PDA

View Full Version : Greenpeace Under Fire Again After Regrading of Apple's Data Center Energy Plans




MacRumors
Jul 13, 2012, 11:48 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/13/greenpeace-under-fire-again-after-regrading-of-apples-data-center-energy-plans/)


Earlier this year, environmental activist group Greenpeace made waves (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/17/greenpeace-takes-on-apple-and-other-tech-companies-over-coal-powered-data-centers/) with a report taking Apple and other companies to task for not doing enough to eliminate the use of dirty coal-sourced power at their data centers. Apple quickly responded at the time to note that Greenpeace had greatly overestimated the power needs of the company's flagship data center in Maiden, North Carolina, thereby understating the impact of Apple's solar and fuel cell power generation occurring at the site.

In that statement, Apple refuted Greenpeace's estimate of peak power demand of 100 megawatts for the data center, revealing that power demand would actually peak at 20 megawatts. And a month later, Apple published additional details (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/17/apples-data-centers-to-be-powered-by-100-renewable-energy/) on its efforts to run all of its data centers on 100% green energy.

Greenpeace announced yesterday (http://greenpeaceblogs.com/2012/07/12/apple's-clean-energy-plans-still-cloudy-despite-coal-free-pledge/) that it has prepared an updated report (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Climate-Reports/Apple-Clean-Energy-Road-Map/) on Apple's energy usage based on the new information, but as noted by Data Center Knowledge's Rich Miller (http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2012/07/13/greenpeace-apple-strange-math/), the group still seems to be being overly critical in its grading of Apple, even continuing to make up its own estimates of the North Carolina data center's energy usage rather than believing Apple's public statements.In its initial report in April, Greenpeace estimated Apple's power use in North Carolina at a whopping 100 megawatts. The group has reduced that slightly to 81 megawatts, dismissing the company's disclosure that it expects draw about 20 megawatts at full capacity.Miller goes on to note that Apple has clearly disclosed in regulatory documents that it intends to install backup generators capable of producing 41 megawatts of electricity in an "N+2" configuration that keeps at least two generators as spares, meaning that Apple is only planning for peak demand of 35-36 megawatts at an absolute maximum.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/07/greenpeace_maiden_data_center_energy_revised.jpg


Miller points to two possible reasons for Greenpeace's continued refusal to acknowledge Apple's statements and other official documents addressing the data center's power needs:Greenpeace's continuing use of this methodology, in light of Apple's disclosure and permit data, raises several possibilities:

- Greenpeace is having difficulty developing estimates that accurately incorporate data center operations and power usage.
- Greenpeace is predisposed to cling to estimates that make Apple look less "green" because it generates more headlines for its awareness campaigns.For its part, Apple has continued to stand by its earlier comments, issuing a statement to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/07/12/apple-challenged-by-greenpeace-says-it-has-a-plan-to-run-greener-data-centers/):We're committed to building the world's most environmentally responsible data centers and are leading the industry in the use of renewable energy, including the nation's largest private solar arrays and non-utility fuel cell installation," Kristin Huguet, an Apple spokewoman, said today. "As we've said before, our North Carolina and California data centers will be coal-free as of February 2013 and our newest data centers in Oregon and Nevada will be designed to meet that standard from Day One."Greenpeace's revised report gives Apple no additional credit for transparency, despite the company having explicitly revealed the power requirements of the data center, and the group's insistence on sticking with an 81-megawatt estimate of peak power capacity brings Apple's usage of renewable energy at the site down to just 22% as opposed to the 60% figure explicitly stated by Apple.

Greenpeace is also reluctant to give Apple credit for its fuel cell installation, waiting to hear whether Apple will actually be using biogas to directly power the cells or if it will be using natural gas and instead purchasing biogas to be inserted elsewhere in the distribution system to offset the company's natural gas usage. But given that Apple's biogas commitment would have the same net effect on overall natural gas consumption regardless of where exactly in the distribution system it is used, it seems that Apple should be pursuing the most cost-effective strategy for deploying that biogas.

Article Link: Greenpeace Under Fire Again After Regrading of Apple's Data Center Energy Plans (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/13/greenpeace-under-fire-again-after-regrading-of-apples-data-center-energy-plans/)



Skika
Jul 13, 2012, 11:51 AM
Greenpeace just wants attention and publicity.

sbrhwkp3
Jul 13, 2012, 11:53 AM
So Greenpeace environmental experts know how much power data centers consume?

This is funny. In reality, the number probably lies somewhere in the middle, closer to Apple's side.

Environmental crazies will always overstate in an effort to hang onto an extra bargaining chip when they're pushing for even more environmentally friendly systems.

marc7654
Jul 13, 2012, 11:53 AM
Greenpeace won't be happy until people stop using electricity. They are just a bunch of luddites.

bocomo
Jul 13, 2012, 11:54 AM
Those nutjobs lose credibility with junk like this

Dainin
Jul 13, 2012, 11:54 AM
Greenpeace again proves that it is completely worthless. Nothing but attention whores.

Kabeyun
Jul 13, 2012, 11:54 AM
Greenpeace has been working hard for years to make themselves irrelevant.

Peace
Jul 13, 2012, 11:55 AM
Greenpeace just wants attention and publicity.

I agree. I used to like greenpeace but they've become nothing but publicity hounds while disregarding the truth.

crees!
Jul 13, 2012, 11:57 AM
They, among countless others, have made Green the new Red.

eelkefolmer
Jul 13, 2012, 11:58 AM
It's all cool. Apple's new data center in Reno will be 100% geothermal powered with no problems with peak demand as geothermal provides constant output. Green peace is good though for pointing out these energy demands

Codyak
Jul 13, 2012, 12:01 PM
Somehow I see Eric Cartman fitting into this...

JohnDoe98
Jul 13, 2012, 12:01 PM
Talk about being bad at math. The picture says 14.2 0f 20 is only 60%... (yaya, fine print:))

mp0890
Jul 13, 2012, 12:01 PM
Screw these hippies, I'm goin home.

burjeffton
Jul 13, 2012, 12:01 PM
I'm positive these dirty hippies' reports weren't created using evil power-hungry computers.

DOH-KAY!

bse3
Jul 13, 2012, 12:02 PM
Greenpeace has a waay different agenda. And this clearly shows it again. They are anti-globalization, not pro-planet. Gotta hate those hippies.

longofest
Jul 13, 2012, 12:02 PM
Greenpeace's early efforts it seems got the ball rolling on getting Apple to be more transparent on its "greenness", but these efforts are just stupid.

To be clear, I do understand wanting to come up with your own numbers and not trusting what a company says its power utilization is going to be, but they should be much closer to the numbers provided by the backup generator capacity, as that number should be somewhat accurate.

Greenpeace making themselves in this way just hurts the overall environmental effort, which if anything needs to be re-energized a bit in light of Apple's withdrawl from EPEAT.

Foxer
Jul 13, 2012, 12:05 PM
Greenpeace, masters of PR, have learned what so many other media whores have learned: Criticize Apple and you will get headlines.

IJ Reilly
Jul 13, 2012, 12:06 PM
So we are expected to believe either (A) a group of rabid activists, or (B) a huge corporation. Can we have another choice, please?

peb123
Jul 13, 2012, 12:07 PM
I'd love to see a green report done on Greenpeace. I'm willing to bet they are hypocrites.

HelveticaRoman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:11 PM
Even the Dalai Lama would be shot down in flames if he ever suggested Apple was anything less than perfection on earth. There seems to be more than a little evidence of a cultish element at work here.

ikramerica
Jul 13, 2012, 12:14 PM
Even the Dalai Lama would be shot down in flames if he ever suggested Apple was anything less than perfection on earth. There seems to be more than a little evidence of a cultish element at work here.

Right. Greenpeace = Lama? Fail.

Anyway, Greenpeace is basically arguing that Apple has installed backup generators under 50% of the size they would actually need.

Do you think Apple is that stupid?

Or does Greenpeace have an agenda and doesn't want to be shown to be making stuff up?

I'll leave that for you to decide. You are obviously unbiased.

henryhbk
Jul 13, 2012, 12:14 PM
To be clear, I do understand wanting to come up with your own numbers and not trusting what a company says its power utilization is going to be, but they should be much closer to the numbers provided by the backup generator capacity, as that number should be somewhat accurate.

Assuming apple isn't staffed by a group of idiots, they wouldn't have more usage than their generators could support. Otherwise they wouldn't make very good backup. So to be consistent at least GP could use the 41MW figure to appear less out of touch.

blumpkin
Jul 13, 2012, 12:16 PM
Greenpeace will be pleased to learn that my V-16 Maybach runs on liquified poor people.

kevinbomb123
Jul 13, 2012, 12:17 PM
Coal?, coal is to clean and expensive it would be best
If they burn garbage and plastics.

aaarrrgggh
Jul 13, 2012, 12:19 PM
20MW for a 500kSF facility is a bit on the low side, even if only half the area is raised floor. Also, the diesels are not likely to be N+2 given the total installed capacity-- it looks like they have (22) prime-rated 1.875MW engines. That would fit better as a 2N arrangement. I guess it is possible they are using a catcher arrangement, but that is a bit of an odd-ball for a company like Apple.

rmwebs
Jul 13, 2012, 12:19 PM
Greenpeace really need to learn how to run an activist party as right now they suck at it.

IJ Reilly
Jul 13, 2012, 12:22 PM
Even the Dalai Lama would be shot down in flames if he ever suggested Apple was anything less than perfection on earth. There seems to be more than a little evidence of a cultish element at work here.

That too, but I think the real issue here is the totally binary view of the world that so many people now completely accept as normal. Somebody must be 100% right, which automatically means that the other side of the argument is 100% wrong. The bent in this article exploits the growing tendency to see the world in these black and white terms. Far more likely, both parties are spinning the facts to benefit their self-interested positions. This won't be a popular way of looking at it, since it is emotionally unsatisfying and doesn't lend itself to taking sides, but it's usually the most accurate way.

Stephen123
Jul 13, 2012, 12:22 PM
Greenpeace has no credibility in relation to Apple. They just want the headlines.

