazing record for a computer company.

Completely agree with you on this one.

They know Apple is in the press limelight, so they focus on them. Greenpeace wants to bring focus on this issue. Ok, I get it, that's fine, but at least include other companies in your list, instead of making it appear like Apple is the worst company in the world... just like all the Foxconn press...

DavidInSydney
Apr 18, 2012, 08:05 PM
That’s Greenpeace for you – in fact the whole green/left movement – nothing will ever satisfy them. They’re some kind of auto immune disease on the body politic.

Their good intentions are based on mistaken beliefs and ignorance and their tactics show they are not good people.

Glideslope
Apr 18, 2012, 08:13 PM
Yes, their heads are filled with coal. :apple:

blinkin182
Apr 18, 2012, 08:16 PM
As you are from Germany, you should ashamed of yourself for such a ridiculous comment. Here we have Germany, running scared because of last year's, tsunami shuttering nuclear power plants. What a joke.



Michael

Perhaps you may think of it as a joke, but honestly being concerned a nuclear catastrophe could happen in your country is not especially funny. The nuclear cloud of Chernobyl went west and affected much a western Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects) when it happened.

As for his comment about Americans and environmentalism, I agree to a certain extent that the US has some work to do in reducing its energy use and its promotion of green power.

It's ironic really. It has a started to have a lead in green technology (like fuel cells), but on the other hand, politicians and many other people still don't believe in global warming or reducing reliance on oil.

DavidInSydney
Apr 18, 2012, 08:17 PM
Yes, their heads are filled with coal. :apple:

Could you possibly be more cryptic? Who are you replying to?

DavidInSydney
Apr 18, 2012, 08:42 PM
Perhaps you may think of it as a joke, but honestly being concerned a nuclear catastrophe could happen in your country is not especially funny. The nuclear cloud of Chernobyl went west and affected much a western Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects) when it happened.


We seem to have wandered off-topic, but here goes.

That link you supplied says, "...most of those affected received relatively low doses of radiation; there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain.". It's thought the total number of deaths from Chernobyl is 61 people (including 31 from the initial explosion). Remember, this is by far the worst nuclear accident.

Of course there were other effects. Somewhere from 100,000 to 200,000 abortions were carried out on women from Scandinavia to Italy, who were worried about the effects of the radiation on their unborn children. This is the well known media panic effect.

Worldwide, no other power source is as safe as nuclear, the record is clear. For the amount of electricity produced nothing comes close, not wind power, not hydro power not solar power and certainly not coal or oil. Look it up. And we're talking about the old technology of second generation nuclear power which has problems - though nothing as bad as what's commonly thought.

Third generation plants are coming into use and fourth generation plants such as IFR, see here (http://www.amazon.com/Prescription-Planet-Painless-Remedy-Environmental/dp/1419655825), promise to solve all of the problems of nuclear power and provide incredibly cheap electricity.

Anybody who's serious about Man-Caused Global Warming (I'm not, BTW) should want nuclear power. At least it will get rid of those dirty coal fired plants.

charlituna
Apr 18, 2012, 09:30 PM
I wonder how many Greenpeace numpties have iCloud accounts?

How many have gas using SUVs, buy food they didn't grow themselves etc

----------

I wonder how much power Greenpeace used in creating those protest signs, and copying their fliers they hand out. Someone should protest Greenpeace. Buncha no-good hippies.

They tried to make an app for that.

But Apple wouldn't approve it

charlituna
Apr 18, 2012, 09:47 PM
Oh there goes another whale.......

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GPYX6MNs_1M/TPfWGuNuF5I/AAAAAAAABlw/ug4--sI5rWU/s400/Squirrel%252BDug.jpg

MeanAndy
Apr 18, 2012, 09:48 PM
Rubbish.

Care to elaborate more on that statement?

The company already touts that its facilities in Austin, Sacramento, Munich, and Cork are powered by 100% renewable energy sources as part of a broad effort to reduce minimize its environmental impact across its facilities and throughout its products' life cycles.

