Apple Tops Greenpeace Clean Energy Index Based on Renewable Energy Initiatives

[SBlue1]

Interesting how nuclear power is considered non-clean on these charts.

It is not clean (or cheap) to store the used rubber boots and gloves, full body suits, radiating garbage, used nuclear fuel cells and all the other left overs for thousands of years in a safe way. We used nuclear power in Germany for some 50 years only yet 100 generations will have to deal with all the waste that got produced in just that little span of time.

 

[dannyyankou]

But they should!

Agreed. Google can definitely afford to build a few solar powered data centers.

 

[NachoGrande]

Technically, it's not their manufacturing, as Apple doesn't own Foxconn or any of their suppliers.

Oh okay, I technically don't own my home. So it's my bank that is responsible for any green house gases I create. Cool, it's 55 outside I'm gonna turn the A/C on and open the windows!

 

[Thunderhawks]

You seem to be referring to market forces determining production, consumption and cost. That is simply not what we have in most places of our economy today. Gov't pays people not to produce, subsidizes others, regulates competition out of business - including in the energy space whether it's conventional or green.

When Obama backdoors EPA regulations that are (by his own admission) designed to put a large part of energy production (coal) out of business to accommodate the mythical global warming matra, costs will increase dramatically. That is what he has stated. What is what he wants. Sorry. It's his own words. Yes, it's about the money but it is the politically connected green energy con artists who are there for the kill. Think Solyndra. Think Al Gore.

It is his stated plan to get energy prices to SKYROCKET. See it for yourself.

There is a lot that has to happen before a PLAN becomes reality.

Al Gore is not in power and Obama will not be shortly. In the meantime big business will make sure that money is made.

Increasing taxes in fuel will not make them money, so they will send their lobbyists to make sure that doesn't happen or in insignificant amounts.

Global warming has plenty of research facts, however if not convenient doubts are being raised.
How about erring on the safe side and leaving a clean planet for future generations?

Humans are the most destructive creatures on earth.

How often did we have to says "oops" when head in the sand scenarios were proven wrong.

Apple is trying . Not perfect, but at least trying.

That can't be said for many others.

 

[Lictor]

Apple is trying . Not perfect, but at least trying.
That can't be said for many others.

The world is not made up of corporations. The huge majority of people work in small business. So, that's the small business that should be trying...

And it's quite easy. For instance, there are electricity provider that guarantee that 100% of the energy you use is compensated by green energy fed to the grid (and some even exclude nuclear). They a little bit more expensive, but it's something like 10% extra cost. Small business can perfectly decide to use them and that's already something positive.

Likewise, my girlfriend works in a business with around 100 people. They make trips to visit their customers on a daily basis. Yet, the Paris agency decided that public transports were good enough. So they sold the company car and decided to use only the train - car renting is an exception.
And this actually saves them money. With frequent users cards, train is not that expensive. Moreover, when someone spends 4 hours in a car, that a total loss of production. But when someone spends 4 hours in a train, he can work most of the time. When someone makes 2 or 3 trips during the trip, that's a lot of recovered work hours !

There are a lot of adjustments small business can do : investing in energy efficient lights (LED), not using air-conditioning all the time, using computers and screens that are energy efficient... And in the end, all that means less energy usage, so lower costs...

 

[edenwaith]

This is some great, positive news. Apple looks to be making a positive impact with environmental responsibility (much more than their peers), yet people still seem to find ways to complain....

 

[Thunderhawks]

The world is not made up of corporations. The huge majority of people work in small business. So, that's the small business that should be trying...

And it's quite easy. For instance, there are electricity provider that guarantee that 100% of the energy you use is compensated by green energy fed to the grid (and some even exclude nuclear). They a little bit more expensive, but it's something like 10% extra cost. Small business can perfectly decide to use them and that's already something positive.

Likewise, my girlfriend works in a business with around 100 people. They make trips to visit their customers on a daily basis. Yet, the Paris agency decided that public transports were good enough. So they sold the company car and decided to use only the train - car renting is an exception.
And this actually saves them money. With frequent users cards, train is not that expensive. Moreover, when someone spends 4 hours in a car, that a total loss of production. But when someone spends 4 hours in a train, he can work most of the time. When someone makes 2 or 3 trips during the trip, that's a lot of recovered work hours !

There are a lot of adjustments small business can do : investing in energy efficient lights (LED), not using air-conditioning all the time, using computers and screens that are energy efficient... And in the end, all that means less energy usage, so lower costs...

And, if you become realistic for a moment , you'll have to admit that very few do anything but complain.

In USA almost EVERYTHING is driven by money. As long as that is the case
energy consumption will be high.

I grew up without A/C in my car . Had to open all the doors and wait for 5 minutes to get in every summer. No A/C at home either.
Windows open and sit still.