Undecided
Jul 13, 2012, 12:22 PM
I've been around long enough now and seen enough to now know that everything has ulterior political motivations and is divorced from logic or common sense. Greenpeace has an agenda and attacking Apple advances that agenda, whether or not there is any logical basis for the attack at all.

This MO, of twisting things to advance an agenda with no regard for intellectual honesty whatsoever, is agnostic, too. Meaning, it's not limited to any political parties, genders, races, ages, religions, regions, etc. I mention that because although my comment is clearly within the context of the story, i.e. about Greenpeace, it's not meant to be solely viewed as applying to Greenpeace. About the only limitation you could say is that this applies to humans.

jontech
Jul 13, 2012, 12:22 PM
The Amish don't use electricity

And they are recruiting

kiljoy616
Jul 13, 2012, 12:24 PM
I see no issue with GreenPeace they are waiting to see if it really happens how Apple is predicting. Oh the fangirls are mad that their Church is been questioned. :rolleyes:

Its a company it lies to get PR if Apple does what it says then all is going to be good if not I could care less as most here would. Enjoy the ride, make money, play with the toys and when we run out of natural resources I figure one of two things will happen, one we will adapt or two many will suffer just not me. :D

i-John
Jul 13, 2012, 12:25 PM
When did Greenpeace become relevant? Who cares what they think.

Sora
Jul 13, 2012, 12:28 PM
Hug a tree Greenpeace, and don't let go.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 13, 2012, 12:30 PM
While I agree with Greenpeace in not fulling trusting Apple's numbers and honestly I would not trust Apple numbers at any more than a starting point. I would want to interdependently verify them as one should. Greenpeace is failing to do that critical fact.

I am willing to bet Apple's stated numbers are overly optimistic but at the same time Greenpeace's numbers are way out of line and chances are they way they are basing it is scaling up a small site data center usage to Apple's size. Not a good way of doing it as chances are the small sight would not have the best type of cooling in place and would have more over head for the system.

Also it seems Greenpeace's own numbers are out of line with other large data centers.

ugahairydawgs
Jul 13, 2012, 12:31 PM
Even the Dalai Lama would be shot down in flames if he ever suggested Apple was anything less than perfection on earth. There seems to be more than a little evidence of a cultish element at work here.

I think a lot of it stems from how Apple has handled their customers over the years. They have built a loyal following by offering top quality products and backing it up with almost flawless service. That builds loyalty, much like what you often see with people and their favorite sports team.

Treat people right and they'll have your back.

azentropy
Jul 13, 2012, 12:32 PM
Greenpeace's continuing use of this methodology, in light of Apple's disclosure and permit data, raises several possibilities:

- Greenpeace is having difficulty developing estimates that accurately incorporate data center operations and power usage.
- Greenpeace is predisposed to cling to estimates that make Apple look less "green" because it generates more headlines for its awareness campaigns.


Nice way of saying either Greenpeace is:
- Stupid
- Lying

starflyer
Jul 13, 2012, 12:32 PM
Greenpeace has no credibility. They just want the headlines.

Fixed that for you.

Rogifan
Jul 13, 2012, 12:34 PM
Screw Greenpeace. They only make me want to buy Apple's products even more. Just to piss them off. :D

Mad-B-One
Jul 13, 2012, 12:34 PM
I'll trust the back-up generators. My father works for a data center as achitect. The big Diesels they have and the battery power have to cover 100% if power is interrupted for any reason. Takes 50ms to switch and the power supplies of the computers don't even notice. Also, has 3 seperate power lines just in case there is a short in one. If you want to know what the true possible Max is, go with the backup. There is always some reserve in it though. You don't run those to max capacity. Actually, everytime you put another rack onto the circuit, you have a pulling surge about 1kW higher than after the machine runs. For that alone you need extra capacity.

-hh
Jul 13, 2012, 12:34 PM
Greenpeace just wants attention and publicity.


Its time for Apple to litigate (i.e., sue Greenpeace).

Alternatively, Apple could offer them to send a team in under the conditions of a NDA ... and then when they violate that NDA ... THEN sue them.


Greenpeace is all about people taking personal responsibility for their actions - - but here they are purposefully violating their own principles, which makes them all hypocrites.



-hh

Rocketman
Jul 13, 2012, 12:36 PM
Greenpeace is engaging in both libel and fraud. Someone should assert a legal claim on them and maybe even a criminal investigation. It doesn't seem extreme until you look at the consequences they are causing, and the tactics they are employing.

Apple is a public company. They resist making any statements in public and when they do make statements make every effort to make them as accurate as possible under penalty of SEC. They can be spanked for lying or even being pretty far off the mark on server power usage levels, once they have made a statement at all.

Greenpeace is under no such risk of pain.

Rocketman

hobo.hopkins
Jul 13, 2012, 12:36 PM
This company lost what credibility it had years ago. Their fanaticism and inability to appreciate progress led them towards illogicality.

ben12
Jul 13, 2012, 12:39 PM
I trust Greenpeace way more than I trust Apple.

----------

Greenpeace just wants attention and publicity.And of course Apple wants none of that!

ReallyBigFeet
Jul 13, 2012, 12:40 PM
Greenpeace has already lost all relevancy in my opinion, and has been declining in stature for over a decade now. I'm not alone. (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/blog/4523/the-sad-sad-demise-greenpeace)

And lets not forget how much Greenpeace maligned the original iPhone as being toxic, only to later admit that they totally exaggerated those claims in order to grab headlines. (http://gizmodo.com/313728/greenpeace-responds-to-alarmist-claims-admits-targeting-apple-grabs-headlines?tag=gadgetsgreenpeacevsiphone)

They should have stuck with whales.

ben12
Jul 13, 2012, 12:41 PM
So Greenpeace environmental experts know how much power data centers consume?

This is funny. In reality, the number probably lies somewhere in the middle, closer to Apple's side.

Environmental crazies will always overstate in an effort to hang onto an extra bargaining chip when they're pushing for even more environmentally friendly systems.And these corporations always lie because they want to make more money. Weird that you'd err on the side of the money-grubbers and not the people that actually want us to have clean air and water.

Contrary to what some of you are saying, Greenpeace is not interested in eliminating all electricity or whatever other nonsense you people are spouting.

Yes, ipads and ipods are great (I have one of each), but let's not get ridiculous.

Torrijos
Jul 13, 2012, 12:41 PM
In other news Greenpeace fails at science & basic reading, but still here's their latest ad...

nobleclem
Jul 13, 2012, 12:43 PM
- Greenpeace is predisposed to cling to estimates that make Apple look less “green” because it generates more headlines for its awareness campaigns.

mission accomplished

jontech
Jul 13, 2012, 12:44 PM
I've been around long enough now and seen enough to now know that everything has ulterior political motivations and is divorced from logic or common sense. Greenpeace has an agenda and attacking Apple advances that agenda, whether or not there is any logical basis for the attack at all.

This MO, of twisting things to advance an agenda with no regard for intellectual honesty whatsoever, is agnostic, too. Meaning, it's not limited to any political parties, genders, races, ages, religions, regions, etc. I mention that because although my comment is clearly within the context of the story, i.e. about Greenpeace, it's not meant to be solely viewed as applying to Greenpeace. About the only limitation you could say is that this applies to humans.

That

iSee
Jul 13, 2012, 12:45 PM
So Greenpeace environmental experts know how much power data centers consume?

This is funny. In reality, the number probably lies somewhere in the middle, closer to Apple's side.

Environmental crazies will always overstate in an effort to hang onto an extra bargaining chip when they're pushing for even more environmentally friendly systems.

Greenpeace is not actually composed of environmental crazies, as you put it).

The reality is much worse and more sordid:

Greenpeace is a fundrasing organization that exploits the general population's concern about the environment as a lever to get them to give GP their money.

Greenpeace long ago made fundraising a much more important goal than actually having a positive impact on the environment. Fudging the numbers on Apple is just one symptom of that.

If they cared about the environment, they would be plastering Apple with praise and certifying the data center as a gold-standard installation (or whatever) because the NC data center is far ahead of the curve. They'd do this to put pressure on other companies to keep up. But they do the opposite, because bashing Apple is a sure way to get garner attention, which helps fundraising.

PsudoPowerPoint
Jul 13, 2012, 12:48 PM
Apple is going green and still making huge profits. It would seem that Greenpeace would be better off siting them as a good example of what's possible.

Greenpeace's power estimate for Apple's data center is based on the amount of money Apple spent on there, and a guess at power consumption per dollar that they do not seem to justify. A fairer and more realistic estimate would be to call Apple's 20MW estimate a "goal" and Apple's permitted backup power generation capability of 41 MW as an upper bound.

IJ Reilly
Jul 13, 2012, 12:52 PM
I think a lot of it stems from how Apple has handled their customers over the years. They have built a loyal following by offering top quality products and backing it up with almost flawless service. That builds loyalty, much like what you often see with people and their favorite sports team.

Treat people right and they'll have your back.

This is startlingly naive. Corporations are machines for making money, first last and alway -- and they behave accordingly. They are interested in you precisely to the extent that it benefits them and no further. If people assume that a corporation is good and right just because they like their products, then they are missing something fundamental about how this bargain works.

ugahairydawgs
Jul 13, 2012, 12:57 PM
This is startlingly naive. Corporations are machines for making money, first last and alway -- and they behave accordingly. They are interested in you precisely to the extent that it benefits them and no further. If people assume that a corporation is good and right just because they like their products, then they are missing something fundamental about how this bargain works.

Of course they are there to make money. Still doesn't change the fact that people are loyal because of what they get and how they are treated for the money they fork over.

Krazy Bill
Jul 13, 2012, 01:03 PM
How does one source that condemns Green Peace make it "under fire?"

lol!

Sora
Jul 13, 2012, 01:06 PM
I trust Greenpeace way more than I trust Apple.

----------

And of course Apple wants none of that!