This quote can be found here http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/02/apples-options-for-north-carolina-fuel-cell-installation-point-to-bloom-energy/. Now I'm not saying that I believe it as I cannot think of many places around Cork that Apple can draw it's power from except the hydroelectric dam, but that fact that a large multinational corporation like Apple says it should hold some truth, as what would they gain from the lies.

bedifferent
Apr 18, 2012, 10:16 PM
The question is, do people care? IOS 5 seems more important.

and what a truly sad reflection on the community as a whole. Whether you agree with greenpeace or not, the personal attacks on them and others here is astonishing. It makes me lose faith in humanity, if we can't even discuss important issues with open minds without resorting to insults and childish name calling, what hope do we have at anything?

Tinmania
Apr 18, 2012, 10:17 PM
Perhaps you may think of it as a joke, but honestly being concerned a nuclear catastrophe could happen in your country is not especially funny. The nuclear cloud of Chernobyl went west and affected much a western Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects) when it happened.
I'm sure the Germans will be thrilled to be compared to cold war era Soviet Union. What's next, a Yugo to Mercedes comparison?

There is actually a new Yugo coming out. It adds a rear window defroster. Keeps your hands warm when you push it.




Mike

bretm
Apr 18, 2012, 11:09 PM
Conservatives, liberals, socialists.... It so nice to see everyone come together when someone attacks apple. Fanboys unite!

bretm
Apr 18, 2012, 11:25 PM
I didn't understand the highly negative score to your post. How can we live so nearby, watch the same movies and most tv series (although subtitled, dubbed) but think so different?

Is it patriotism, a kind of nostalgy from the time when Apple was a true american company? Let's face it, in the long term Apple tends doing nothing for americans and more for its stockholders. So defending Apple when it does something in the wrong way doesn't pay any dividend to americans in general.

Well, they're an American public company. I'm a stockholder. I've been an Apple user since 1990. From that day I got it. It didnt matter how bad things got, I believed that better ideas and design must prevail in the end. They did. And I'm sorry if you couldn't see it that way and you didn't throw a few dollars at them and buy some stock when you could. They owe YOU nothing. You And Apple have had a series of mutually beneficial transactions. I have invested heavily in them and have been rewarded.

If Apple has harmed someone or stepped on someone's rights to pursue their own happiness then by all means lets go get em because they're a menace. But until then let's quit drinking the kool aid from GreenPeace. They have no agenda?

KingJosh
Apr 18, 2012, 11:27 PM
sure green peace should be stirring up other people but targeting the most successful company in the world is bound to get you on the front page everywhere. Can't be too clean.

----------

I didn't understand the highly negative score to your post. How can we live so nearby, watch the same movies and most tv series (although subtitled, dubbed) but think so different?

Is it patriotism, a kind of nostalgy from the time when Apple was a true american company? Let's face it, in the long term Apple tends doing nothing for americans and more for its stockholders. So defending Apple when it does something in the wrong way doesn't pay any dividend to americans in general.
it's called redneckism lol. The only way to teach those kind is for them to experience the destruction first aka too late. I usually relate it to this. Tell a redneck to kill themselves for a million dollars and they would do it.

Put money infront of the air you breathe and eventually your money will be the death of you.

GadgetDon
Apr 19, 2012, 12:02 AM
I didn't understand the highly negative score to your post. How can we live so nearby, watch the same movies and most tv series (although subtitled, dubbed) but think so different?

Is it patriotism, a kind of nostalgy from the time when Apple was a true american company? Let's face it, in the long term Apple tends doing nothing for americans and more for its stockholders. So defending Apple when it does something in the wrong way doesn't pay any dividend to americans in general.

When Apple screws up, they need to be held to account. But these days it seems like Apple is a choice target because you'll get your publicity out.

More specifically, when it comes to GreenPeace, I've got two major complaints.

The first is that they have assumed the mantle of judge and jury on environmental goodness, and the fact that companies aren't dropping their pants and opening the kimono to show them absolutely everything is proof, to them, that the companies are evil. Worse, very often they give high grades to "talks to us and promises to do good stuff" and low grades to "they won't talk to us so we're going to assume they'll do the worst." Take the toxic chemical in parts issue from a few years back. Every chemical analysis was saying Apple was among the best at reducing the use of these chemicals, but because they weren't setting forth grand plans to GreenPeace and making unrealistic promises, they got rated low.

