Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Greenpeace Activists Protest at Apple's Irish Offices over Data Center Energy Use

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

Morons!
Click to expand...

I don't think the issue is that they don't know. I think they don't care. They're just trying to generate headlines not protect the environment. They may have other environmental causes they care about, but this is not one of them. This is a completely amoral fundraiser.
 
Well this explains why they were ignoring the facts the other day: they would have to cancel their little rally. Don't be fooled—this was nothing more than a viral marketing campaign, and it worked because we're still sitting here talking about it like it matters…
 
Winni said:
Yeah. But that's probably because Americans traditionally don't care a crap about the environment. You are about 20 to 30 years behind Europe when it comes to the protection of the environment and call activists "hippies".
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking follow up questions so there are not as many broad, loose statements and finger pointing per se :cool:
 
Will do good said:
Green Peace is a joke. They have lost all credibility long ago. :(
Click to expand...

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

Greenpeace is a bad egg with questionable intentions. And, I say this is as a pretty green-leaning individual.
 
bacaramac said:
I guess I am not sure what Apple is misleading here. If they say the datacenter will run on 60% renewable, wouldn't that assume 40% coal, etc?? And I don't think Apple is lying about power usage for datacenter. If they say it's 20, then it's 20, I just don't see Apple lying about something so frivolous.
Click to expand...

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

Greenpeace's whole accusation is flawed because:

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

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

Dear Greenpeace:

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

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

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

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

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

So Greenpeace members drove their carbon-footprint-using vehicles to Apple's facilities and hung large sheets of former trees on the sides of the buildings. Which Apple of course had to take down after the hour passed and send to a landfill.
 
Why I Left Greenpeace

The co-founder of Greenpeace explains why he left. Pretty much sums up this entire thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.
Click to expand...
 
Dragado said:
Datacenters are green. Massive servers that replace thousands of servers that would be required otherwise... It's like mass transit. The thing itself uses a massive amount of juice, but the alternative is far worse. I suppose it's just short-sightedness on their part?
Click to expand...

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

I don't think we can assume that 1000 servers in one location is better than having them dispersed in many locations.
 
Liquorpuki said:
Apple's math actually doesn't add up because a 20 MW solar farm only generates 15-20% of its rating. There's no way you get 60% renewable penetration based on what they've built, you can't even get 50%. If Greenpeace wanted to attack Apple they could get them on bad math. But they won't because they're too lazy to do the math in the first place.

Greenpeace's whole accusation is flawed because:

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

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

http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=16741
 
Greenpeace is a bunch of irrational nutjobs that will deny all attempts at science and fact.

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

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

The metaprotest would cause an implosion in the organization and we would never have to hear from them again.
 
MRN Grainpace
SDR Grainpace
OBJDR Grainpace RI

Password for Apple European HQ Cork.

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

For its part, Apple believes that Greenpeace is continuing to obfuscate its energy numbers and release only those that make other companies appear in a negative light. And so despite Greenpeace's claims regarding the energy impact of Apple's data centers on the environment, Apple believes that the company is doing more to publicly lead the way toward further adoption of renewable energy sources.
 
starflyer said:
The co-founder of Greenpeace explains why he left. Pretty much sums up this entire thing.
Click to expand...

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

Now, how bout that "Mountain Lion"? Thoughts? ... Anyone? ... Bueller? ... Voodoo economics?...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back