Look "newbie" - Greenpeace is the one who's picking bones. As for who gets the lions share of publicity - Greenpeace is the one shouting "Look at me! Look at me!!" - just so happens that Apple is a little easier on the publicity eye.
Greenpeace is more of a red headed step child that doesn't know when to shut up and has a black eye and a couple of bruises to attest that fact. Hence - not so easy on the publicity eye.

carlgo
Jul 13, 2012, 01:14 PM
Greenpeace, like PETA, hurts itself with extremism and it makes it harder for them to carry on their good works.

whitesand
Jul 13, 2012, 01:18 PM
Greenpeace...Bad science and is anything but "green"...Junk science claiming carbon dioxide is harmful...If they really were "green" they would want MORE carbon dioxide because extra CO2 INCREASES plant growth...The irony of the "green" movement.

IJ Reilly
Jul 13, 2012, 01:21 PM
Of course they are there to make money. Still doesn't change the fact that people are loyal because of what they get and how they are treated for the money they fork over.

The message here is, they exist for no other purpose than making money. The bargain between you and a corporation is based an economic transaction, and nothing else as far as they are concerned, so it's a mistake on a customer's part to make it more than that. You should not assume that they are always speaking the absolute truth; they will only do that to the extent that it benefits them financially. They perfectly capable of defending their interests, and don't need their customers running interference for them. What I am saying here in a nutshell is that you should not love corporations, because they will never love you back.

Rocketman
Jul 13, 2012, 01:24 PM
The message here is, they exist for no other purpose than making money. The bargain between you and a corporation is based an economic transaction, and nothing else as far as they are concerned, so it's a mistake on a customer's part to make it more than that.Stating the obvious Greenpeace is a corporation too. What one corporation calls profit, another calls retained earnings or endowment. What one corporation calls cost of operations and goods, another calls cost of outreach, fund raising and service delivery. There really is very little difference.

Rocketman

Here's the 501(c)(4) IRS filing.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:s9J18Md1p4cJ:www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/planet3/PDFs/INC_990_2010_public_disclosure.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESic830FMa8ldBcPQc9QRO3Vv18QTyaT6xe5lVSr7g9ckbvOpBL3EQWnj6PL47MmkGM9TXyT-oW0DNekHiyuqFaQIczJwRD0Z3ZYk3QLaXgGSAdAxLLRrBmcocSB0cpxRdGbu3-X&sig=AHIEtbROHPNT-mXB8HXfxmZtG2VU-TTyNw

IJ Reilly
Jul 13, 2012, 01:35 PM
Stating the obvious Greenpeace is a corporation too. What one corporation calls profit, another calls retained earnings or endowment. What one corporation calls cost of operations and goods, another calls cost of outreach, fund raising and service delivery. There really is very little difference.

Rocketman

If you read my other posts on this topic you will see that I am not taking sides. Far from it. I don't know who is right on this issue, and frankly I don't care. I am commenting on the tendency for people to believe that they know who is right strictly on the foundation of their bias, and to be sure that one party must be right and the other wrong, when in reality both are making the case that works for them. Accordingly I don't trust Apple or Greenpeace to be unbiased and I don't get why anyone would.

macnerd93
Jul 13, 2012, 01:49 PM
If Apples data centre was as Eco friendly as possible I'm sure Greenpeace would still come up with complete bull in terms of energy usage data. Rather pathetic frankly that our governments and world corporations are constantly being bombarded by them.

They hate human revolution and would much rather us being back in the stone age

petsounds
Jul 13, 2012, 01:52 PM
It's hard to even read these threads sometimes, so many people here just take a kneejerk stance against anyone who has less-than-kind words about Apple.

I have no deep problems with Greenpeace. They do a lot of good. Who else is out there trying to stop whaling operations? They do a lot of work trying to stop deforestation of the rainforests. All positive things that any sensible person would approve of.

On this Apple thing, I can't really say what their intentions are. Maybe they just lack the technical knowledge to really understand how modern data centers operate. Perhaps Apple is low-balling the estimated power usage. Or perhaps this part of the Greenpeace organization is overstating their case for PR purposes. None of us know, so let's stop jumping to conclusions.

hickabob
Jul 13, 2012, 01:57 PM
Hippies...

pubwvj
Jul 13, 2012, 01:57 PM
Greenpeace lost credibility a long time ago. Wait, they never even had much to begin with. They're extremists and attention getters. Ignore them. Don't give them column inches.

topmounter
Jul 13, 2012, 01:58 PM
It's sad that Greanpeace's only and best PR stunt / strategy is whining endlessly about Apple no matter what they do (good, bad or indifferent).

gnasher729
Jul 13, 2012, 02:15 PM
So Greenpeace environmental experts know how much power data centers consume?

This is funny. In reality, the number probably lies somewhere in the middle, closer to Apple's side.

Environmental crazies will always overstate in an effort to hang onto an extra bargaining chip when they're pushing for even more environmentally friendly systems.

What makes you think the number would lie somewhere in the middle? Do you think Apple is lying?


I trust Greenpeace way more than I trust Apple

I might have trusted Greenpeace twenty years ago, but not today.

What Greenpeace produces are estimates, but estimates designed to fit Greenpeaces goal. On Apple's side, there are plenty of people who _know_ definitely how much power this data centre will be using. After all, they are building it. Do you think all these people are lying? If you think they are lying because they are Apple employees, consider that any employee will be an ex-employee one day, and ex employees talk. This is something that a company _can't_ lie about.

Glideslope
Jul 13, 2012, 02:23 PM
GreenPeace, get over it. You are dying. Treehugger is the future baby!! :apple:

Rocketman
Jul 13, 2012, 02:47 PM
If you read my other posts on this topic you will see that I am not taking sides. Far from it. I don't know who is right on this issue, and frankly I don't care. I am commenting on the tendency for people to believe that they know who is right strictly on the foundation of their bias, and to be sure that one party must be right and the other wrong, when in reality both are making the case that works for them. Accordingly I don't trust Apple or Greenpeace to be unbiased and I don't get why anyone would.I was not implying your views which tend to be neutral. I was posting to the group. However unlike you I do have a view. Greenpeace lied. It's totally obvious from their two positions over time, the public record, the statements by their subject, and the stated corporate policy of the subject to try to be green to a relatively extreme degree.

Greenpeace made knowingly false statements. That's a lie. It's is probably also fraud but I do not know the specific elements for that. It was also libel, perhaps trade libel.

Rocketman

Poisednoise
Jul 13, 2012, 02:58 PM
Greenpeace...Bad science and is anything but "green"...Junk science claiming carbon dioxide is harmful...If they really were "green" they would want MORE carbon dioxide because extra CO2 INCREASES plant growth...The irony of the "green" movement.

I really hope there was meant to be a /joke or something in there... I don't agree with Greenpeace's tactics, but to accuse them of bad science and then... Wow.

blackpond
Jul 13, 2012, 03:01 PM
Greenpeace is confused that any company could be environmentally responsible and capitalistic at the same time.

It makes no sense to them.

MacinDoc
Jul 13, 2012, 03:04 PM
So we are expected to believe either (A) a group of rabid activists, or (B) a huge corporation. Can we have another choice, please?
In order to get its permits approved, Apple had to provide a reasonable estimate and to show how it arrived at its estimate. Its numbers are subject to scrutiny by the agencies involved.

Greenpeace is just pulling numbers out of a hat and is accountable to no one.

MacinDoc
Jul 13, 2012, 03:21 PM
It's hard to even read these threads sometimes, so many people here just take a kneejerk stance against anyone who has less-than-kind words about Apple.

I have no deep problems with Greenpeace. They do a lot of good. Who else is out there trying to stop whaling operations? They do a lot of work trying to stop deforestation of the rainforests. All positive things that any sensible person would approve of.

These (http://www.wdcs.org/) groups (http://www.ypte.org.uk/environmental/whales-saving-the-whales/100), and many others, oppose the hunting of whales and work to provide the public with accurate information without sensationalizing to put themselves in the spotlight. How about this group (http://www.rainforestfund.org/) for the protection of the rain forests? It seems to me that they are actually doing more about the environment while making less noise.

This isn't to say that Greenpeace hasn't done things for the benefit of the environment, but the group has evolved into a monster that's far from what I believe its founders envisioned.

Greenpeace seems to be to have evolved into an organization that seeks attention for itself more than it seeks to actually make a difference. Hence the attempts at attention-grabbing, skewed reports, because that's what fuels its publicity and, by extension, its income.

SimonMW
Jul 13, 2012, 03:27 PM
Hug a tree Greenpeace
More like hug a statue of Stalin...

IJ Reilly
Jul 13, 2012, 03:30 PM
I was not implying your views which tend to be neutral. I was posting to the group. However unlike you I do have a view. Greenpeace lied. It's totally obvious from their two positions over time, the public record, the statements by their subject, and the stated corporate policy of the subject to try to be green to a relatively extreme degree.

Greenpeace made knowingly false statements. That's a lie. It's is probably also fraud but I do not know the specific elements for that. It was also libel, perhaps trade libel.

Rocketman

I'm afraid your knee is jerking now too. It is very is unlikely to be fraud, and almost certainly not liable. This is a technical issue, which as you know can be viewed and interpreted in a variety of ways, not a binary one that lends itself to only one right answer. Greenpeace has as much right to express their views as anyone else. That right is protected under the First Amendment, last I checked.

This article was heavily spun towards Apple, and you will note that the source for the backup of Apple's position is an online trade journal for the data center industry. Yet another unbiased source? What you have here is a bunch of groups spinning the facts to favor their positions. Maybe I am just a born skeptic, but my first impulse it to not assume that any of them are telling the entire story. It's also my second and third impulse. I don't feel any need to decide who's story is more believable.

ScottishDuck
Jul 13, 2012, 03:30 PM
Yeah **** greenpeace.

We should burn polar bears in honour of out corporate masters Apple.

darkplanets
Jul 13, 2012, 03:30 PM
Greenpeace...Bad science and is anything but "green"...Junk science claiming carbon dioxide is harmful...If they really were "green" they would want MORE carbon dioxide because extra CO2 INCREASES plant growth...The irony of the "green" movement.