Ask somebody America to tolerate that and just go on and you get one big howl. Again, those who behave the way they should are in the minority.

Back to Apple. They have been doing this for a while and are not done yet.
Go Apple. (And I will send you my old stuff for recycling)

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Larry Ellison and Oracle

One of the biggest polluters. Larry admired Steve's genius [used him more than anything else while on Apple's board to pick his brain], but clearly is stuck in the 20th century with energy.

Odd that someone so big on the ocean sports would be such an advocate of old tech pollution.

I always enjoyed the plastic face look when he showed up at Apple. Reminded me that you can be a billionaire and still stuck on stupid when it comes to health.

----------

And, if you become realistic for a moment , you'll have to admit that very few do anything but complain.

In USA almost EVERYTHING is driven by money. As long as that is the case
energy consumption will be high.

I grew up without A/C in my car . Had to open all the doors an wait for 5 minutes to get in every summer. No A/C at home either.
Windows open and sit still.

Ask somebody America to tolerate that and just go on and you get one big howl. Again, those who behave the way they should are in the minority.

Back to Apple. They have been doing this for a while and are not done yet.
Go Apple. (And I will send you my old stuff for recycling)

I hear ya. Grew up w/o AC in the house or the cars. Never use it in the car I own. I prefer the breeze of non-processed cold air.

But the prior poster was being realistic on coordinating with State, County and City power solutions available for their business to be 100% renewable.

 

[Taz Mangus]

Apple's solar plants and managed forests are lipstick for dummies to try to hide their business model based on planned obsolescence that the rest of the industry has copied.

Why even bother doing anything, right because it has to be all or nothing? Damn, we don't need more trees so why bother even planting them at all. I am sure glad you are here to alert everyone to the evil business practice Apple is doing. If you have such a problem with what Apple is doing boycott them. Or is your mission in life to complain but do nothing about it. I sure wish more companies would do these environmental "lipstick for dummies" things like Apple.

 

[Lictor]

In USA almost EVERYTHING is driven by money. As long as that is the case energy consumption will be high.

As is the case in the rest of the world. That's why you need the state involved, but that's a taboo in the USA.
Everything being driven by money is not a problem : make the bad things more expensive (by taxes) and the good things less expensive (by tax cuts) and the balance will shift. For instance, the most polluting cars have an extra tax, but the least polluting one have a significant tax cut - and people now tend to buy the least polluting ones.
Likewise, add a tax on the most energy hungry light bulbs and a tax cut on the least, and people will buy the later.

"I grew up without A/C in my car . Had to open all the doors and wait for 5 minutes to get in every summer. No A/C at home either."

That's a cultural thing. I grew like this and I actually dislike the feeling of A/C, it just feels unnatural. When I do use A/C, it's a necessity when you're on holidays in some countries, I just use it at the minimum level - for instance to get 25°C inside rather than all the way down to 19°C.
Likewise, being in a car in summer, I would much rather have the wind on my face than A/C.
I think it's really of matter of tuning your body to handle things a certain way when you're a kid.

 

[cube]

Why even bother doing anything, right because it has to be all or nothing? Damn, we don't need more trees so why bother even planting them at all. I am sure glad you are here to alert everyone to the evil business practice Apple is doing. If you have such a problem with what Apple is doing boycott them. Or is your mission in life to complain but do nothing about it. I sure wish more companies would do these environmental "lipstick for dummies" things like Apple.

One thing is to do something, another thing is to boast about your "eco-friendliness".

And I don't see any further Macs in my future (maybe I will be forced to buy an iPad because I am not happy with my Android tablet, at least there are some non-Microsoft options for phones, but I guess that will be a bad option if one goes systemd-free open source finally).

 

[Taz Mangus]

One thing is to do something, another thing is to boast about your "eco-friendliness".

And I don't see any further Macs in my future (maybe I will be forced to buy an iPad because I am not happy with my Android tablet, at least there are some non-Microsoft options for phones, but I guess that will be a bad option if one goes systemd-free open source finally).

Last year there were 1 Billion 90 Million non-iOS phones produced. And how many of those companies actually did more then Apple as far as being environmentally friendly. And all those companies use the same Chinese companies to assemble those phones. But hey, if they don't claim or boast to be Eco-Friendly then it must be okay to support them regardless of the fact they actually don't do much to help the environment. You keep up that good fight.

 

[aaronvan]

Interesting how nuclear power is considered non-clean on these charts.

Nuclear power is hard to understand, therefore it is scary and frightening according to leftist-environmentalist dogma. Never mind that it is carbon-free; much easier to fetishize a green utopia where the wheels are turned by fairy dust and unicorn farts.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Nuclear power is hard to understand, therefore it is scary and frightening according to leftist-environmentalist dogma. Never mind that it is carbon-free; much easier to fetishize a green utopia where the wheels are turned by fairy dust and unicorn farts.