On this specific issue - there are places where electricity is generated by solar, places where electricity is generated by wind, places by hydroelectric. And yes, places where most of the electricity is generated by coal. Sometimes, it's because there's no real practical solution. Other times, it's because the coal plant is there and the area isn't flowing with investment to justify new power plants. As near as I can tell, GreenPeace's position is that nobody should open a business in those places - meaning the economy won't get any investment to make it possible to build new non-coal power plants and leaving the people living there in poverty. But those are just people, and the welfare of people has never been a concern of GreenPeace.

Is it worthwhile raising issues of how efficient plants are, what they can do about reusing the heat given off by the servers and what it can do to generate its own energy? Yes it is. (And by all reports, Apple is setting a good example.) But instead, they use their own simplistic yardstick, and it's worse than useless. And they approach it, not by telling companies "hey, let's see what you're doing, what others are doing, maybe we can find ways of doing it better so everyone benefits" but as "you guys are all evil and we're gonna scream at you until you become not evil", which is not a good way to win friends and influence people.

mrxak
Apr 19, 2012, 12:13 AM
This reminds me of PETA trying to get Hamburg, Germany to change their name. It's just a media stunt, that's what these lunatics do. A lot of the time they're not even serious, they're just trying to get attention to their issues, thus money for their organization, thus more attention to their issues. Since they are incredibly ineffective at actually changing anything, they do what they can to fight the good fight and maintain a morally superior position, regardless of how absurd it actually is. Facts are irrelevant, only attention matters. They'd rather have an emotional victory than a real one.

Those who actually do care about the environment, but from a scientific standpoint, are repulsed by this attitude, of course. Considering those more scientifically and factually-inclined tend to be in better positions to actually change things for the better, that's too bad.

Michaelgtrusa
Apr 19, 2012, 12:41 AM
and what a truly sad reflection on the community as a whole. Whether you agree with greenpeace or not, the personal attacks on them and others here is astonishing. It makes me lose faith in humanity, if we can't even discuss important issues with open minds without resorting to insults and childish name calling, what hope do we have at anything?



I agree with you on the personal attacks, changing the nature of the beast seems unlikely at this point in time and their are more important issues to deal with such as this and the whole made in china issue.

Jus11
Apr 19, 2012, 02:01 AM
Those People deserve a High Five... In the Face... With a Brick...

Why is this message promoting violence still here, moderators? And why do people "like" it? Don't you think about anything?

Barbarism vs. civilization 1-0. :(

parish
Apr 19, 2012, 02:08 AM
Now I'm not saying that I believe it as I cannot think of many places around Cork that Apple can draw it's power from except the hydroelectric dam

Surely hydro-electric is a renewable, green, energy source?

princeali
Apr 19, 2012, 02:53 AM
its very good that they DO care about their environment and the companies and the Government cares also!*
here in Bahrain its shameful , the Government itself toxins the environment by the US MADE teargases and kills people :(*
Thanx US.*

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsbj9q6oao1qccsavo1_500.jpg

LarryC
Apr 19, 2012, 03:07 AM
I'd love to see every nation and every corporation tell green peace to go straight to…hades. (not in those exact words of course)

Ciclismo
Apr 19, 2012, 03:29 AM
Dear Greenpeace:

If you really want to make a difference, you should be protesting in Germany, where they're abandoning (clean) nuclear power for coal.

Apple, Microsoft, etc. do what is necessary for their business. In the absence of green alternatives, they have no choice in their use of power generation systems.

Funny thing is, Greenpeace were at the front of the "Anti-Nuclear" crowd. Now thanks to idiots like them, our nuclear power plants are being shut down before a proper alternative is available.

And as a result, the cost of power (at least here in Bavaria) has jumped 15%. I can afford it, but many families can't. However, it's not like the retards at Greenpeace care, they only interest themselves for environmental issues, not social ones.

Ciclismo
Apr 19, 2012, 03:40 AM
Why is this message promoting violence still here, moderators? And why do people "like" it? Don't you think about anything?