You almost got it right. Extra CO2 doesn't increase plant growth per se -- it's more so an environmental correlation than a causality. In practicality, increased CO2 means an elevated average temperature with more extreme environments, which is exactly what occurred during the Jurassic era. These environmental stimuli were probably what caused the plants to enlarge to such sizes, but without a living specimen we can't be sure since it could have just been a factor of breeding and genetics.

What's more so amusing is that most people forget that the CO2 cycle appears to be cyclic in nature from geology (as is the temperature) -- we haven't seen a recorded history of such a cycle with civilized man yet due the relatively infant age of modern society. Are we adding CO2? Undoubtedly. Are we making that big of a difference on the natural CO2 fluctuations? Who knows.

mbh
Jul 13, 2012, 03:32 PM
If Apple is really convinced of the "greenness" of their data center they should call Greenpeace out and ask them if they can point to another data center that is "greener" per unit of capacity (or whatever measurement they use). If they can't, then they will have, in effect, gotten Greenpeace to say that they have the "greenest" data center on Earth.

However, I doubt that Greenpeace would answer such a query.

faroZ06
Jul 13, 2012, 03:36 PM
Greenpeace just wants attention and publicity.

Yeah. I saw the title of this article and smiled. :)

Alameda
Jul 13, 2012, 03:45 PM
I think it's very good that Greenpeace is drawing attention to power consumption in mega data centers. Apple can afford to be environmentally responsible, and I believe they are. While this episode won't likely affect Apple one bit, it sends a clear warning signal to other corporations planning multi-megawatt data centers: Their power consumption practices will be investigated and publicized.

IJ Reilly
Jul 13, 2012, 03:48 PM
In order to get its permits approved, Apple had to provide a reasonable estimate and to show how it arrived at its estimate. Its numbers are subject to scrutiny by the agencies involved.

Greenpeace is just pulling numbers out of a hat and is accountable to no one.

Greenpeace is accountable to their members and contributors, just as Apple is accountable to their stockholders. Everyone involved has an incentive to tell the story in a way that makes them look like they are doing the right thing.

----------

If Apple is really convinced of the "greenness" of their data center they should call Greenpeace out and ask them if they can point to another data center that is "greener" per unit of capacity (or whatever measurement they use). If they can't, then they will have, in effect, gotten Greenpeace to say that they have the "greenest" data center on Earth.

However, I doubt that Greenpeace would answer such a query.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2012/iCoal/Apple_Clean_Energy_Road_Map.pdf

See page 4.

RobQuads
Jul 13, 2012, 03:50 PM
So I presume all greenpeace offices are 100% renewable energy sites.....oh they aren't :roll eyes:

Is stupid reports like this that show up greenpeace for what they are.

MacinDoc
Jul 13, 2012, 03:55 PM
Greenpeace is accountable to their members and contributors, just as Apple is accountable to their stockholders. Everyone involved has an incentive to tell the story in a way that makes them look like they are doing the right thing.[COLOR="#808080"]
Fair enough, but I was referring to accountability to independent third parties, such as government regulatory agencies, which will actually scrutinize the numbers. Apple's shareholders and Greenpeace's contributors are both more likely to drink the Kool-Aid rather than look at the information critically.

I would add that Apple would be less likely to fudge its numbers here, because the power for the data center has to com from somewhere, and if it's coming from a grid that's already overtaxed, and if the draw is really 4-5 times what Apple says it will be, there will be hell to pay.

Most likely, Greenpeace's estimates come from energy drawn by data centers built in the past. What they are unable to take into account is how much more efficient this new data center may be (more powerful equipment drawing less electricity due to technological advances) compared to those built a number of years ago.

medi.freak
Jul 13, 2012, 04:02 PM
Greenpeace has a waay different agenda. And this clearly shows it again. They are anti-globalization, not pro-planet. Gotta hate those hippies.

I'd say they're both. Which is a perfectly understandable point in my opinion. But it seems the winners of the system never share much agreement with social or solidarity ideas...

- no offense by the way. That's just what I noticed. Since most people of this forum would be counted to the small group of winners of the system, it was pretty predictable how this discussion would go.

IJ Reilly
Jul 13, 2012, 04:07 PM
Fair enough, but I was referring to accountability to independent third parties, such as government regulatory agencies, which will actually scrutinize the numbers. Apple's shareholders and Greenpeace's contributors are both more likely to drink the Kool-Aid rather than look at the information critically.

I'm not sure that the regulatory authorities get into the kind of issues raised by Greenpeace. They are riding their own renewable energy horse. Some of these issues appear to be proprietary, meaning the corporations are loathe to disclose any more than necessary about what they are doing or not doing. Incidentally I've been an Apple shareholder for 15 years and have never been a member of Greenpeace. And yet I hope it isn't too hard to figure out why I don't totally trust either of them to tell us the whole, unvarnished truth.

Rocketman
Jul 13, 2012, 04:08 PM
This article was heavily spun towards Apple, and you will note that the source for the backup of Apple's position is an online trade journal for the data center industry. Yet another unbiased source? What you have here is a bunch of groups spinning the facts to favor their positions. Maybe I am just a born skeptic, but my first impulse it to not assume that any of them are telling the entire story. It's also my second and third impulse. I don't feel any need to decide who's story is more believable.That's thinking like a prosecutor.

A researcher looks at a variety of sources, like we have here. Apple's statement of server farm energy usage, the permits for the electrical equipment installs which on a gross scale are "similar", and industry publications which themselves are not original sources like the first two are, but are educated commentary. It may have factoids from equipment installers included. I guess you might call it expert witness.

But even if you throw out hearsay and look only at original source material from folks with a duty of care of accurate reporting with real consequences, such as Apple and the permit issuers, it all diverges wildly from the crap Greenpeace is spewing. By a factor of 2-5. Even after "corrections", and with no alternate supportive evidence.

Mere blind skepticism, which they are free to keep to themselves rather than say knowingly false stuff and see where that takes them.

Rocketman

Poisednoise
Jul 13, 2012, 04:10 PM
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2012/iCoal/Apple_Clean_Energy_Road_Map.pdf

See page 4.

The thing that confuses me here is Akamai: they get an A for transparency, because they're reporting everything, but apparently they're too distributed for figures to be able to calculated by Greenpeace. In which case, how did they get the other grades for Akamai, like that for energy efficiency? More to the point, if the figures can't be used, then it doesn't matter how transparent they are, the whole exercise is pointless... Greenpeace just seem to like to discombobulate.

Amazing Iceman
Jul 13, 2012, 04:24 PM
GreenPeace is a Non-Profit Organization with a license to BS about everything tech.

IJ Reilly
Jul 13, 2012, 04:24 PM
That's thinking like a prosecutor.

If you insist on the courtroom analogy, then it's a lot more like thinking like a judge. You start with the very safe assumption that the prosecutor and defense are going to make the best possible cases for their side. The facts and the law will be the same, and yet they will make diametrically opposing arguments about how they apply. The big difference in this instance is that the judge can take the day off since nobody really has to be found guilty or not guilty.

Amazing Iceman
Jul 13, 2012, 04:26 PM
If Apple is really convinced of the "greenness" of their data center they should call Greenpeace out and ask them if they can point to another data center that is "greener" per unit of capacity (or whatever measurement they use). If they can't, then they will have, in effect, gotten Greenpeace to say that they have the "greenest" data center on Earth.

However, I doubt that Greenpeace would answer such a query.

Greenpeace needs to make the news, otherwise people will forget who they are. And nothing better than go after the most successful and popular company in the world.

Apple is indeed the greenest company in the world, but Greenpeace has definitely decided to be a pain in the butt to them.

IJ Reilly
Jul 13, 2012, 04:26 PM
The thing that confuses me here is Akamai: they get an A for transparency, because they're reporting everything, but apparently they're too distributed for figures to be able to calculated by Greenpeace. In which case, how did they get the other grades for Akamai, like that for energy efficiency? More to the point, if the figures can't be used, then it doesn't matter how transparent they are, the whole exercise is pointless... Greenpeace just seem to like to discombobulate.

I don't really get the scorecard either, and I lack any enthusiasm for trying to figure it out.

Frobozz
Jul 13, 2012, 04:45 PM
I really don't know what bug got up Greenpeace's butt, but they just don't know when to let something go, do they? Public sentiment seems to not be on their side, at all. Most people think of Greenpeace as a borderline dangerous fringe group. And I wonder why? Gee, might be the set of horse blinders they have when it comes to their own reality distortion field.

This reminds me of the days when Apple was trying to convince us a G4 PowerBook was faster than comparable hardware by cherry picking and interpreting things under highly contrived scenarios. Actually, I'm not sure we can even give Greenpeace that much credit in this case, because they really don't seem capable of math.

----------

Greenpeace needs to make the news, otherwise people will forget who they are. And nothing better than go after the most successful and popular company in the world.

Apple is indeed the greenest company in the world, but Greenpeace has definitely decided to be a pain in the butt to them.

As a tactic, I agree. But in practice, I think you see a lot of Apple fans completely alienated from Greenpeace's message. Attacking a think you hold sacred, in the face of contract factual evidence, is fairly stupid. Who are they trying to convince? I know a lot of liberals (I am a moderate to liberal) who feel like they should support Greenpeace. It's certainly a lefty organization. But it's SO FAR lefty that hardly anyone in the middle could support the radicalization of this loose set of "facts."

At the end of the day, as an Apple lover and a general supporter of Green living, I find Greenpeace infuriating. They're making the Green cause radical instead of being a common-sense incremental approach like it's Whole-Earth style beginnings in the 60's. When over 90% of people who own an Apple product love their Apple product, does it make sense to attack Apple and call them liars? I just don't get it.

JAT
Jul 13, 2012, 04:50 PM
I'm afraid your knee is jerking now too. It is very is unlikely to be fraud, and almost certainly not liable. This is a technical issue, which as you know can be viewed and interpreted in a variety of ways, not a binary one that lends itself to only one right answer. Greenpeace has as much right to express their views as anyone else. That right is protected under the First Amendment, last I checked.

There is zero protection under the First Amendment for libel between non-governmental entities.

It is the bold statements claiming Apple will not actually use "green" power that are getting dangerously close to a legal issue, not GP's crazy numbers.