I think people can understand the Fukushima disaster has already cost many tens of billions of dollars directly, with no end in sight, and no way to precisely estimate or cap the overall cost, which will no doubt be in the range of $100B to $1T USD.

Are there ways to avoid such issues? Sure. There are new reactor designs, and whole new technologies, but, no one knows what the long term operating costs will be. One thing is for sure, though -- when BWR's first went into production, a lot of people expressed worries that an accident like Fukushima could happen. Those people, unfortunately, got the last laugh. You can't say an accident like that is "impossible" when it already happened.

 

[cube]

Last year there were 1 Billion 90 Million non-iOS phones produced. And how many of those companies actually did more then Apple as far as being environmentally friendly. And all those companies use the same Chinese companies to assemble those phones. But hey, if they don't claim or boast to be Eco-Friendly then it must be okay to support them regardless of the fact they actually don't do much to help the environment. You keep up that good fight.

The non-Apple phones that I bought actually have removable batteries and SD slot. And I took advantage of second-hand opportunities. The phones I stop using get handed down and are a major upgrade to replace really old broken, failing, or obsolete ones.

The Android tablet I bought has SD slot, but no removable battery, as usual (the latter trend inspired by Apple).

 

[Taz Mangus]

The non-Apple phones that I bought actually have removable batteries and SD slot. And I took advantage of second-hand opportunities. The phones I stop using get handed down and are a major upgrade to replace really old broken, failing, or obsolete ones.

The Android tablet I bought has SD slot, but no removable battery, as usual (the latter trend inspired by Apple).

I own a iPhone 5 which is now going on 3 years. I also own a 6 year old MacBook Pro and Mac-Mini and a 4 year old iMac. All run the latest Mac/iOS. It sure looks like Apple has forced planned obsolescence on me. Funny that you have no issue supporting manufacturers of Android devices which are designed to be cheap throw away devices that are replaced every few months with newer versions. And a majority of those 1 Billion 90 Million non-iOS phones produced last year are Android devices. Ironic that you keep mentioning about planned obsolescence and have no issue supporting.

 

[cube]

I own a iPhone 5 which is now going on 3 years. I also own a 6 year old MacBook Pro and Mac-Mini and a 4 year old iMac. All run the latest Mac/iOS. It sure looks like Apple has forced planned obsolescence on me. Funny that you have no issue supporting manufacturers of Android devices which are designed to be cheap throw away devices that are replaced every few months with newer versions. And a majority of those 1 Billion 90 Million non-iOS phones produced last year are Android devices. Ironic that you keep mentioning about planned obsolescence and have no issue supporting.

I don't buy cheap throwaway Android phones.

And Apple is notorious for being stingy in the amount of RAM they build in. I've learned this the hard way having bought an expensive iPad 1, which in addition was abandoned to run an old OS without security updates. I know Android in general is not great for timely updates, but Apple's history in this regard is not stellar either.

An MBP from 2011 or earlier is acceptable. Not so for all of Apple's laptops since then.

 

[zin]

I think people can understand the Fukushima disaster has already cost many tens of billions of dollars directly, with no end in sight, and no way to precisely estimate or cap the overall cost, which will no doubt be in the range of $100B to $1T USD.

Are there ways to avoid such issues? Sure. There are new reactor designs, and whole new technologies, but, no one knows what the long term operating costs will be. One thing is for sure, though -- when BWR's first went into production, a lot of people expressed worries that an accident like Fukushima could happen. Those people, unfortunately, got the last laugh. You can't say an accident like that is "impossible" when it already happened.

Between 1971 and 2009, nuclear energy generation meant net deaths of 1.8 million were avoided, despite the major incidents, and millions more will be avoided in the coming decades.

Nuclear generation is safer than roof top solar and wind (and is more reliable, produces more power, and has lower emissions). I will repeat that: the most common renewables are several times more dangerous than nuclear.

Nuclear literally saves lives.

 

[noodlemanc]

As is the case in the rest of the world. That's why you need the state involved, but that's a taboo in the USA.
Everything being driven by money is not a problem : make the bad things more expensive (by taxes) and the good things less expensive (by tax cuts) and the balance will shift. For instance, the most polluting cars have an extra tax, but the least polluting one have a significant tax cut - and people now tend to buy the least polluting ones.
Likewise, add a tax on the most energy hungry light bulbs and a tax cut on the least, and people will buy the later.

Not everything is black and white though, "good" or "bad". Your example with lightbulbs: Filament lights use more energy than CFL lights, so a central planner might consider CFL's to be "better" and tax the former while subsidising the latter. However while CFL's use more energy they are also much more harmful to the environment when disposed off due to the chemicals they contain. Another factor is that filament bulbs are less energy efficient because a lot of the energy goes into heat rather than light -- but if you live in a cold climate the heat isn't wasted because you want to heat your home as well as light it. The central heating therefore will have to use less energy as it is helped a little by the filament bulbs. So CFL's have clear advantages and disadvantages compared to filament lights, therefore can it really be said that one is good and one is bad?