Barbarism vs. civilization 1-0. :(

Greenpeace does not shy from violence, such as ramming boats, damaging private property, or even assault on other human beings (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-15/world/spain.greenpeace_1_greenpeace-activists-nuclear-plant-nuclear-power?_s=PM:WORLD). A humorous light-hearted post is nothing in comparison.

A plant security guard was "slightly injured" by the activists as they entered. The guard was treated at the plant medical facility, the government spokeswoman said.

hogo
Apr 19, 2012, 04:19 AM
Can we run the data center on liquified green peace members? Two birds...
It's people!!!

scottjl
Apr 19, 2012, 07:27 AM
sorry greenpeace, you come of looking like a bunch of idiots out of all of this. not only do you not have the facts, but your illegal, and fanatical ways really don't paint you as the "good guys." just a bunch of clueless whiners.

and since when does apple have to bear the brunt for the world's ills? why aren't you out there protesting the chemical companies? the oil companies? the governments who allow this crap to go on and on? apple's a shiny target, but there are far bigger offenders you're completely ignoring. this screams more "publicity stunt" than it does for any actual care about the environment.

firemedicmark
Apr 19, 2012, 07:27 AM
lol i like protestors like this!

MeanAndy
Apr 19, 2012, 08:54 AM
Surely hydro-electric is a renewable, green, energy source?
Well ya it is. I just mean there's only one in Cork and the power is used for other places too. So i'm just wondering where else they get their renewable power from. The Apple HQ is fairly big with a lot of production line machinery, it must require a lot of power and the dam can only provide so much.

rmanbike
Apr 19, 2012, 08:59 AM
Duke Energy supplies to Maiden area, half which comes from nuclear and the other half from hydroelectric and coal. GP needs to get their facts straight

brdeveloper
Apr 19, 2012, 12:43 PM
When Apple screws up, they need to be held to account. But these days it seems like Apple is a choice target because you'll get your publicity out.

More specifically, when it comes to GreenPeace, I've got two major complaints.

The first is that they have assumed the mantle of judge and jury on environmental goodness, and the fact that companies aren't dropping their pants and opening the kimono to show them absolutely everything is proof, to them, that the companies are evil. Worse, very often they give high grades to "talks to us and promises to do good stuff" and low grades to "they won't talk to us so we're going to assume they'll do the worst." Take the toxic chemical in parts issue from a few years back. Every chemical analysis was saying Apple was among the best at reducing the use of these chemicals, but because they weren't setting forth grand plans to GreenPeace and making unrealistic promises, they got rated low.

On this specific issue - there are places where electricity is generated by solar, places where electricity is generated by wind, places by hydroelectric. And yes, places where most of the electricity is generated by coal. Sometimes, it's because there's no real practical solution. Other times, it's because the coal plant is there and the area isn't flowing with investment to justify new power plants. As near as I can tell, GreenPeace's position is that nobody should open a business in those places - meaning the economy won't get any investment to make it possible to build new non-coal power plants and leaving the people living there in poverty. But those are just people, and the welfare of people has never been a concern of GreenPeace.

Is it worthwhile raising issues of how efficient plants are, what they can do about reusing the heat given off by the servers and what it can do to generate its own energy? Yes it is. (And by all reports, Apple is setting a good example.) But instead, they use their own simplistic yardstick, and it's worse than useless. And they approach it, not by telling companies "hey, let's see what you're doing, what others are doing, maybe we can find ways of doing it better so everyone benefits" but as "you guys are all evil and we're gonna scream at you until you become not evil", which is not a good way to win friends and influence people.

Good argument. Agreed.

----------

Well, they're an American public company. I'm a stockholder. I've been an Apple user since 1990. From that day I got it. It didnt matter how bad things got, I believed that better ideas and design must prevail in the end. They did. And I'm sorry if you couldn't see it that way and you didn't throw a few dollars at them and buy some stock when you could. They owe YOU nothing. You And Apple have had a series of mutually beneficial transactions. I have invested heavily in them and have been rewarded.

If Apple has harmed someone or stepped on someone's rights to pursue their own happiness then by all means lets go get em because they're a menace. But until then let's quit drinking the kool aid from GreenPeace. They have no agenda?