IJ Reilly
Jul 13, 2012, 05:09 PM
There is zero protection under the First Amendment for libel between non-governmental entities.

It is the bold statements claiming Apple will not actually use "green" power that are getting dangerously close to a legal issue, not GP's crazy numbers.

There's where you are wrong. It is precisely because of the First Amendment that liable is so difficult to prove in a U.S. court (it's a difficult three-step test, you could look it up). In countries without explicit speech protections, such as the UK, you see a lot more of them.

Iconoclysm
Jul 13, 2012, 05:22 PM
The message here is, they exist for no other purpose than making money. The bargain between you and a corporation is based an economic transaction, and nothing else as far as they are concerned, so it's a mistake on a customer's part to make it more than that. You should not assume that they are always speaking the absolute truth; they will only do that to the extent that it benefits them financially. They perfectly capable of defending their interests, and don't need their customers running interference for them. What I am saying here in a nutshell is that you should not love corporations, because they will never love you back.

This is a HORRIBLE assumption. Many a company is founded on higher beliefs than making more dollars...some want to make great products, and those few companies in every industry stand out immensely. Your cold war era conventional business wisdom works with oil companies and snake oil salesmen...and that's about it.

I'm not justifying having a bias towards a company, I'm justifying how many companies are different, have different cultures, and different policies. Usually, the standouts are willing to sacrifice profit margins for customer loyalty. To dismiss this is extremely naive.

----------

I'm afraid your knee is jerking now too. It is very is unlikely to be fraud, and almost certainly not liable. This is a technical issue, which as you know can be viewed and interpreted in a variety of ways, not a binary one that lends itself to only one right answer. Greenpeace has as much right to express their views as anyone else. That right is protected under the First Amendment, last I checked.

This article was heavily spun towards Apple, and you will note that the source for the backup of Apple's position is an online trade journal for the data center industry. Yet another unbiased source? What you have here is a bunch of groups spinning the facts to favor their positions. Maybe I am just a born skeptic, but my first impulse it to not assume that any of them are telling the entire story. It's also my second and third impulse. I don't feel any need to decide who's story is more believable.

This isn't the first time I see you completely misspelling libel - are you sure you even know the definition?

kingfish-spl
Jul 13, 2012, 05:33 PM
Credibility was lost a long time ago. Morphed into a fringe group. I would no longer allow them a seat at the table.

ReallyBigFeet
Jul 13, 2012, 05:56 PM
And these corporations always lie because they want to make more money. Weird that you'd err on the side of the money-grubbers and not the people that actually want us to have clean air and water.

Contrary to what some of you are saying, Greenpeace is not interested in eliminating all electricity or whatever other nonsense you people are spouting.

Yes, ipads and ipods are great (I have one of each), but let's not get ridiculous.

Actually, when they state that they are making a stink about something JUST TO RAISE PUBLICITY FOR THEMSELVES, its pretty obvious that they have the same motives as the corporations they rant about. They want mindshare, which for them, equals money.

Greenpeace has jumped the shark years ago. They are dogmatic and anything they say should be considered suspect and self-serving. They have become infatuated with themselves more than the causes they claim to support.

macUser2007
Jul 13, 2012, 06:06 PM
Shouldn't the title be "Apple Under Fire Again"?

Apple makes certain "green" claims, which provide Apple with both tangible and "goodwill" benefits, which ultimately translate into higher profits.

Greenpeace challenges Apple's claims, based on their own research.

MacRumors is spinning this shamelessly and rather clumsily. It's an unfortunate trend developing over the last couple of years.

jca24
Jul 13, 2012, 06:08 PM
Screw greenpeace and the rest of the left-wing tree-huging wack jobs!!

:apple:

macUser2007
Jul 13, 2012, 06:10 PM
Screw greenpeace and the rest of the left-wing tree-huging wack jobs!!


Wow!!!

Speaking of "wack jobs".... :rolleyes:

jca24
Jul 13, 2012, 06:16 PM
Wow!!!

Speaking of "wack jobs".... :rolleyes:

Ah, I see, you must be one of them. You know as well as I do that most of them say one thing and do another!!

:apple:

applesith
Jul 13, 2012, 06:27 PM
Greenpeace is a joke. Stop trying to control everything and reduce out living to caves. That's the only time they will ever b happy. It's never good enough.

macUser2007
Jul 13, 2012, 07:03 PM
Ah, I see, you must be one of them. ...!!

:apple:

Greenpeace is a joke. Stop trying to control everything and reduce out living to caves. That's the only time they will ever b happy. It's never good enough.

"wack jobs," "living to caves...."

With so many susceptible wackos out there, Jobs should have started a religion, like Ron Hubbard did. :rolleyes:

Greenpeace simply challenged, based on their own research, numbers provided by Apple. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but both the article and some of the comments are devoid of common sense.

Apple has every incentive to embellish their "green" credentials, both in terms of market appeal and in terms of regulatory benefits and subsidies.

Of course, Greenpeace has an agenda, too, but Apple's incentive to lie is considerably greater than Greenpeace's, so it's not unreasonable to at least question Apple's statements.

But this is too much to ask of those afraid of "living to caves," as is apparently the expectation of more or less coherent English....

Lindono
Jul 13, 2012, 07:22 PM
"wack jobs," "living to caves...."

With so many susceptible wackos out there, Jobs should have started a religion, like Ron Hubbard did. :rolleyes:

Greenpeace simply challenged, based on their own research, numbers provided by Apple. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but both the article and some of the comments are devoid of common sense.

Apple has every incentive to embellish their "green" credentials, both in terms of market appeal and in terms of regulatory benefits and subsidies.

Of course, Greenpeace has an agenda, too, but Apple's incentive to lie is considerably greater than Greenpeace's, so it's not unreasonable to at least question Apple's statements.

But this is too much to ask of those afraid of "living to caves," as is apparently the expectation of more or less coherent English....

Except there'd be major repercussions for lying. I really don't think they have as much motivation to lie as you think they do. Getting caught tends to be a sufficient motivator.

macUser2007
Jul 13, 2012, 07:26 PM
Except there'd be major repercussions for lying. I really don't think they have as much motivation to lie as you think they do. Getting caught tends to be a sufficient motivator.

Really? Like what? At worst, getting slapped with a fine which is a fraction of the benefits derived by "embellishing"?

Or do you believe that the Data Center deal will be rescinded? :rolleyes:

Thunderbird
Jul 13, 2012, 07:31 PM
"wack jobs," "living to caves...."

With so many susceptible wackos out there, Jobs should have started a religion, like Ron Hubbard did. :rolleyes:

Greenpeace simply challenged, based on their own research, numbers provided by Apple. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but both the article and some of the comments are devoid of common sense.

Apple has every incentive to embellish their "green" credentials, both in terms of market appeal and in terms of regulatory benefits and subsidies.

Of course, Greenpeace has an agenda, too, but Apple's incentive to lie is considerably greater than Greenpeace's, so it's not unreasonable to at least question Apple's statements.

But this is too much to ask of those afraid of "living to caves," as is apparently the expectation of more or less coherent English....

Finally, a voice of reason.

CFreymarc
Jul 13, 2012, 07:58 PM
Many have said that Greenpeace is an Eco-socialist front group that attacks any capitalist entity that is profiting. Their claims state they are "bad for the environment" in an attempt to quash individual rights, creative ability and liberty.

If Apple wasn't making money, they'd make something else up to criticize them. Greenpeace only has power via publicity. If none of the press published their opinions, they would implode overnight.

Post-Steve Apple did a bold move trying to break free from these Eco-socialists. Intentionally stepped out of goose-stepping environmentalist drum beat and found out who went after them. Thus these "environmental enforcement" entities are now politically targeted for a move November post-elections this year.

Well played Tim, very well played!

SwissMac2
Jul 13, 2012, 07:59 PM
So Greenpeace environmental experts know how much power data centers consume?

This is funny. In reality, the number probably lies somewhere in the middle, closer to Apple's side.

Environmental crazies will always overstate in an effort to hang onto an extra bargaining chip when they're pushing for even more environmentally friendly systems.

It's far more likely that Greenpeace assumes the facility is using PCs as servers. I think we all know that Mac mini servers use far less power than PC servers. We just don't know what kind of servers the facility is running.

CFreymarc
Jul 13, 2012, 08:00 PM
"wack jobs," "living to caves...."

With so many susceptible wackos out there, Jobs should have started a religion, like Ron Hubbard did. :rolleyes:

Greenpeace simply challenged, based on their own research, numbers provided by Apple. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but both the article and some of the comments are devoid of common sense.

Apple has every incentive to embellish their "green" credentials, both in terms of market appeal and in terms of regulatory benefits and subsidies.

Of course, Greenpeace has an agenda, too, but Apple's incentive to lie is considerably greater than Greenpeace's, so it's not unreasonable to at least question Apple's statements.

But this is too much to ask of those afraid of "living to caves," as is apparently the expectation of more or less coherent English....

Apple is simply the most profitable entity on the planet. Greenpeace has a bigger agenda which is enslaving and controlling the human race.

mallwitt
Jul 13, 2012, 09:40 PM
So the backup power generating permit is 41 MW and Apple is stating that they have four generators in an 2 node active/passive configuration. Looks like Greenpeace is simply stating total capacity of the system (about 82 MW for all 4 generators), not operating capacity (41MW). It also seems to suggest that Apple is understating their energy demands at 20 MW (double that in generating capacity seems a bit much). Whether this is a sin of omission or commission is debatable.

Working for a company that just build a new Datacenter, my guess would be that Apple has sized it's operating capacity around 10 - 15% over current requirements. The assumption is that technology will become more efficient, but that you'll be adding equipment so it's mostly a wash over time. And you never want to run your system near max anyway, since even bringing a percentage of equipment up or down can cause large fluctuations in demand that your system will need to absorb. I'm betting that their real operating load is somewhere around 35 MW, with a planned 2~3 MW load spike, and a 1MW per biennium decrease in overall use.

zzLZHzz
Jul 13, 2012, 10:00 PM
Greenpeace won't be happy until people stop using electricity. They are just a bunch of luddites.

greenpeace won't be happy unless people go back to cave age

btbeme
Jul 13, 2012, 10:52 PM
I really couldn't give a wet fart about what GreenPeas has to say about anything. Those donation-grabbing hippies sold their credibility a loooong time ago.