----------

Between 1971 and 2009, nuclear energy generation meant net deaths of 1.8 million were avoided, despite the major incidents, and millions more will be avoided in the coming decades.

Nuclear generation is safer than roof top solar and wind (and is more reliable, produces more power, and has lower emissions). I will repeat that: the most common renewables are several times more dangerous than nuclear.

Nuclear literally saves lives.

This. Solar panels may be green while they are generating electricity, but they contain toxic chemicals that create a problem if they are used on a large scale when they need to be disposed of.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Not everything is black and white though, "good" or "bad". Your example with lightbulbs: Filament lights use more energy than CFL lights, so a central planner might consider CFL's to be "better" and tax the former while subsidising the latter. However while CFL's use more energy they are also much more harmful to the environment when disposed off due to the chemicals they contain. Another factor is that filament bulbs are less energy efficient because a lot of the energy goes into heat rather than light -- but if you live in a cold climate the heat isn't wasted because you want to heat your home as well as light it. The central heating therefore will have to use less energy as it is helped a little by the filament bulbs. So CFL's have clear advantages and disadvantages compared to filament lights, therefore can it really be said that one is good and one is bad?

----------



This. Solar panels may be green while they are generating electricity, but they contain toxic chemicals that create a problem if they are used on a large scale when they need to be disposed of.

I'm sorry but stating fallacies ad naseum does not make it factual. Let me drive you down to Hanford and the hundreds of millions of fines CH2Hill continues to absorb as the literally millions of gallons of radioactive waste is not contained.

More importantly, those ``panel chemicals'' can enzymatically be neutralized while advanced carbon polymers replace them in upcoming generations where Organic polymers are the next leap in efficiency.

Radioactive Isotopes are not safer, irregardless if you buy into the notion that fuel rod designed nuclear plants are generation 3 or 45000. Whether it is Thorium, Uranium, etc., the spent rods are not saving millions of lives. They are literally creating millions of future genetic cancer patients.

 

[zin]

I'm sorry but stating fallacies ad naseum does not make it factual. Let me drive you down to Hanford and the hundreds of millions of fines CH2Hill continues to absorb as the literally millions of gallons of radioactive waste is not contained.

More importantly, those ``panel chemicals'' can enzymatically be neutralized while advanced carbon polymers replace them in upcoming generations where Organic polymers are the next leap in efficiency.

Radioactive Isotopes are not safer, irregardless if you buy into the notion that fuel rod designed nuclear plants are generation 3 or 45000. Whether it is Thorium, Uranium, etc., the spent rods are not saving millions of lives. They are literally creating millions of future genetic cancer patients.

Sorry but no, you are ignoring studies that have already been published. More people have died from coal, oil, gas, wind, solar, and hydropower generation than nuclear.

There are proven and safe methods for containing waste along with ongoing research into making the waste more short-life as opposed to long-life. There are proven and safe methods for handling radioactive material and this ridiculous notion that they are guaranteed to cause cancer to everybody near the plants or storage areas is silly. Nobody is being "bought" into anything.

The fact of the matter is that if nuclear was not used from 1971 to 2009, then that power would have come from either fossil fuels or renewables, which would have killed almost 2 million more people.

I know nuclear reactors are big and the word "radioactive" is scary but it doesn't change the facts.

450,000 people are killed by smoking-related complications every year in the U.S. You should be using your enthusiasm to push for a complete ban on cigarettes as opposed to trying to prevent something that provides long-term reliable clean energy and saves lives!

 

[vga4life]

This is pure PR.

Apple uses Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS and others to actually host iCloud data. Anyone who has actually looked at the IP addresses that Apple devices talk to when they are transmitting data (e.g. by sniffing or observing the network from the gateway router) can trivially see this for themselves.

Apple's own datacenter operations are still relatively tiny compared to the third-party cloud providers they're using to do the heavy lifting of bulk storage. But of course, Greenpeace isn't going to jeopardize the Apple gravy train by pointing this out...

 

[aaronvan]

It's simple: if you're opposed to nuclear power, you're not serious about climate change.

 

[szw-mapple fan]

Oh okay, I technically don't own my home. So it's my bank that is responsible for any green house gases I create. Cool, it's 55 outside I'm gonna turn the A/C on and open the windows!

Technically, if you pay the electricity bills, which means you are responsible for any greenhouse gas that producing electricity for your A/C creates.

If, for instance, the electric plant in your area uses environmentally hazardous methods to produce electricity, people won't be banging on your front door and demand that you do something about it. They go and protest directly against the power company. The power company is a supplier, just like Foxconn.

Also, sorry for the late reply. I haven't checked the forums in a week.