You're a stockholder. And how about american non-stockholders? Apple is patriotic for them?

Glideslope
Apr 19, 2012, 05:25 PM
Could you possibly be more cryptic? Who are you replying to?

No. :apple:

RSchot
Apr 20, 2012, 10:24 AM
Great opportunity to educate the media about Apple's environment policy: http://www.apple.com/environment/

And by doing so, backfire on the hypocrites of Greenpeace.

Maybe -and that is an informed hint- the media should question the internal GP practices to protect the privacy of their "constituents" (customers) data and the efficiency of their infrastructure...:p

zewazir
Apr 20, 2012, 10:38 AM
Surely hydro-electric is a renewable, green, energy source?
Tell that the the west coast salmon industry. The hydroelectric projects built up and down the Columbia River drainage area has devastated salmon populations.

Every power source has its good points, and its drawbacks. That includes solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, coal, etc.

santybm
Apr 20, 2012, 06:47 PM
I though I would write and send in a message through Greenpeace's form.: Unfortunately it seems that I also signed the petition... at least the CEO's will get one good message.

https://p.twimg.com/Aq9nOs9CEAMbFhs.jpg:large

MacinDoc
Apr 22, 2012, 10:49 AM
Surely hydro-electric is a renewable, green, energy source?
Renewable, yes, but whether it is "green" depends on how you define the term. Bacteria growing in reservoirs upstream from hydroelectric dams produce an enormous amount of carbon dioxide, in some cases (http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf) more than that produced by thermoelectric power plants. And the reservoirs also often destroy unique habitats, as was the case in the Three Gorges Dam (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~lpohara/index.html)in China, which affected the habitats of more than 300 species and destroyed the habitat (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~lpohara/Pol%20116/enviro.html) of the endangered Yangtze River Dolphin.

Funny that when countries negotiate about greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gases emitted from bacteria growing in reservoirs upstream from hydroelectric dams are not included in the calculations, presumably because they are from a natural source and because they are hard to measure. However, without those reservoirs, those bacterial colonies and their carbon dioxide and methane emissions would also not be present.

blinkin182
May 1, 2012, 10:01 PM
I'm sure the Germans will be thrilled to be compared to cold war era Soviet Union. What's next, a Yugo to Mercedes comparison?

There is actually a new Yugo coming out. It adds a rear window defroster. Keeps your hands warm when you push it.




Mike

Huh, I don't think you got my point... I meant a nuclear disaster affects a bigger area than just a single country..

And actually, East-Germany (or German Democratic Republic) was a communist country, under the influence of USSR for 40 years. Some of these power plants were Russian built...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#East_Germany

----------

We seem to have wandered off-topic, but here goes.

That link you supplied says, "...most of those affected received relatively low doses of radiation; there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain.". It's thought the total number of deaths from Chernobyl is 61 people (including 31 from the initial explosion). Remember, this is by far the worst nuclear accident.

Of course there were other effects. Somewhere from 100,000 to 200,000 abortions were carried out on women from Scandinavia to Italy, who were worried about the effects of the radiation on their unborn children. This is the well known media panic effect.

Worldwide, no other power source is as safe as nuclear, the record is clear. For the amount of electricity produced nothing comes close, not wind power, not hydro power not solar power and certainly not coal or oil. Look it up. And we're talking about the old technology of second generation nuclear power which has problems - though nothing as bad as what's commonly thought.

Third generation plants are coming into use and fourth generation plants such as IFR, see here (http://www.amazon.com/Prescription-Planet-Painless-Remedy-Environmental/dp/1419655825), promise to solve all of the problems of nuclear power and provide incredibly cheap electricity.

Anybody who's serious about Man-Caused Global Warming (I'm not, BTW) should want nuclear power. At least it will get rid of those dirty coal fired plants.

Although, I am not sure I agree with the estimation (or the scientific evidence) of how many people were truly affected by the nuclear incident (there are many different reports with different conclusions). I do thank you for the interesting links about next generation nuclear power plants, it did open my eyes to the advances made in nuclear power plant technology. It's a shame they seem to have been abandoned though.