Amazing Iceman
Jul 13, 2012, 11:36 PM
I really don't know what bug got up Greenpeace's butt, but they just don't know when to let something go, do they? Public sentiment seems to not be on their side, at all. Most people think of Greenpeace as a borderline dangerous fringe group. And I wonder why? Gee, might be the set of horse blinders they have when it comes to their own reality distortion field.

This reminds me of the days when Apple was trying to convince us a G4 PowerBook was faster than comparable hardware by cherry picking and interpreting things under highly contrived scenarios. Actually, I'm not sure we can even give Greenpeace that much credit in this case, because they really don't seem capable of math.

----------



As a tactic, I agree. But in practice, I think you see a lot of Apple fans completely alienated from Greenpeace's message. Attacking a think you hold sacred, in the face of contract factual evidence, is fairly stupid. Who are they trying to convince? I know a lot of liberals (I am a moderate to liberal) who feel like they should support Greenpeace. It's certainly a lefty organization. But it's SO FAR lefty that hardly anyone in the middle could support the radicalization of this loose set of "facts."

At the end of the day, as an Apple lover and a general supporter of Green living, I find Greenpeace infuriating. They're making the Green cause radical instead of being a common-sense incremental approach like it's Whole-Earth style beginnings in the 60's. When over 90% of people who own an Apple product love their Apple product, does it make sense to attack Apple and call them liars? I just don't get it.

I also support green living and I'm against pollution, but I think Greenpeace Has lost its track and pursuing some other interests.

JAT
Jul 13, 2012, 11:42 PM
There's where you are wrong. It is precisely because of the First Amendment that liable is so difficult to prove in a U.S. court (it's a difficult three-step test, you could look it up). In countries without explicit speech protections, such as the UK, you see a lot more of them.

No, I am not. None of those 3 steps have anything to do with the government or the Constitution. People say "free speech" constantly and apparently don't know what it means. You could look up the Amendments to see that they refer to acts of governments, not corporations.

The testing for libel is difficult because of the proof of intent. Which is actually a 4th step in "public" cases for celebrities, etc. I imagine Apple v Greenpeace would qualify. Also difficult because of definition of "harm". Libel is a financial, civil issue.

I looked it up, btw. Here, wiki article on speech NOT protected by the 1st Amendment, item #2:
False statements of fact
Main article: False statements of fact

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".[5] However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.[6]

The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[7] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[8] Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[9] Additionally, some implicit statements of fact—those that may just have a "false factual connotation"—still could fall under this exception.[10][11]

----------


Of course, Greenpeace has an agenda, too, but Apple's incentive to lie is considerably greater than Greenpeace's, so it's not unreasonable to at least question Apple's statements.

Except there'd be major repercussions for lying. I really don't think they have as much motivation to lie as you think they do. Getting caught tends to be a sufficient motivator.

Absolutely. Apple has zero incentive to lie. It's a flippin' data center. Hardly anybody is even going to work there, let alone care about the big, blank building once all this crap stops.

Meanwhile, they have every incentive to tell the truth. Esp since they have wackjobs on their ass.

Note: this is the same company that decided an obscure revenue-recognition method applied to OS upgrades on some of their devices (iPod Touch) and charged nominal amounts for them, to make sure they were compliant with accounting rules.

applebook
Jul 14, 2012, 12:13 AM
I'd love to see a green report done on Greenpeace. I'm willing to bet they are hypocrites.

Of course they are, along with most overzealous environmentalists. It's a known fact that crap like the Prius actually hurt the environment more than used cars that they replace. Don't confuse these guys with the FACTS though.

----------

Folks, please stop with the name calling. Many hippies (including Jobs!) would be appalled to be associated with Green Peace.

motorazr
Jul 14, 2012, 12:23 AM
Seriously ... This is the kind of stuff that's just annoying. I'm glad greenpeace thinks they've got great goals (and maybe they do have great goals) .. but this is just rude to ignore a direct statement on power usage from the people building the plant. I hate to think of the number of people that are going to read Greenpeace's statement and ignore Apple's response, instead resorting to an Apple-must-die mentality; like that falsified radio show claiming the amazingly terrible conditions of Foxconn's Apple assembly lines ...

*sigh* Well, at least I'll believe Apple for now. What possibly motive do they have to build a new site without any future planning in mind for keeping the cost to run it at a minimum? Energy costs keep going up .. why build a crazy inefficient plant?

cosmos
Jul 14, 2012, 12:49 AM
So the backup power generating permit is 41 MW and Apple is stating that they have four generators in an 2 node active/passive configuration. Looks like Greenpeace is simply stating total capacity of the system (about 82 MW for all 4 generators), not operating capacity (41MW). It also seems to suggest that Apple is understating their energy demands at 20 MW (double that in generating capacity seems a bit much). Whether this is a sin of omission or commission is debatable.

Working for a company that just build a new Datacenter, my guess would be that Apple has sized it's operating capacity around 10 - 15% over current requirements. The assumption is that technology will become more efficient, but that you'll be adding equipment so it's mostly a wash over time. And you never want to run your system near max anyway, since even bringing a percentage of equipment up or down can cause large fluctuations in demand that your system will need to absorb. I'm betting that their real operating load is somewhere around 35 MW, with a planned 2~3 MW load spike, and a 1MW per biennium decrease in overall use.

Having worked in a large Data Center, I believe mallwitt has stated things close to the actual truth. As for the original critique of Greenpeace's claim, I would state it this way:

Greenpeace is having difficulty developing fundraising without attacking prominent companies such as Apple regardless of their green initiatives.

jcpb
Jul 14, 2012, 02:21 AM
Greenpeace's previous "comprehensive" data center power sources report was full of glaring errors, the most disturbing of which was that Akamai should have received a lower-than-Apple failing grade for not disclosing any hard data on its coal and nuclear power usage at all - but GP gave it top marks instead.

theanimaster
Jul 14, 2012, 02:40 AM
Aye... I would like to see how much energy GreenPeace uses. Where do we go to obtain that information?

----------

Time to go to GreenPeace's website and flame them. What's worse than a bunch of flaming rabid tree-huggers online? ; )

shu-gu-shot
Jul 14, 2012, 04:21 AM
The more you know Greenpeace, the more you avoid it.

One example: after reading their report on Chernobyl, where more or less all the cancer cases in Ukraine after 1986 for some years were attributed to Chernobyl (seriously, LOL!!) and given I know the field (I work on radiation protection), I am used to consider every Greenpeace contribution as pure **** until proven I'm wrong. Of course it happens, but every time, Greenpeace has a lot of hidden interests and fundings (i.e. they oppose nuclear as life/death situation, they barely attack oil companies.. WTF??).

Bottom line: ehy, it's Greenpeace man... just smile and forget.

RobertMartens
Jul 14, 2012, 04:37 AM
This is startlingly naive. Corporations are machines for making money, first last and alway -- and they behave accordingly. They are interested in you precisely to the extent that it benefits them and no further. If people assume that a corporation is good and right just because they like their products, then they are missing something fundamental about how this bargain works.

Did you just get here? I know you didn't.

Apple has been the outcast and underdog and trailblazer and standing up for doing things in a way that they could be proud of since 1976.

Now that they have finally been widely accepted and respected for their values you quickly dump them into the same bin as IBM and Microsoft just because they turn a profit.

Apple was teased because it wasn't savvy like MS and now treated as if they always were.

JoeSixPack
Jul 14, 2012, 04:42 AM
Just imagine the actual good Grrenpeace could have done if they focused more on the environment and less on headlines and fundraising.

There is a story to be told about companies that are outsourcing data centers (and other functions) to emerging market countries seeking low costs without environmental considerations.

Instead Greenpeace squanders it's credibility and our time focussing on a popular company that is trying to be environmentally-responsible. Why fight the hard fight pointing out that less-known companies are not environmentally-responsible when they can bring in more money showing the popular ones are very good but not perfect?

HelveticaRoman
Jul 14, 2012, 06:27 AM
Right. Greenpeace = Lama? Fail.

Anyway, Greenpeace is basically arguing that Apple has installed backup generators under 50% of the size they would actually need.

Do you think Apple is that stupid?

Or does Greenpeace have an agenda and doesn't want to be shown to be making stuff up?

I'll leave that for you to decide. You are obviously unbiased.

There's a vast chasm between posing a counter argument and being biased. Reason depends on the former but is impossible with the latter. If Greenpeace are talking actionable nonsense then they should be strung up for it. If they are substantively correct, then they should be heard. That's all.

fredf
Jul 14, 2012, 06:54 AM
Many have said that Greenpeace is an Eco-socialist front group that attacks any capitalist entity that is profiting. Their claims state they are "bad for the environment" in an attempt to quash individual rights, creative ability and liberty.


Wow. Did you ever attend school or get an education?
It's hard to believe you ever figured out how to use a computer at all.

everything-i
Jul 14, 2012, 07:31 AM
There seems to be a lot of talk here about who is telling the truth. Apple say 20MW Greenpeace say 81MW. This is a massive difference so there has to be some reason for this. Looking at the permits for backup power generation at 41MW this would suggest that at the absolute outside the data center could use 41MW but not all the generators are used at the same time (an industry standard practice) so maybe 35MW would be an absolute limit.

Given this, why is the Greenpeace figure so high. Well it appears they calculate power usage on how much is spent on the data center. This seams a pretty poor yard stick to me as all evidence from the backup permits for the data center say otherwise.

I would say given the evidence that there is backup capability for around 35MW and given that you have to take power spikes for starting up the data center from scratch, while on backup, into account when designing the backup capacity, there would be no more than probably 25-28MW max in steady state operation.

While I think Apple may be a little on the low side with 20MW as a total this may be there actual projection given what they want to do with the facility. Also I think it would be pointless to lie about this as the utility companies supplying the facility will know exactly the amount of power used so its impossible to cover it up once the facility is in operation with all the bad publicity this would cause.

So it would seem Apple have little to gain from trying to lie about the power usage and the high spend may well be down to using more expensive technology to limit power usage for all Greenpeace know. Either way the Greenpeace figure is totally ridiculous given the evidence and they should be ashamed of themselves for publishing that figure and berating a company that, in this case, is trying hard to do the right thing. With the effort apple is putting into sustainability for its data centers Greenpeace should be praising them and pressuring others to follow their example.

Bjango
Jul 14, 2012, 08:18 AM
It's far more likely that Greenpeace assumes the facility is using PCs as servers. I think we all know that Mac mini servers use far less power than PC servers. We just don't know what kind of servers the facility is running.

We may know what kind of servers Apple is using. (
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/429208/job_ad_indicates_apple_using_oracle_ibm_servers_north_carolina_data_center/)

I highly doubt Apple's filling their data centres with Mac minis. For the record, I have nothing against Mac minis... it's what we're using. I just doubt that's what Apple would use.


With the effort apple is putting into sustainability for its data centers Greenpeace should be praising them and pressuring others to follow their example.

Definitely. Also, your figures make a lot of sense.

RobertMartens
Jul 14, 2012, 09:12 AM
and given I know the field (I work on radiation protection),

Let's see, that makes you biased in which direction?

chabig
Jul 14, 2012, 10:26 AM
Greenpeace doesn't hide their motivation. If you go to their website the first thing that will happen is that you'll be presented with the "opportunity" to send money.

charlituna
Jul 14, 2012, 10:56 AM
Its time for Apple to litigate (i.e., sue Greenpeace).



That would just give Greenpeace more press, and more fuel for their anti-Apple fire

Apple should keep doing what they are doing and avoid feeding the trolls.

Lindono
Jul 14, 2012, 10:59 AM
Really? Like what? At worst, getting slapped with a fine which is a fraction of the benefits derived by "embellishing"?

Or do you believe that the Data Center deal will be rescinded? :rolleyes:

The issue with your logic is that they have the least to fear from any measly fine. There would be MANY legit environmentalist groups out there who'd be perfectly justified jumping on this and giving Apple hell if they were ever caught lying. I just don't think they'd consider all the potential bad press worth the little effort it takes to tell the truth. Sure, they'd still be on Apple if their power usage is high, but nothing like they'd be if they knew they fudged the figures.

rmanbike
Jul 14, 2012, 11:17 AM
Why doesnt someone think to ask Duke Energy, thats where Apple gets their electricity from, or Duke Energy could make a official statement who is correct, Apple or GP.

Bubba Satori
Jul 14, 2012, 11:42 AM
Who voted for Greenpeace?

IJ Reilly
Jul 14, 2012, 11:49 AM
No, I am not. None of those 3 steps have anything to do with the government or the Constitution. People say "free speech" constantly and apparently don't know what it means. You could look up the Amendments to see that they refer to acts of governments, not corporations.

Wrong. While libel is not protected speech, by definition, in Times v. Sullivan (1964) the Supreme Court raised the bar substantially over what kinds of speech can be considered libelous. They based their ruling in the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech and press. Often it helps to know more about a topic than what you can glean from a quick reading of a Wikipedia article.

The important take-away point is that Apple could not successfully sue Greenpeace for saying things about Apple that Apple doesn't believe to be accurate. In fact if they even made the attempt, they'd face an array of anti-SLAPP suit laws that are designed to prevent corporations from silencing critics in precisely the way some here have suggested they ought to do. Bad idea, all around. Apple simply has to live with their critics, even if they slice, dice and bend the truth.

IJ Reilly
Jul 14, 2012, 12:05 PM
Did you just get here? I know you didn't.

Apple has been the outcast and underdog and trailblazer and standing up for doing things in a way that they could be proud of since 1976.

Now that they have finally been widely accepted and respected for their values you quickly dump them into the same bin as IBM and Microsoft just because they turn a profit.

Apple was teased because it wasn't savvy like MS and now treated as if they always were.

The point is, you cannot expect corporations to have a conscience. They are designed to be amoral, with the singular goal of profitability. Vague references to values and underdog status adds up to a pocket full of smoke where corporations are concerned. When Apple was marginalized it wasn't for a lack of moral fibre, it was for a lack of satisfying consumer preferences (and some other factors over which they had little control). Now that they are successful, it's is not because they discovered their moral fibre, but because they are producing products that consumers choose to buy. People do seem to take some comfort from anthropomorphizing the companies whose products they like, but that doesn't mean the company reciprocates your affection. You can be sure that they do not. It helps to understand that the relationship is purely commercial. As the old saying goes, if you want a real friend, get a dog.

----------

Who voted for Greenpeace?

Their membership and their donors.

Who voted for Apple?

Their customers and business partners.

The score appears to be nil all.

i-John
Jul 14, 2012, 02:06 PM
Greenpeace, masters of PR, have learned what so many other media whores have learned: Criticize Apple and you will get headlines.

Not really "masters" if you use the same tied old excuse as everyone else.

Masters of PR actually get things done.

Svirchev
Jul 14, 2012, 02:19 PM
It's pretty clear that Apple did not throughly consider implications of withdrawing from EPEAT, but equally they are capable of making rapid reversal
of policy when economic backlash requires it.

The same is not true of Greenpeace, an organization that is driven by an emotion-ridden ideology first and marketing second. They have stumbled so frequently over the course of their history that they could not exist without the emotional appeal.

Sackvillenb
Jul 14, 2012, 04:44 PM
Way to go Greenpeace, good job on making yourselves look like foolish butt-wads. I think greenpeace has really become a very irrelevant organization, with little credibility. Too bad. There was a time when they used to do at least some good... now they just make other environmentalists look bad by association...!

Blue Fox
Jul 14, 2012, 07:57 PM
Greenpeace over-exaggerating their claims???

Who would have thunk it?

blow45
Jul 15, 2012, 02:07 AM
Greenpeace just wants attention and publicity.

52 people (substitute people with something else if you want to) voted this up. I wish there still was downvoting here. In these forums, it's always attack other mode for anyone in disagreement or conflict with apple. Some people don't care that the planet is in the disarray it's in. Apparently only apple and every other multinational should lobby people in power to get their way, just as soon as an environmental organization tries to push for some progress, they are attacked here.

This, it goes without saying, is utterly sad.

----------

Greenpeace over-exaggerating their claims???

Who would have thunk it?

Apple ditching an environmental standard (epeat) when it doesn't suit their manufacturing needs but using it only hypocritically to make tons of money via presenting a "greener" profile, and then backflipping and reversing their decision? Who would have thunk that. Probably it's a bad idea that greenpeace is exerting pressure on them, probably if left on their own devices they are going to be super environmentally friendly...:rolleyes:

Uls
Jul 15, 2012, 12:04 PM
Here is a company which is spending millions of $$ to try to save energy and these hippies are picking on this company?????!!!!!
Should they not have to make Apple an example to rest of the industrious world? At least Apple is trying to conserve in a big way.

Greenpeace has lost my respect a long time ago by the obnoxious behaviour in stead of promoting conservation and give people and companies examples of how to conserve.

MacinDoc
Jul 15, 2012, 08:20 PM
52 people (substitute people with something else if you want to) voted this up. I wish there still was downvoting here. In these forums, it's always attack other mode for anyone in disagreement or conflict with apple. Some people don't care that the planet is in the disarray it's in. Apparently only apple and every other multinational should lobby people in power to get their way, just as soon as an environmental organization tries to push for some progress, they are attacked here.
Perhaps the push would have more appeal if they attacked the 99% of corporations that are doing NOTHING for the environment rather than attacking the one that is building a solar farm and a biofuel generator, disputing how much difference these efforts will make. The only reason they are attacking Apple is because it gets more public mindspace than attacking HP, Dell, IBM, Microsoft, GM, Ford or Chrysler would.

blow45
Jul 15, 2012, 08:25 PM
Perhaps the push would have more appeal if they attacked the 99% of corporations that are doing NOTHING for the environment rather than attacking the one that is building a solar farm and a biofuel generator, disputing how much difference these efforts will make. The only reason they are attacking Apple is because it gets more public mindspace than attacking HP, Dell, GM, IBM or Microsoft would.

the reason they are building a solar farm and a biofuel generator is because greenpeace got on their case early enough.

In any case apple isn't doing anything either, they are offloading the environmental burden to component makers and assemblers. The one time they could do something about it, as in this case, it sure took a lot of push to get them to.... And if it suits the bottom line for epeat to go out of the window, out the window it goes.

As far as I can remember greenpeace hasn't appointed anyone to dictate to them what their priorities should be, and isn't it the role of government to refuse the occasional bribe now and then and enforce environmental policy?

I really don't see how greenpeace should be targeted here. Don't we want our grandchildren to have a planet to live in?

MacinDoc
Jul 15, 2012, 09:16 PM
the reason they are building a solar farm and a biofuel generator is because greenpeace got on their case early enough.

In any case apple isn't doing anything either, they are offloading the environmental burden to component makers and assemblers. The one time they could do something about it, as in this case, it sure took a lot of push to get them to.... And if it suits the bottom line for epeat to go out of the window, out the window it goes.

As far as I can remember greenpeace hasn't appointed anyone to dictate to them what their priorities should be, and isn't it the role of government to refuse the occasional bribe now and then and enforce environmental policy?

I really don't see how greenpeace should be targeted here. Don't we want our grandchildren to have a planet to live in?
You're still not getting it. Greenpeace is picking the wrong target. There are far worse corporate environmental monsters out there than Apple. Greenpeace should focus their efforts on them. The reason they don't is because attacking Apple makes headlines, while attacking companies like IBM, Sun, and Google doesn't, and attacking companies like the Big Three automakers, which are infinitely worse environmental stewards than Apple, offends some of the people who tend to support Greenpeace.

With respect to why Greenpeace should be targeted, I would point to their ludicrous estimates of the power consumption of this data center, four to five times industry estimates (I'm sorry, but no industry can fudge energy utilization estimates by a factor of four to five and still maintain even a scrap of credibility, and credibility is very important to Apple).

In the end, I am a supporter of groups that endeavor to protect the environment from our excesses, but Greenpeace lost my support years ago, and none of their recent stunts have done anything to revive my support for them.

JAT
Jul 15, 2012, 10:15 PM
Wrong. While libel is not protected speech, by definition, in Times v. Sullivan (1964) the Supreme Court raised the bar substantially over what kinds of speech can be considered libelous. They based their ruling in the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech and press. Often it helps to know more about a topic than what you can glean from a quick reading of a Wikipedia article.
I only looked up wiki articles when you told me to, not for understanding. But way to change the goalposts. :rolleyes:

Moving on, if you read THAT case in wiki, you may notice it is a government issue, as Sullivan was a gov't employee, the NYT was originally attacking the police over criminal issues, and later it apparently involved the Governor, too. I'm just assuming wiki is accurate on all that, because I wasn't born, yet, to have attended all the sessions to witness it personally. Anyway, 1st Amendment pretty much applies directly to that, yes. Last I checked Greenpeace was not a govt agency, however.

I just don't understand your argument that the Constitution somehow applies to individuals. (or entities defined as individuals for some legal purposes) Have you read it?

res08hao
Jul 16, 2012, 04:24 AM
Nobody cares what those jerkoffs think.

gnasher729
Jul 16, 2012, 05:44 AM
the reason they are building a solar farm and a biofuel generator is because greenpeace got on their case early enough.

That is total nonsense. I know it, you know it, and Greenpeace knows it as well. Apple doesn't do _anything_ because of Greenpeace. And all the plans for their data centre were done and finished long before Greenpeace opened their mouth.

And how exactly do you suppose would Greenpeace massively overestimating Apple's energy use cause Apple to build a solar farm? If Apple needed 80 Megawatt, why would they even bother to build a 20 Megawatt solar farm? Surely it is much more green to reduce usage from 80 MW to 60 MW without spending on a solar farm than to use 80 MW and build a solar farm?


There seems to be a lot of talk here about who is telling the truth. Apple say 20MW Greenpeace say 81MW. This is a massive difference so there has to be some reason for this. Looking at the permits for backup power generation at 41MW this would suggest that at the absolute outside the data center could use 41MW but not all the generators are used at the same time (an industry standard practice) so maybe 35MW would be an absolute limit.

You don't want a data centre to ever lose power (Amazon, we're looking at you). If I need 20 Megawatt, then I would build a primary source for 20 Megawatt, and two ship diesel engines of 20.5 Megawatt each, so if the primary goes down, and one of the ship diesels doesn't start, your data centre is still fine.

blow45
Jul 16, 2012, 01:06 PM
That is total nonsense. I know it, you know it, and Greenpeace knows it as well. Apple doesn't do _anything_ because of Greenpeace. And all the plans for their data centre were done and finished long before Greenpeace opened their mouth.

And how exactly do you suppose would Greenpeace massively overestimating Apple's energy use cause Apple to build a solar farm? If Apple needed 80 Megawatt, why would they even bother to build a 20 Megawatt solar farm? Surely it is much more green to reduce usage from 80 MW to 60 MW without spending on a solar farm than to use 80 MW and build a solar farm?


You know what's total nonsense, defending one the most obscenely rich mega corporations in the world over an environmental group that is a force for positive change. That is absolute and total nonsense.

ade2bee
Jul 16, 2012, 01:59 PM
Eco-fascists

jca24
Jul 16, 2012, 04:23 PM
You know what's total nonsense, defending one the most obscenely rich mega corporations in the world over an environmental group that is a force for positive change. That is absolute and total nonsense.

you are joking right?? you must be a fan of peta too??

:apple:

gnasher729
Jul 16, 2012, 04:35 PM
You know what's total nonsense, defending one the most obscenely rich mega corporations in the world over an environmental group that is a force for positive change. That is absolute and total nonsense.

Dream on. :rolleyes:

I really don't see how greenpeace should be targeted here. Don't we want our grandchildren to have a planet to live in?

Ah, here comes the "think of the children" argument.

Personally, I don't want my grandchildren to have a planet to live _in_. I want them to have a planet to live _on_. But that's just me, to each his own.

But do you really, really think that Greenpeace is helping? Their interest is getting donations, and that's it. To get donations, they attack the "most obscenely rich mega corporation". But they have been proven wrong when they attacked Apple again and again. I'm not anti-Greenpeace. I'm anti stupid, I'm anti making wild claims based on bad research, and I'm anti being unable to admit mistakes. Oh well, seem's I'm anti-Greenpeace after all.

And it seems that you didn't respond to any of my arguments at all.

Liquorpuki
Jul 16, 2012, 05:21 PM
As far as I can remember greenpeace hasn't appointed anyone to dictate to them what their priorities should be, and isn't it the role of government to refuse the occasional bribe now and then and enforce environmental policy?

I really don't see how greenpeace should be targeted here. Don't we want our grandchildren to have a planet to live in?

They should be targeted because they lie to push their agenda.

Among the things they've done that make no sense
- Taking North Carolina's state energy portfolio and claiming Apple is tied to those percentages. That's nonsense. On the grid level, a state is not an island - electricity crosses state lines and customer portfolios vary based on contracts
- Claiming they were able to derive the datacenter's load based on how much money Apple spent on the building. That's like me saying I can tell how much power your smartphone uses if you tell me how much you paid for it.
- Scolding Apple for purchasing renewable energy credits. In reality there's no practical alternative
- Claiming if Apple buys a REC and later sells a REC of their own, it's double counting. That's a lie
- Scolding Apple for not pressuring Duke Energy to bring their coal plants offline. Apple doesn't have the leverage to tell Duke Energy what to do and even if they did, Duke would need to build replacement capacity which would take 10-20 years.

Just because you have good intentions or a noble cause doesn't mean you're allowed to lie and peddle BS.

Flyermac
Jul 16, 2012, 05:35 PM
They NEVER INFERNIZE the communists. How come the existence of jobs for vagabonds, uh? To pass the life to infernize everything that is from the USA. They criticize Apple, but they don't criticize companies from China, Iran, Russia, Cuba... why? :mad:

blow45
Jul 16, 2012, 07:08 PM
Dream on. :rolleyes:



What about? So apple isn't THE megarich worldwide corporation and/or greenpeace is not a force for positive change then?

----------

They NEVER INFERNIZE the communists. How come the existence of jobs for vagabonds, uh? To pass the life to infernize everything that is from the USA. They criticize Apple, but they don't criticize companies from China, Iran, Russia, Cuba... why? :mad:

They are criticizing companies from China: Apple.:D Selling like crazy in China, manufacturing in China.

----------

They should be targeted because they lie to push their agenda.

Among the things they've done that make no sense
- Taking North Carolina's state energy portfolio and claiming Apple is tied to those percentages. That's nonsense. On the grid level, a state is not an island - electricity crosses state lines and customer portfolios vary based on contracts
- Claiming they were able to derive the datacenter's load based on how much money Apple spent on the building. That's like me saying I can tell how much power your smartphone uses if you tell me how much you paid for it.
- Scolding Apple for purchasing renewable energy credits. In reality there's no practical alternative
- Claiming if Apple buys a REC and later sells a REC of their own, it's double counting. That's a lie
- Scolding Apple for not pressuring Duke Energy to bring their coal plants offline. Apple doesn't have the leverage to tell Duke Energy what to do and even if they did, Duke would need to build replacement capacity which would take 10-20 years.

Just because you have good intentions or a noble cause doesn't mean you're allowed to lie and peddle BS.

fair points, but companies like apple continuously lie and pebble bs (from the collusion book deal, to the iphone antenna, to the jobs they claim to have created, to the tax loopholes they use, etc. etc.), shouldn't a noble cause make it a bit more allowable to lie?

nice avatar btw.

theelysium
Jul 16, 2012, 11:27 PM
F greenpeace!

rsocal
Jul 17, 2012, 12:38 AM
Greenpeace can go **** themselves! They don't care about getting the truth, never have!!! I hope Apple puts the facts to them and makes them look stupid like they are!!!:cool::apple::apple::apple:

Poisednoise
Jul 17, 2012, 08:13 AM
shouldn't a noble cause make it a bit more allowable to lie?

I don't think so. As soon as you go down that route, anyone can justify anything, by claiming it's a noble cause. Very few fanatics think they are pursuing anything other than a noble cause - once you decide a different set of rules apply to people who are involved with a "noble cause" you end up with people like Breivik in Norway.

everything-i
Jul 18, 2012, 11:17 AM
shouldn't a noble cause make it a bit more allowable to lie?


No, because it denigrates the cause that they represent. These idiots should be ashamed of themselves, they lose the moral high ground by using tactics like this.

CFreymarc
Aug 28, 2012, 11:27 AM
Wow. Did you ever attend school or get an education?
It's hard to believe you ever figured out how to use a computer at all.

“Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy”, Hermann Goering

whitesand
Sep 12, 2012, 05:01 PM
You almost got it right. Extra CO2 doesn't increase plant growth per se -- it's more so an environmental correlation than a causality. In practicality, increased CO2 means an elevated average temperature with more extreme environments, which is exactly what occurred during the Jurassic era. These environmental stimuli were probably what caused the plants to enlarge to such sizes, but without a living specimen we can't be sure since it could have just been a factor of breeding and genetics.

What's more so amusing is that most people forget that the CO2 cycle appears to be cyclic in nature from geology (as is the temperature) -- we haven't seen a recorded history of such a cycle with civilized man yet due the relatively infant age of modern society. Are we adding CO2? Undoubtedly. Are we making that big of a difference on the natural CO2 fluctuations? Who knows.


You can find lots of experiments taking plants and putting them in chambers of elevated C02 and the growth rate accelerates..

darkplanets
Sep 12, 2012, 09:13 PM
You can find lots of experiments taking plants and putting them in chambers of elevated C02 and the growth rate accelerates..

Holy thread necro!

That aside, I'm not in the ag sciences -- care to share some papers (PMID, DOI, or reference)? I'm too lazy to PubMed or SciFinder it :D

Would be interesting to see the population controls put in place to account for genetic variance, and how much the growth rate actually changes. Also what they define as growth.